Sony HDR-HC3 cam is real, promises to bring HD recording "mainstream"

Yet another example of "Rumors We've Brought You That Didn't Turn Out to Be Complete Bull Plop:" The supposed HDR-HC3 high definition camcorder which we saw a purported user's guide for, and simple drawing of, has in fact been announced by Sony, lending credence to the specs as printed in the manual. At $1700, the new cam will retail for $300 less than its predecessor, the HC1 (although the latter can now be had for around $1600), and improves on some features while seemingly falling short on others. Like the HC1, the HC3 records up to 1080i onto standard mini-DV cassettes in HDV format, but it ups the ante with stills up to four megapixels (and even simultaneous widescreen 2.3 and 4:3 1.7 megapixel stills while shooting video), although it has a lower gross pixel count, no manual focus ring, and we've heard grumblings of a "noisier" picture. Still, the 2.7-inch Clear Photo LCD plus-powered touchscreen display, HDMI output, and relatively compact size (26% smaller than the HC1) may actually help this cam live up to Sony's hype and become the first consumer-oriented HD model to the gain a foothold in the coveted soccer mom demographic upon its April debut.

[Via HDBeat]

[Bunji @ Feb 21st 2006 12:34AM]

Wowww great gadget but expensive...

[Jeff @ Feb 21st 2006 12:45AM]

Well, hopefully this will just open up a big used market for the HC1 and lower prices for it with the increased supply. You know that whenever a company releases a product that's "the same, but different" than the earlier model, that it was almost completely a cost-cutting revision and that you can get equivalent or perhaps even better overall performance with the earlier model for a lot less money.

I've been pining for an HC1 for a while; maybe in a few months I'll actually be able to pick one up.

[Andrew @ Feb 21st 2006 2:02AM]

how can people handle using tape anymore? I can't stand 1x copying to the computer. Tape cassettes pretty much doesn't exist anymore with consumer devices, being replaced with MP3 players and PVR's. I promised myself that i will never buy another tape based video recorder. What we need is HDD camcorders that record in a normal easily editable format. And at least a 80GB HDD while they are at it.

[Amit Inamdar @ Feb 21st 2006 2:19AM]

i am a comment spammer: [e-mail]

[Mike @ Feb 21st 2006 2:41AM]

Well, a single, 60-minute MiniDV tape can hold approximately 13 Gigabytes of DV data, and at around $3 per tape I can see why tapes are a good option for digital video cameras.

Just my 2 cents.

[Justin @ Feb 21st 2006 3:00AM]

I'm curious to know by what means you're transferring your DV tapes at 1x to your computer. Are you using a lossy means like composite video cables? Why not use firewire?

[Chris @ Feb 21st 2006 3:31AM]

"Like the HC1, the HC3 records up to 1080i onto standard mini-DV cassettes in HDV format"

What about all that Sony jibber-jabber that anything that wasn't 1080p wasn't high definition?

[baselblog @ Feb 21st 2006 5:23AM]

Definitely need to buy this one...

[Paranoised @ Feb 21st 2006 5:24AM]

What he means by 1X is that the computer captures in real time. All cameras which use mini-dv (as far as I know) transfer at real time speed (1X) through firewire.

Until the time comes when hard drives become really small and cheap, dv is the way to go.

Besides, tapes are always gonna be more cost effective for archiving purposes at least. It would be cost prohibitive to store libraries of HD content on the HDD.

At least it would still be before we get our 1.2 PetaByte Hard disks.

[PrepAid @ Feb 21st 2006 8:00AM]

You'll only need to wait till that camera is 18 months old before it just magically fails. Like all sony products I'm sure it's built to have a mysterious malfunction right after the warranty is up. I know so many ppl (myself included) that this has happened to that we'll never buy another sony product again.

[earthling @ Feb 21st 2006 8:00AM]

Tape remains the most economical way to store data. Why use tape.. well for I for one would rather carry around $9.00 worth of tape rather than $100.00 worth of hard disks. I have no qualms about sticking tapes in my luggage without any regard for how they are packed, and I don't mind sticking them in my pockets if I am hiking, biking, or whatever.

What most people don't realize is that the HC1 and presumably this unit, record at less than 1920 resolution, the vertical resolution is still 1080i. The horizontal resolution is 1440 so all video is captured anamorphic. Not that this is a show stopper (I own an HC1). Video from the HC1 simply blows away standard DV and any MPEG-4 based recording system having at least 3-4 times the resolution. The state of the art DV camcorders do have slightly better noise handling under low light conditions but having had a Canon XL1, Sony VX1000 and 2000, and other DV camcorders I can tell you that the HC1 is an absolute joy to use. The XL1 is the better camcorder ergonimically than the HC1 and it has more professional features but for day to day use and semi-professional use the HC1 wins hands down.

It is hard to beat the HC1, it is a lightweight, low cost (relatively speaking) camcorder with great resolution, great battery life (with optional N70 or 90), and decent expansion capabilities. It works well with Premiere (requires upgrade from cineform, and other editing packages) and the results are spectacular on an HD television.

[Z @ Feb 21st 2006 9:37AM]

A $1700 camera with no headphone jack? Why is Sony deciding that headphone jacks aren't necessary on their camcorders these days?

Hey Sony! WAKE UP PLEASE!

Sometimes I want to playback what I shot, but I don't want everyone around me (i.e.: total strangers) hearing everything. Privacy counts and headphone jacks are the only way to achieve that in terms of the audio.

That's a deal breaker for me.

Message to Sony: You no put headphone jack in, me no spend money. And thanks for making it easy for me to decide to buy from your competition.

[jorellh @ Feb 21st 2006 9:52AM]

Headphones also let you monitor what audio is actually being recorded. Luckily my HDR-FX1 has one, plus 3 CCDs.

[james @ Feb 21st 2006 1:43PM]

Z,
What competition? There are no other HD cams; unless you're paying more or sticking with SD.

[Jeff @ Feb 21st 2006 2:58PM]

"What he means by 1X is that the computer captures in real time. All cameras which use mini-dv (as far as I know) transfer at real time speed (1X) through firewire."

Ok, let me preface this by saying I don't even own a camcorder, and the ones I've used have been in a professional setting (but still with consumer-level cams).

Whenever I/we have done video editing by computer at work, we hook the camera up via firewire and the computer then controls it. Editing is then done in real-time, and the final exported file only takes as long to export as it takes to encode it (if there's no encoding done, it's practically instantaneous). Obviously there's no random access during editing, but it sure ain't a 1X transfer - it's not like we have to sit there for 5 hours letting 5 hours of footage transfer over to the PC. If we've got 5 hours of footage, we edit it immediately, and the export takes maybe 20 minutes if we're encoding or less if we're not.

This is not the case with most camcorders?

[the other steve jobs @ Feb 21st 2006 3:55PM]

If you haven't seen HDV 1080i (really, its 540i, why do you get to say you have higer res half the time?) - i strongly suggest you view some prior to buying one of these horrible beasts.

to say HDV 1080i looks like shit is being quite mild. The effects of interlacing are so bad, its almost to be absurd, since they are now spread even farther across the CCD (higher horizontal resolution).

This also says NOTHING about the problems with the realtime mpeg-2 compression washing out just about any detail in the video... taping someone running on a grass field? Nope - that's big patch of big green goo they're running on now. You think that CBS's feed of NFL look awful on SD DirecTV - wait till you see HDV.

I spent about an hour with a ZR1 - i took the footage and compared it to my XL2's footage... that's HDV with 3CCDs vs 16:9 30p DV25 upscaled in FCP. The XL2 footage was simply and completely sharper and had better detail, absolutely no compression artifacts and much better color.

I really really wish someone would make a HDV 720p 30fps camera, so we could actually compare and see if there is any value in HDV at all.

[Jeremy Roush @ Feb 22nd 2006 2:29AM]

#16 is correct. HDV is simply not HD *quality*. Wait for a DVCPRO-HD consumer camera and then you'll have something worthwhile.

[Andrew @ Feb 22nd 2006 3:18AM]

Hard drives are small and cheap. An 80GB 2.5" hard drive is lighter and takes up less space than 6 miniDV tapes. I'll admit that it's more expensive, they cost about $80, but i think the random access aspect is perfectly suited to non-linear video editing. Anyone who says tape is more efficient, even for backup purposes, had better be using a walkman.

I think a SATA 2.5" removable hard drive would make a great standard for video cameras. You could jsut pop the drive out and plug it right into your computer, as SATA supports a hot-swappable profile.

[Lorin Thwaits @ Feb 26th 2006 11:40AM]

#16 and #17 - it's obvious that you haven't truly auditioned Sony's HDV products, or perhaps that you did so only at SD. Both FX1 and HC1 really are 1080i, not 540i. If you resize their output (1440x1080) down to the resolution of the XL2 (720x480), you'll find that the color and clarity are every bit as good as the XL2. Perhaps you're unable to do this because you don't understand how interlacing works or something.

With the cameras the best quality to be had is if you keep it at 1080i or convert to 720p/60. Yes, you can do a conversion to 720p, and it looks excellent. It's no HDW-F900, and there is a little chromatic abberation in the corners of the image, but it's still better than anything else out there in the price range.

No native 720p/30 cameras out there to compare against? What are you talking about? JVC released one three years ago, and has recently come out with an upgraded pro camera, also 720p. But if you truly audition them though you'll find that the Sony is better.

I have no idea what the complaint is about motion artifacts. Did you set your shutter speed improperly for that test or something? The MPEG2 compression only falls apart under extreme conditions, such as rapid pans or when you're right up on fast-moving traffic. Even with high motion scenes 95% of the time you can't even see the macroblock artifacts. It's only the rare extreme pan that causes trouble.

Please go and do your homework before posting scathing fiction. The cameras represent and excellent entry point into high definition content creation.

[BillyBob @ Feb 26th 2006 3:25PM]

HDR-HC3 is available for immediate purchase in Japan (black and silver versions).

http://www.yodobashi.com/enjoy/more/i/50848835.html

[Herschel Savage @ Feb 28th 2006 12:57AM]

Panasonic AG-HVX200 - variable frame rates, true 720p. US List $5995 and worth every penny.

[Chris Dykema @ Apr 15th 2006 12:53AM]

Just got the camera today and have played around with it for about 10 hours! Some of the low light video is ok (use some manual functions and its good!) But the regular
daylight video is amazing!!!!!!!!! For $1500 the camera is simply great! I knew it was going to be small and it is! Some many cool features and accesories (like the underwater housing) that will make this camera a favorite!

[Cheap Magazines @ May 9th 2006 3:26PM]

I am looking to purchase the HDR-HC3. Are tapes really that bad? Am I better off going with one that records to an onboard hard drive or dvd?

[bpalladino @ May 30th 2006 9:04AM]

It's stated that the hc3 has a "lower gross pixel count" than the hc1. How significant is that to the user other than tech specs?
I don't care about taking stills, I'm more concerned about the video quality. Please advise if there is any point in purchasing the hc3 over the hc1 if the hc1 has better video quality.

[Drew @ Jun 22nd 2006 12:02PM]

I bought the HDR-HC3 about a week ago. I love it but then again I'm not super particular. I had been shoting little family videos on a point-and-shoot Pentax, editing in MSFT Movie Maker and posting to video.google. Good fun. I'd like to do the same w/ the Sony. Can anyone recommend HD compatable SW?

[Chris @ Jul 5th 2006 3:07AM]

I own the HDR-HC3. I bought it as a prospective father (you know, nappies, bottles, pram, camcorder). This means that i am a relative newcomer to the world of camcorders. I spent a long, long time researching which camera to get. So far I could not have been happier with it. Size is good, battery life is good and colour remains faithful in lower light areas (ie indoors). The DVDs i have created with it are top notch. My only whinges so far are that there is no external mic jack unless you pay for an expensive bluetooth mic for the intellishoe and that within a month of using it the heads needed cleaning. Probably you should consider getting a generic/post market wide angle converter instead of the sony original. It does need a wide angle converter for use indoors - depending on use eg. room video for house selling.
The main thing you should look to is the software you use to edit the HD video you shoot. Sure you can down convert it to SD as you capture it, but then what is the point of owning an HD camera? I own the sony vegas platinum software (pinacle and premiere having given me a bad time years ago - when i last worked with a camcorder). I can make HD video - but i cannot produce an HD DVD with that software. So far it seems to produce an HD DVD i would need to pay a lot for the software. Luckily no one I know has an HD TV, yet. By the time they do i will have worked a way around my little problem.