Why is Eugenia Loli-Queru such a HF fangirl?
Even in the HV40 topic she's just going on and on about how the S100 "blows away the HV series", as if she's unsure about her purchase and needs to justify it constantly.
Eugenia, if you like your camera then good for you… but it would be appreciated if you try to keep the HF10/100 discussion in here please.
FREE pre-production software ( Screenwriting | Storyboarding | Scheduling | Call Sheets ) http://www.prophotolife.com/video-library/ –– Helpful videos on how to light subjects
As for the new HF cams, I wouldn't exactly say they have "a much better visual quality" than the other Canon camcorders.
A bigger lens is nice, and the 0.1 of a fraction bigger image sensor is nice also, but that megapixel count at almost 9MP is actually a serious negative on the low light performance.
I'm not buying further camcorders. DSLR's w/ video have already leapfrogged the image quality of most video cameras, and a couple of years and they'll include professional functionality along with a price tag of around $500 dollars.
FREE pre-production software ( Screenwriting | Storyboarding | Scheduling | Call Sheets ) http://www.prophotolife.com/video-library/ –– Helpful videos on how to light subjects
There is, however, an adapter to convert to a universal cold shoe:Originally Posted by David Zeno
http://shop.dm-accessories.com/products/cms-flat
This will generally allow you to use accessories that come with their own power source.
Vegas says it's 60i.
cspak's sample looks very clear. I do see the motion blurring that the other HF's have during pan. This doesn't personally bother me; I like the HF's. I'm just saying that, just from this, it still doesn't seem to match the smoother panning on the HV's.
From this sample, I can't see a major difference from that to the HF11.
Possibly, but not necessarily so. First of all, downsizing 9MP to 1.9MP will average pixels out, averaging noise at the same go. Second, the sensor may be otherwise of better quality.
We'll need to wait for test footage to be able to judge anything for real.
*Balanced audio hack* *Variable ND filters* *HV20 vs. Film* "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." (George Orwell: Animal Farm)
I could not agree more. Can't relate to all the HF praise. Maybe will pick up AVCHD in a year or two when it is worth it's weight as a DSLR option. Don't mind flash memory as a quicktime native file without trouble, as JVC has demonstrated in near models. AVCHD is B.S. !!!
If I had to buy a (secondary) camera now, I'd buy the HF-S. I like the flash memory concept and it has Zebra, which the HF11 lacks, and has about the same quality as the HV-models.
Quicktime has its own problems (gamma shift), so I'm not sure what to make of that design choice.
I'm not sure what you mean with DSLR option - AVCHD as a recording format for movie-DSLRs?
AVCHD isn't really more "BS" than HDV or MPEG4-AVC in a Quicktime container. The only alternative with less "BS" is moving to intraframe or (nearly) lossless compression. But that's not going to happen in the <1.000$ segment.
Studio Special Place - Lest mein Blog, dammit!
You can also check out my videos on YouTube and Vimeo.
>Why is Eugenia Loli-Queru such a HF fangirl? Even in the HV40 topic she's just going on and on about how the S100 "blows away the HV series"
The "Why" is explained in the HV40 thread. Read my last reply there. Besides, I WAS NOT the only one comparing the HV40 with the HF-S series in that thread, in fact, I came to that thread much later. But you had to single me out, did you?
The reality of the thing is, the HV series are as good as dead in the amateur but serious videography market -- the market of most of us here, that is -- if you don't want to see the truth and you leave your emotion blur your objectivity, it's your problem, not mine.
She has the HV20. It was a nice cam for 2007. It was on par or worse in image quality with the 17Mbit/s 2008 HF series, but had better manual controls. Now in 2009 the only benefit of the HV40 over the S is native 24P mode. It is still a good camcorder, but not the best anymore, with workflow from stone ages.
AVCHD is Blu-Ray. Well, one might say that Blu-ray is B.S. too.
It is entertaining to watch how amateurs defend tape-based workflow "because pros use tapes". Now when pros are switching to P2, SxS and even SDHC and offload their A1s and V1Us on eBay, the tune has changed from "tape rules, tapeless sucks" to "MPEG-2 rules, AVCHD sucks". Funny.
Aramis, exactly. AVCHD is just another format. Not inferior to HDV in any way. Sure it's slower, because it's more complex as it can cram more quality at the same bitrate (when a good encoder is used). But then again, when DV came out, it was slow too and people were bitching about it too. It's funny how some people here are so one-dimensional with little understanding of history.
And pros don't all use tapes anymore. All the *new* camera models use flash storage now, e.g. the EX1. The new Canon prosumer cameras to be released in April will be predominantly flash too. Tape-based models will be fewer, and only still there just because there are some bozo prosumers who also claim that "tapes are better". Right.
I'm not sure if being an amteur has anything to do with it. I'm sure there are pros who would like to store their HD on tapes still. if the manufacturers gave us an option (tape and card) on one machine...then that would be a lot of folks choice...at least IMO.
I was an IT guy some years back...and tapes to me (used as backup) are the wiser choice.
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.1 Peter 5:8 My Videos
This was so subtle. I am all ears now. What do you know? will we ever see an AVCHD version of the GL-2 for $2K? Don't be a tease.
Pros shoot video for a living, the faster the workflow the better. With a file-based workflow you don't need to capture in runtime, but you need to carry a laptop with you if you use expensive P2 or even SxS cards, unless you are really rich. Also, it seems that high-bitrate formats take almost as much time to transfer as realtime capture from an HDV camcorder (how long does it take to copy RED files?) Therefore, reasonably slow (say, up to 50Mbit/s) yet reasonably high-quality formats recorded onto cheap media (read: SDHC) are the sweet spot in terms of cost and fast workflow. Compared to MPEG-2, AVC provides just that: better quality with the same bitrate.
The only benefit of tapes is instant archiving, but with 8GB cards being sold for less than $20 some videographers already have started archiving the cards. Price difference between cards and tapes is not so huge now.
I for one like my cheap tapes for archival
Good for you. Do you also prefer LPs and tapes to MP3s?
..Well...honestly...the quality is much better.
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.1 Peter 5:8 My Videos
There's nothing wrong with minidv tapes. They are inexpensive and great for archiving, as said. The firewire cord could of been a little better designed, however.
A lot of retro technology still holds up quite a bit and is coming back.
3-D is being pushed by movie studios and is the next big thing in video game technology.
Vinyl records still have a big fan base for audio purists.
Home projectors are nice if you can afford them. Remember when people would shoot 35mm slides??
Those are all things that have been around for decades. Flash drives are basically about convenience. Not quality of final product.
<stepping off my soapbox>
Sadly I didn't have time to examine all the settings, and figured the most important would have been the 42mbps setting, and the 24p.
I think everything else was pretty auto...
File update
Hey all,
I tried several times to upload the second HFS100 clip (587mb) but it somehow doesn't close the deal. It'll upload all the way and just hang there...
At this point, I'll try again.. but don't hold your breath.
I'll try to upload the Panasonic TM300 clip later too.. but that seems to have the same problem.
Ok guys, the moment of truth! Mike Perlman of InfosyncWorld was very kind to send me his .mts files that he shot with the HF-S10 at the CES. He made sure that he recorded in 24 mbps. The camera was in Tv mode. 1-2 of the following shots are from the user "cspak71" who uploaded another .mts yesterday.
I used Vegas to grab the images in Best/Full quality, with the "blend fields" algorithm used as a de-interlacer (interpolation had lower quality when zoomed in). All videos were handheld, but I tried to take shots from the most static parts of the clips.
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-1.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-2.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-3.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-4.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-5.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-6.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-7.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-8.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-9.png
http://hv20.info/yopu/hf-s10-10.png
And a low-light picture from the HV20 for comparison reasons:
http://hv20.info/yopu/hv20-lowlight.png
Viewing these pictures, to me it looks like the HF-S series have a real problem with low light, you can see the red/brown artifacts and smear-like noisy look in some surfaces, when zoomed in to the screenshots. It seems that the added "dynamic range" that Canon advertises is polluted with easy to see, and hard to color grade, noise. Of course, the HV series and any camcorder have such problems, but I think they are more pronounced in the HF-S series. I checked some of my older HV20 footage and I found it more pleasing to the eye. The HV20 also seems to color-grade better. The HF-S lens doesn't seem to be sharper than the HV's either.
If this is indeed how the HF-S series can record, I think I might just go for the HV40 to replace my HV20. I don't know yet... There are some points that I like in the HF-S series (e.g. gain support, flash storage, Cinemode in the Colors menu), but if it doesn't translate to real world cleaner footage, I am not sure it's worth the extra cash.
UPDATE: I might have been overreacted here. The grabs aren't really that bad.
I think because there really wasn't anything more to say about the HV40. Outside of the native 24p, and the custom button... there isn't anything new for anyone to talk about... seems like everything's already been addressed on the 20/30 threads.
Hmm... my bad if I didn't have it set to 24mbps... could have sworn I made sure I changed that.
As for your findings Eugenia.... if that's the case, then I'm personally a fan of image quality over tech, so I may end up picking myself a HV30 or 40 if that's the case.
Save me some cash... thanks!
I agree. I think we all might be expecting a little too much out of this cam. The added features on this camera could just end up making the image marginally better than the HV20 or much better...but that's yet to be seen. From what I'm seeing so far though the image does look...more detailed.
The grabs aren't really that bad.
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.1 Peter 5:8 My Videos
As long as the HF-S100's image is as good as the HV20's and not worse in any way, I'll switch. My next purchase was going to be a QuickstreamHDV to make importing less of a hassle (I mostly just use my camera for fun, and importing via Firewire from tape 1:1 is NOT FUN!), but since it starts at $799 and goes upwards of $2300, it makes more sense to buy a digital camcorder instead. Very anxious to see some real reviews!
Yeah it was very choppy on my Quad Mac w/ 8gb RAM & 3870 video card. Converting to ProRes...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
