Canon HG10

AuditoryVisuals

AuditoryVisuals

Well-known member
The HG10 is Canon's first HDD camera to my knowledge. It is a full raster 15Mbps AVCHD camera with a 40GB hard drive. It has not appeared on Canon USA's website yet or camcorderinfo.com. But Engadget reported that it has the same feature set as the HR10, which has 24p.

EDIT:

Okay, it's on the site now. http://www.usa.canon.com/html/templatedata/pressrelease/20070801_hg10.html

It does indeed have 24p and like the HR10, they don't state whether it records in a true 24fps format without pulldown (which AVCHD allows for) or record in 1080i60 with a 2:3 pulldown. I'm guessing the pulldown, that way it'll be already a supported format by Ulead, Pinnacle and Final Cut Pro. (FCP allows for conversion to an intermediate, so it is not a native format.)

I'm actually considering this camera, let's see how the footage looks!

SECOND EDIT:

It's actually not full raster and is recorded anamorphically in a 4:3 aspect ratio at 1440x1080.
 
Last edited:
AVCHD at 15Mbps is close to XDCAM quality. I have the Sony SR1 and notice that post-AVCHD compression is a natural de-noiser.

I just wish all HDV camcorders would move to AVCHD, as it is clearly superior mpeg compression. The HG10 looks like a winner.
 
Jg Marceaux BestBetter said:
AVCHD at 15Mbps is close to XDCAM quality. I have the Sony SR1 and notice that post-AVCHD compression is a natural de-noiser.

I just wish all HDV camcorders would move to AVCHD, as it is clearly superior mpeg compression. The HG10 looks like a winner.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you base this on but here is the findings of the test held by camcorderinfo.com between HV20, HC7, SD1, HD7


"Viewed through our performance and control-oriented lens, we believe there is a clear winner – and it is the Canon HV20. It shares an advantage over the Panasonic HDC-SD1 and JVC GZ-HD7 because it uses tried and true HDV MPEG-2 compression, and our tests show that HDV remains the best consumer HD format. Both the Canon and Sony HDR-HC7 the other HDV camcorder in this shootout scored higher than the others in our video performance tests. In the lab, the Canon and Sony raced to a virtual dead heat, both displaying sharper images with less noise than the Panasonic and JVC."

full article: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/conten...Sony-HDR-HC7-Panasonic-HDC-SD1-JVC-GZ-HD7.htm
 
i was considering trading in the old dvx for the hv20, but i think i'll wait for the new hg10. i'd much rather record to disk, plus i think it just looks nicer than the hv20.

as for avchd vs hdv, the first batch of avchd camcorders did not utilize the full capabilities of the format. technically speaking, avchd is the better format compared to hdv and is twice as efficient.

here's some info i found:
"AVCHD uses MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 compression and encoding for video recording. HDV, on the other hand, uses MPEG-2 Main Profile @ High-1440. Anyone who has compressed an HD video feed to H.264 and to MPEG-2 High-1440 at the same bit rate will tell you that the H.264 version is noticeably better. And this is the first "rub" to HDV users -- AVCHD uses an almost identical data rate (24 Mbps) -- in an MPEG-2 transport stream wrapper. There are other video advantages in the AVCHD format. For example, it allows for 16:9 aspect ratio pictures in HD with a raster size of 1920x1080 in addition to the HDV raster sizes of 1440x1080 and 1280x720. At the larger raster size, AVCHD has the potential to produce higher horizontal resolution than HDV. AVCHD recording supports 1080i/24/50/60, as well as 720p/24/50/60. Plus, the new format supports 16:9 and 4:3 SD raster sizes of 720x480 at 60i (NTSC) and 720x576 at 50i (PAL). Digging a little deeper into the two specs, AVCHD has an advantage over HDV in luminance sampling of 1080 video. With the 1920x1080 raster, AVCHD uses a luminance sampling frequency of 74.25 MHz, compared to HDV's 55.7 MHz. In HDV, the higher luminance sampling frequency is reserved for its 720p recording modes, which may explain why 720p HDV can show higher horizontal resolution than 1080i HDV. When AVCHD is set to use the 1440x1080 raster, however, it appears that the standard requires the use of 55.7 MHz luminance sampling, and that will limit AVCHD's advantage solely to the superiority of H.264 encoding. AVCHD calls for audio recording Dolby AC-3 for one channel or up to 5.1 channels, with data rates from 64 kbps to 640 kbps, or in PCM up to 7.1 at 1.5 Mbps per 2 channels. HDV is limited to two channels of audio compressed with MPEG-1 layer II to 384 kbps. The difference in audio specs might be a giveaway as to why yet another "consumer" HD format has been introduced."
 
kiyong said:
i was considering trading in the old dvx for the hv20, but i think i'll wait for the new hg10. i'd much rather record to disk, plus i think it just looks nicer than the hv20.

as for avchd vs hdv, the first batch of avchd camcorders did not utilize the full capabilities of the format. technically speaking, avchd is the better format compared to hdv and is twice as efficient.

here's some info i found:
"AVCHD uses MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 compression and encoding for video recording. HDV, on the other hand, uses MPEG-2 Main Profile @ High-1440. Anyone who has compressed an HD video feed to H.264 and to MPEG-2 High-1440 at the same bit rate will tell you that the H.264 version is noticeably better. And this is the first "rub" to HDV users -- AVCHD uses an almost identical data rate (24 Mbps) -- in an MPEG-2 transport stream wrapper. There are other video advantages in the AVCHD format. For example, it allows for 16:9 aspect ratio pictures in HD with a raster size of 1920x1080 in addition to the HDV raster sizes of 1440x1080 and 1280x720. At the larger raster size, AVCHD has the potential to produce higher horizontal resolution than HDV. AVCHD recording supports 1080i/24/50/60, as well as 720p/24/50/60. Plus, the new format supports 16:9 and 4:3 SD raster sizes of 720x480 at 60i (NTSC) and 720x576 at 50i (PAL). Digging a little deeper into the two specs, AVCHD has an advantage over HDV in luminance sampling of 1080 video. With the 1920x1080 raster, AVCHD uses a luminance sampling frequency of 74.25 MHz, compared to HDV's 55.7 MHz. In HDV, the higher luminance sampling frequency is reserved for its 720p recording modes, which may explain why 720p HDV can show higher horizontal resolution than 1080i HDV. When AVCHD is set to use the 1440x1080 raster, however, it appears that the standard requires the use of 55.7 MHz luminance sampling, and that will limit AVCHD's advantage solely to the superiority of H.264 encoding. AVCHD calls for audio recording Dolby AC-3 for one channel or up to 5.1 channels, with data rates from 64 kbps to 640 kbps, or in PCM up to 7.1 at 1.5 Mbps per 2 channels. HDV is limited to two channels of audio compressed with MPEG-1 layer II to 384 kbps. The difference in audio specs might be a giveaway as to why yet another "consumer" HD format has been introduced."
Click to expand...

I agree it looks very promising in writing but the problem is the final result is nothing close to it. For starters I don't understand why they don't make a camcorder that matches the 24Mbps limit.We will see how HR10 and HG10 performs against HV20 but I don't think it will be any different than other AVCHD camcorders.
 
It does not record at 1920x1080 but instead at 1440x1080. Chris Hurd over at DVinfo called Canon to confirm.
 
Jg Marceaux BestBetter said:
AVCHD at 15Mbps is close to XDCAM quality. I have the Sony SR1 and notice that post-AVCHD compression is a natural de-noiser.

I just wish all HDV camcorders would move to AVCHD, as it is clearly superior mpeg compression. The HG10 looks like a winner.
Click to expand...

Both HDV and AVCHD use MPEG compression. MPEG-2 for HDV and MPEG-4 for AVCHD (A modified version of H.264 in order for the processor to compress it more effeciently to be specific)

vsansal said:
I don't know where you base this on but here is the findings of the test held by camcorderinfo.com between HV20, HC7, SD1, HD7


"Viewed through our performance and control-oriented lens, we believe there is a clear winner – and it is the Canon HV20. It shares an advantage over the Panasonic HDC-SD1 and JVC GZ-HD7 because it uses tried and true HDV MPEG-2 compression, and our tests show that HDV remains the best consumer HD format. Both the Canon and Sony HDR-HC7 the other HDV camcorder in this shootout scored higher than the others in our video performance tests. In the lab, the Canon and Sony raced to a virtual dead heat, both displaying sharper images with less noise than the Panasonic and JVC."

full article: http://www.camcorderinfo.com/conten...Sony-HDR-HC7-Panasonic-HDC-SD1-JVC-GZ-HD7.htm
Click to expand...

It depends on the bitrate I would say.

Ian-T said:
It does not record at 1920x1080 but instead at 1440x1080. Chris Hurd over at DVinfo called Canon to confirm.
Click to expand...

Engadget is very deceptive. A lot of people think the HV20 records in 1920x1080 too. That's too bad though.
 
AuditoryVisuals said:
It depends on the bitrate I would say.
Click to expand...

Some people suggested even 14-15Mbps bit rate should be more than enough to compare it to HDV. If bit rate is the problem why wouldn't manufacturers just build one that matches the 24Mbps bit rate limit so that we can all see how wonderful AVCHD is. I also don't get the idea behind creating something more efficient in terms of file size. After Blu-Ray disc and HD-DVD introduced, I don't think file size is an issue any more. There is more than enough room to store everything to a single HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc. Improving HDV would be better IMO instead of coming up with a totally new compression technique.
 
15 megabits should certainly be adequate to compare it to HDV. Why don't they introduce 24 megabits right now? I don't know, and I keep asking, but it may be along the same logic as "why don't they introduce 100 gigahertz CPUs right now?" (as in -- maybe they just can't yet). Might not be possible to process realtime h.264 encoding at 24 megabits yet. I don't know that, but it sure does seem awfully curious that all three manufacturers have seemingly run into the same 15-megabit ceiling all at once; there's gotta be a reason.

As for file size -- file size is grossly important. Smaller is going to be crucial until we're all running fi-os. This whole distributing-on-blu-ray business model is not where the future lies, IMO -- we're headed for streaming. There's a reason these cameras can capture HD in as little as 6 megabits, 1/3 to 1/4 the size of a raw HDV file... people are going to be e-mailing and uploading and youtube'ing their videos everywhere. Smaller = crucial for this cause.

It's not crucial for professionals in the production industry who are acquring footage for use in their edit suite, true, but AVC-HD isn't aimed solely at those people, it's intended to become a universal acquisition & delivery format.
 
Fios! Fios!

They have that in your neck of the woods Barry? I see it's availability is mostly on the East Coast... If I move, I may make Fios availability one of my requirements :) heh.

Later,
Jason
 
Barry_Green said:
As for file size -- file size is grossly important. Smaller is going to be crucial until we're all running fi-os. This whole distributing-on-blu-ray business model is not where the future lies, IMO -- we're headed for streaming. There's a reason these cameras can capture HD in as little as 6 megabits, 1/3 to 1/4 the size of a raw HDV file... people are going to be e-mailing and uploading and youtube'ing their videos everywhere. Smaller = crucial for this cause.
Click to expand...

I understand streaming issues but 1/4 the size of HDV is still not adequate for it. Also there is always the option to convert it in PP. Sony is pushing AVCHD so hard but still using mpeg2 in their Blu-Ray movies yet all of their online movie trailers are AVCHD. If AVCHD's main purpose is for online purposes why try to enforce it as a compression technique in camcorders rather than offering it as a rendering out option such as VC-1. I don't see any VC-1 camcorders.
 
Here is the comparison between HV20 and HG10 held by camcorderinfo.com

" Comparison:

Canon_HV20_comp.jpg
This is like comparing Optimus Prime to Rodimus Prime (those unfamiliar in Transformers lore should still be able to follow along). When the HV20 was introduced back in March, it set a new high watermark with its true 24P and brilliant HD video performance. In terms of handling and construction, the HV20 suffered a bit when pinned against its HDV rival, the Sony HDR-HC7. Nevertheless, it proved itself the best and most qualified leader.

Then along comes Canon’s first HDD camcorder—the HG10. Some handling and construction issues have been corrected with the inclusion of the LCD control dial and prosumer grade rocking zoom toggle. The HG10 is like Rodimus Prime—sexier and more compelling than the HV20, at least on the surface. However, the HG10’s 24P mode is rife with motion blurring and ghosting, most likely due to its AVCHD codec, rendering the whole feature all but unusable. The HG10 may appear to be a stalwart HDD stand-in for a legendary HDV leader, but no one beats Optimus Prime, and no one beats the HV20. Also, the HV20 is 200 smackers less than the HG10, so come on. "


It looks like HV20 is still the better choice.




To read the full review:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146.htm
 
aw man, i had high hopes for the hg10. recording to hard drive would have made it like a baby hvx. but i guess you can't argue the logic that nobody beats optimus. ha ha.
 
kiyong said:
aw man, i had high hopes for the hg10. recording to hard drive would have made it like a baby hvx. but i guess you can't argue the logic that nobody beats optimus. ha ha.
Click to expand...

I still like the DV tape for instant tape archiving. I don't trust HD from archiving for long term. This is one of many reasons why I bought the HV20.

...Angelo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top