So should we lean toward the HF10/HF100 (rather than HV30) if we plan on moving toward an HMC in about two to three years?
Want to get a canon HD camera to film the kids
- Thread starter gowhitesox99
- Start date
So should we lean toward the HF10/HF100 (rather than HV30) if we plan on moving toward an HMC in about two to three years?
unless you NEED tape, don't buy a tape based camera. SDHC cards are soooo cheap now-a-days there isn't that much difference in media price.
nothing like the hard-drive cameras or the mini-DVD cameras from a couple years ago, where MiniDV still held the quality w/o a doubt. from what I've heard the PQ difference HF vs HV is debatable.
I really think it is silly to stick w/ tape based if you know how to back up data properly. yes, tape is easier to put on the self & for get about it. but there are so many options in good data storage.
buy an HF
Some misconception here. First of all, resolution is as dependent on the camera as the codec. It's true that HDV is limit to 1440 x 1080, but it's hardly "crippled." The HMC150, which shoots AVCHD, DOES NOT have a 1920 x 1080 sensor; for 1/3'' chip size, that's just impossible without sacrificing sensitivity. So it uses pixel shift to get to 1920 x 1080. So does that mean that it's not "TrueHD"? The AVCHD codec is more efficient, but the other side of the coin is that it's also more COMPRESSED. That's basically what efficient means: you're stuffing more data into the same space. Looks a lot better (all things being equal, which they seldom are), but it's a pain to edit.
For the original poster, I would think carefully before investing in the AVCHD route, depending on your level of expertise and what you want to do with the footage after. Note that most major NLE have yet to efficiently support AVCHD editing. HDV or DV footage is viewable on almost any computer; AVCHD requires software to be installed, so if you're planning on sharing the raw footage, that's a potential problem.
you are attempting to compare pixel shifting vs. frame size vs. sensor size vs. video standards, which is not logical, it's apples and oranges.
if you want to make a comparison, give us some reasons why anybody would want to shoot in 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080.
avchd doesn't use non-standard frame sizes like 1440x1080, and neither does the hmc150 that you mentioned... at least we agree that avchd looks a lot better than hdv, even if it can be harder to edit at this point in time :thumbup: both premiere and sony vegas support avchd ingest, as do others... ymmv if you are on a mac.
avchd today is no different that what we encountered with minidv when it first came out... the computers didn't have enough horsepower to play the avi files back, you needed special media players like what //fast media came out with, or you had to play it back in a video-acclerated editor, often with the help of a special hardware card.
if you want to make a comparison, give us some reasons why anybody would want to shoot in 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080.
avchd doesn't use non-standard frame sizes like 1440x1080, and neither does the hmc150 that you mentioned... at least we agree that avchd looks a lot better than hdv, even if it can be harder to edit at this point in time :thumbup: both premiere and sony vegas support avchd ingest, as do others... ymmv if you are on a mac.
avchd today is no different that what we encountered with minidv when it first came out... the computers didn't have enough horsepower to play the avi files back, you needed special media players like what //fast media came out with, or you had to play it back in a video-acclerated editor, often with the help of a special hardware card.
And how is it logical to compare codec to camera? Because you're basically using the two terms interchangably. If codec were the ONLY determining factor then that might make sense, but as I have already pointed out, you need a camera that can bring the pixels as well as a codec that can handle those pixels. It makes no sense to compare one with another.
...and you totally missed the sentence in parenthesis, which I'll repeat here: "AVCHD will look better than HDV ALL THINGS BEING EQUALS, WHICH THEY SELDOM ARE"
Give me two cameras, one shooting HDV, one shooting AVCHD, same chip size, same sensitivity, same number of pixels on the chip, same lens, same DSP, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THE CODEC, and shoot the exact same scene. Good luck looking for those cameras; they don't exist. How are you going to make a meaningful comparison between codecs if you can't keep the variables the same? At the very least you can only say that camera A is better than camera B, and the reasons why might have nothing to do with what codec it shoots. In fact, just go read the article about the HMC150; testing shows that it's about as sharp as the A1. Now if AVCHD 21mbps is so superior to HDV, why is that happening?
Sure, I'll take my XH-A1 which shoots 1440 over your HF10 which shoots 1920 any day. Want to make an argument about which will give me a better image?
Last edited:
you were the one who compared apples to oranges:
"It's true that HDV is limit to 1440 x 1080, but it's hardly "crippled." The HMC150, which shoots AVCHD, DOES NOT have a 1920 x 1080 sensor;"
if you don't believe that 1440x1080 is crippled, you should have told us why.
again, i'm glad that we agree that avchd is superior to hdv :thumbup:
so there is no reason to buy a camera that records an inferior codec into a non-standard frame size.
i'm not aware of any such article... but i would ask you if you are familiar with the term "concatination"
more apples and oranges.
the question was, "why anybody would want to shoot in 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080", and the o.p. clearly asked for a comparison of consumer cameras, not prosumer cameras.
That's because you cannot separate the camera from the codec, and you cannot also simply reference one without considering the other as you have been doing.
Are you familiar with the term Pixel Aspect Ratio and how that affects the image? How many camera out there in the market right now have full raster sensor? You might not be aware of this, but MOST camera, prosumer or otherwise actually records "non standard frame size" and then uprezz to conform to the codec that they're shooting. By that argument you shouldn't purchase the HVX200, (recording 960 x 540 with a PAR of 1.5 to DVCPRO-HD which is a far superior codec to AVCHD), the HPX500 (higher sensor pixel count but the same thing) or even the HMC150 (which records AVCHD but NOT at full raster, meaning it doesn't actually have 1920 x 1080 pixels on the chip). But you wouldn't call any of those camera inferior now would you?
I'm actually not because that word doesn't seem to exist. I would advise you to do a spell check.
You insist on using codec as the sole criteria for judging a camera, which is just wrong, plain and simple. I keep trying to tell you that it doesn't matter the standard that the codec supports, you have to have a camera that is actually capable of shooting those images. There are AVCHD cameras out there right now that shoots 1080p but they look like crap because the sensor is small, the lens sucks and the sharpness just isn't there. Doesn't matter if they're consumer or professional, you can't judge a camera by what codec it shoots.
as opposed to you telling us that frame sizes and codecs don't make any difference at all...
i still don't understand why you insist on pushing an obsolete tape format over solid state recording.
more apples and oranges... the o.p. asked about consumer cameras, not prosumer cameras.
but since you keep going off-topic, lets put it into perspective... tell us what the maximum tested lines of resolution are for the best of these so-called "hd" prosumer cameras that you keep bringing up.
just as i suspected.
When did I ever say that? Of course the codec makes a difference, but it's just one variable in a complex equation. You insist on twisting my words to mean otherwise. Having a really nice codec and not having a camera that can actually push the codec to its limit is just useless.
Nobody is "pushing" anything. And it's not about tape vs. solid state. This is about recognizing that when you're picking a camera there's more things to take into consideration than just the codec. You can't just say "Oh, that camera is AVCHD, and that camera is HDV so the HDV camera is automatically crap."
Same argument applies, even more so in the consumer version because the hardware is going to be inferior to the prosumer cameras. So you have a decent codec but crappy hardware, how does that affect the camera?
And how would this puts things into "perspective"? My mentioning of those cameras is to demonstrate that often a camera do not push the codec to its limit. Just because you have a codec that supports 1920 x 1080 doesn't mean the camera shooting it actually does, and so the lines between codec and camera becomes blurred. To put it another way, if you're choosing purely on resolution and codec alone, which of these camera would you pick?
1)A consumer HDV camera (such as the HV20/30) with a full raster 1920 x 1080 chip. Such a camera captures 1920 x 1080 footage internally and downrezz to 1440 x 1080 for output.
2)A consumer AVCHD camera with a sensor that's not full raster (for argument sake we'll say the sensor has 1280 x 720 pixels). Such a camera would uprezz footage (via pixel shift etc.) to 1920 x 1080 for output.
Looking at the specs alone, it's clearly not a black and white decision; and you can't really tell either until you do resolution charts and testing. They might well come out the same resolution wise and then your argument of AVCHD's superiority goes right out the window.
Still waiting on that definition...spell check please.
Last edited:
yommytacoe
Well-known member
If you're only comparing resolution between 2 cameras think about this. The XHA1 uses a 1.5 MP sensor and downsamples the footage to 1080i/f/p whatever. the HVX and i believe HMC150 also, records at 960x720 and uprezzes/pixel shifts to 720p. If all you care about is resolution, the answer is obvious.
using an inferior format like hdv can ruin the picture quality of a camera:
"The XL H1 offers shooters the maximum native resolution available in a 1/3in 3-CCD camcorder... One explanation for the appearance of this artifact is the camera's inability to properly handle 1440 resolution within the constraints of the HDV format. Outputting via HD-SDI to DVCPRO HD or HDCAM circumvents the HDV constraints, producing cleaner, more professional images, indistinguishable in many ways from broadcast cameras costing ten times the price."
http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/broadcasting_canons_xl/
tape vs. solid state is a huge part of the purchasing decision, because it affects the workflow in many ways.
you haven't provided any proof that any specific video camera is better or worse than the codec it records on.
since that unknown quantity bothers you so much, tho, why keep pushing an inferior codec like mpeg2 on us? the obvious solution is to buy the camera with the vastly superior avchd codec, and then you won't have to worry about the camera somehow being better than the codec it records on.
but you haven't given us even one single concrete example of a camera that "does not push the codec to its limit"... i tried to clear that up by asking you for resolution numbers in my last post.
every editor needs to educate himself about what happens with digital codecs during the editing process... i would suggest that you start off with some telecommunications classes at the local community college.
I can't believe you're actually misapplying this example to prove your point. Of course capturing uncompress via HD-SDI will yield a cleaner image beyond long-GOP codec. This is true of any camera unless you're shooting RAW. Do I even need to remind you that AVCHD itself IS a long-GOP codec?
??????
After 4 or 5 posts you still do not get my point, and I'm getting tired of having to repeat the same thing over an over again. IF YOU BUY A CAMERA BASED SOLELY ON ITS CODEC, YOU WILL LIKELY MAKE THE WRONG CHOICE.
Sure, here's one: the HF10. Recording to AVCHD at a "native" 1920 x 1080, testing shows little resolution difference between an HV20 outputing 1440 x 1080. Here are some grabs
HF10
HV20
Some some rez charts blown up 200%
HF10
HV30
Results clearly showing comparable sharpness between both cameras despite the claim that AVCHD is superior. Why is this? Well, the HF10 incorporates a smaller chip than the HV20/30 (1/3.2'' vs. 1/2.7'') even though it tries to cram more pixels on to the chip. The result is lower sensitivity, and increased noise without a necessarily increase in sharpness. That just goes to show you that codec isn't everything.
And I suggest that you learn how to spell, the term is "Concatenation."
you just told us that "often a camera do not push the codec to its limit."
i proved that your statement was wrong, the camera front end is better than a bogus format like hdv.
wrong, i will never buy an hdv-based camera, because as i just proved, it's an inferior format that isn't as good as the camera signal it's recording.
hdv claims to be capable of recording at 1440, but as you saw from the example, it has substantial artifacting when it records 1440 resolution from the camera front end.
hdv(mpeg2) should probably be limited to sd resolution... after all, it records at fewer bits per pixel than what sd dvds(mpeg2) are commonly delivered at... i bet that you didn't know that, did you?
that is not a valid test, it's a joke... why are you comparing a 17Mbps codec to a 25Mbps codec, especially when you can get an hf11/hg20 that records at 25Mbps:
"Ultimately, the HF11 (shooting in 1080/60i) produced an approximate horizontal resolution of 675 lw/ph. The vertical resolution measured approximately 600 lw/ph."
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF11-Camcorder-Review-35436/Performance.htm
"The resolution of the Canon HV30... We recorded in 1080/60i. At best, the camcorder was able to produce a horizontal resolution of 625 line widths per picture height (lw/ph) and a vertical resolution of 575 lw/ph."
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HV30-Camcorder-Review-34401/Performance.htm
i suggest that you learn what it means, instead of bickering about how it's spelled :kiss:
This is just ignorant from beginning to end. Go watch some actual HDV footage instead of bickering about bits per pixel. Go tell people that HDV isn't HD and see the kind of response you'll get.
Because AVCHD at 13 mbps is supposed to be better than HDV at 25mbps. 24mbps AVCHD should be blowing HDV out of the water, if the camera permits it.
I'm tired of repeating the same thing over and over again. It's obvious that you'll just ignore everything I say anyway. This is a waste of time, I'm out, peace.
so you didn't bother doing the math on the hdv bits per pixel.
why am i not surprised? throughout this conversation, you've ignored every opportunity to learn something about codecs.