HV20/HV30 vs HF10/HF100

Z

zijital

Veteran
I've looked around a bit & haven't seen any good head to head picture quality between these "two" cameras. (more or less HV20=HV30 & HF10=HF100)

any one have any examples? or know where I can find them?
 
I don't really think you'll find any--recording media aside, the imaging systems are exactly the same (or only slightly different, not enough to warrant any major changes).

However, if you're looking at recorded images, the HF series would probably win out, seeing as the AVC HD codec they use records in full 1920x1080 (as opposed to HDV's 1440x1080), and the fact that AVC HD is a much better codec than HDV.

Other than that, there should be no quality gap between any of Canon's consumer HD cams--Canon designed their lineup so you could choose the cam that worked best with your workflow.
 
that is pretty much what I was thinking. while it would be nice to see side by side, it really seems the main differences between these cameras are the work flow
 
dvinfo(can i mention that name around here, lol?) has a thread on hf11 vs hv20/30... they liked the hf11 picture detail better, which is probably due in part to the superior codec, as mentioned above.
 
i have an hf100..
tough to edit with.. (just bought a VERY expensive computer to hopefully deal with it better)

but the secure digital cards are such a huge plus (no import time..reuseable..etc..etc)
its in my opinion the way to go.

Tape is dead (getting there)
 
avchd(h.264) requires a lot of cpu horsepower to decode, so it might be difficult to get smooth playback in the editing timeline.
 
Gordon Prince said:
The chips are different ones: 1/2.7" (HV) against 1/3.2" (HF).
Click to expand...
There's a difference of 18% larger sensitive area, higher than from the gap between 1080p to 2K resolution (13.2%), just as comparative term and example. The point is that's not related to resolution but sensor size.
 
Emanuel said:
There's a difference of 18% larger sensitive area, higher than from the gap between 1080p to 2K resolution (13.2%), just as comparative term and example. The point is that's not related to resolution but sensor size.
Click to expand...

No more need for. Here's the reason:

HF S10
HF S100
8.59 Megapixel 1/2.6-inch CMOS

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=177&modelid=17993#ModelTechSpecsAct

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...&fcategoryid=177&modelid=17992#ModelDetailAct

Available in February 2009
 
I'm also vacillating between the hf100 and hv30. The only thing holding me back from the hf100 is whether my laptop (centrino duo with 4 gb ram running cs3 with mainconcept) will handle avchd without hiccups or a long lag. Reading reviews on Amazon is not helpful because complainers are relying on the bundled software.

Anybody handling avchd with similar specs?
 
download some of the raw hf11 video clips test clips from dvinfo.com, get an editing workflow going before you commit to the camera.

cs3 will not support native avchd editing(??), so you might have to transcode to a lossless intermediate codec, which takes more time, but the quality should be very good, with the right codec... i use canopus hq, you can get neo scene for $129.
 
Emanuel said:
No more need for. Here's the reason:

HF S10
HF S100
8.59 Megapixel 1/2.6-inch CMOS

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=177&modelid=17993#ModelTechSpecsAct

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...&fcategoryid=177&modelid=17992#ModelDetailAct

Available in February 2009
Click to expand...


Ditto.

The HF S10/100 has a bigger diameter lens and records up to 24Mb/s AVCHD, which should make a difference at 1080i.

HDV is will be significantly lower quality than any of the AVCHDs 17 and above Mb/s. The HF100 and HV40 are Digic DV II, the HF 200 HF S100 are Digic DV III.
 
I don't know if it would make a difference but the HV40 records native 24p while the HF S10 does not. Which would really mean no chance of chroma crosstalk when removing pulldown. But I have seen the images from the HF S10....all I have to say is WOW.
 
download some of the raw hf11 video clips test clips from dvinfo.com, get an editing workflow going before you commit to the camera
Click to expand...

Excellent suggestion! Did it. It imports trouble-free but the lag is too great during playback or scrubbing. I could only jump the CTI to update the video. :furious3:
 
Ian-T said:
I don't know if it would make a difference but the HV40 records native 24p while the HF S10 does not. Which would really mean no chance of chroma crosstalk when removing pulldown. But I have seen the images from the HF S10....all I have to say is WOW.
Click to expand...


Where did you see the HF S10 footage?

Aren't the PF24 and and PF30 modes captured as progressive frames? Actually, aren't all of the images captured as rolling shutter progressive frames?
 
The two cameras HV30 and HF10/100/11 are essentially the same in picture quality, the
differences are mainly in your workflow.

A tape is much easier to hand off to a client and clients trust them more. CF cards are
better if you want to watch clips during a shoot (as there is no chance of accidentally
overwriting as there is with tape).

Editing AVCHD is something I avoid and I transcode everything to a workable codec.
This means my 'capture' time equates to the same a a tape.

Also the HV30 has a focus wheel on the outside near the lens, the HF series doesn't and
to adjust focus you need to go and push buttons.

The only other thing that I think you should consider is that there are no moving parts in the
HF series so if you are on a budget and you rely on the internal mic, go with an HF as you
will not be picking up vibrations of the tape spinning.
 
Hello,

I'm looking for a small camera (for fun) and I want to spend around US$ 500,00 , my options are HF10 and HV30, I have no problems with tape, also have a HDV sony deck... but HF10 has 1920x1080 and maybe a sharper image ?
I record a lot in low light conditions, what you think should have a better image quality ?

Thanks,
Ulisses
 
Consumer Reports tests consumer camcorders every year. They accept no advertising, making them more unbiased than typical DV type magazine reviews.
I checked their ratings on the HV30 and HF10 (done last year). Only two HD camcorders had a picture quality judged as "excellent"- the HV30 and Sony HD-SR12. The HF10 was very good, but not as good as the HV30. Also, image stabilization in the HV30 was much better than the HF10.
 
Last edited:
mainstreetprod said:
Consumer Reports tests consumer camcorders every year. They accept no advertising, making them more unbiased than typical DV type magazine reviews.
I checked their ratings on the HV30 and HF10 (done last year). Only two HD camcorders had a picture quality judged as "excellent"- the HV30 and Sony HD-SR12. The HF10 was very good, but not as good as the HV30. Also, image stabilization in the HV30 was much better than the HF10.
Click to expand...

So HDV is better than SDHC, interesting... I like the HV30 specs, but some reviews says that there is minor quality difference between the cameras. Anyway your comment makes sense.

Thanks,
Ulisses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top