The HF11 looks interesting - full AVCHD spec of 24 Mbs.
http://gizmodo.com/5027604/canon-updates-hd-palmcorders-with-hf11-hg21-versions

Great! Thanks for the link Mark -- no mention of these yet on the Canon USA site but they're on the Japanese watch.impress A/V industry site at http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080722/canon.htm -- the English translation is http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080722/canon.htm

Canon Inc. press release (in Japanese): http://cweb.canon.jp/newsrelease/2008-07/pr-hf11.html
English translation of Japanese press release: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcweb.canon.jp%2Fnewsrelease%2F2008-07%2Fpr-hf11.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Canon Inc. HF11 product page (in Japanese): http://cweb.canon.jp/ivis/lineup/hivision/hf11/index.html
English translation of HF11 product page: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcweb.canon.jp%2Fivis%2Flineup%2Fhivision%2Fhf11%2Findex.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Canon Inc. HG21 product page (in Japanese): http://cweb.canon.jp/ivis/lineup/hivision/hg21/index.html
English translation of HG21 product page: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcweb.canon.jp%2Fivis%2Flineup%2Fhivision%2Fhg21%2Findex.html&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

HF11: built-in flash memory increased to 32GB, adds 24mbps MXP recording mode (Full HD like the FXP mode).

HG21: hard drive increased to 120GB, which records just over five hours at the highest bit rate of 24mbps. Now supports video recording to memory card. Card format is SD / SDHC (must be SDHC for video recording). CMOS image sensor changed to newer 3.1mp version used by HF series. Body shape now similar to HV30. Full HD (1920x1080) recording at MXP (24mbps) and FXP (17mbps) modes.

Both camcorders availabile in late August.

Would it be better in quality than HDV's 25 mbit bitrate???

AVCHD is a completely different type of codec than HDV, so the bit rates do not directly compare.

24mbps in AVCHD should be *significantly* better than 25mbps in HDV.

Hmm, has anyone ever done extensive analysis on how HDV and AVCHD quality compares???

Look in our AVCHD forum for posts and sample clips from Austin Meyers comparing the Canon HV20 (HDV) to the Canon HG10 (AVCHD). These two camcorders have the same lens and image sensor, and they differ only in format. The video clips prove how little difference there is between them; even the 24p modes were identical. Format doesn't affect image "quality" nearly as much as optics, processor and operator capability (all of which were equal in Austin's tests).

The primary difference between HDV and AVCHD is that of *workflow* -- tape vs. tapeless. Like any other new video format, ease of editing is currently the main challenge with AVCHD, but not for long. Hope this helps,

My goodness they churn these little cameras out fast. How long ago did they release the HG10?

The HG10 was new one year ago: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=100215

AVCHD is a completely different type of codec than HDV, so the bit rates do not directly compare.

24mbps in AVCHD should be *significantly* better than 25mbps in HDV.

It should be significantly more efficient than XDCAM-EX mpeg2 35 mbps as well. I have the feeling that Canon will mate this codec to a XH-A1/XL-H1 succesor that will put it back on top.

It should be significantly more efficient than XDCAM-EX mpeg2 35 mbps as well. I have the feeling that Canon will mate this codec to a XH-A1/XL-H1 succesor that will put it back on top.

Don't forget that the Panansonic HCM-150 was announced a while back with 3 1/3" CCD's and the 24mbps option as well.

I'm going to make an assumption here that may get me in trouble, but is it possible that the AVCHD codec wasn't quite as efficient as they once thought? I remember it supposedly being comparable quality of HDV at roughly half the bitrate, but if that were true, why would all these companies feel the need to release a 24mbps version? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for higher quality recording options, but as I understood it AVCHD was billed as the HDV successor for tapeless acquisition due to it's smaller bitrates.

oh yes, this is excellent news. A1/H1 successors will not be on top, RED Scarlet will be [120fps with 180fps burst, 3K resolution, RAW format, 2/3" chip, professional handling, 3000$ price tag... by any means not comparable to current HDV toys].

All in all, I'm eagerly waiting for 24Mbps AVCHD samples.

...if that were true, why would all these companies feel the need to release a 24mbps version? Ha! Simple reason -- because of all the endless online whining and moaning that the full bit rate of the format wasn't being utilized, that's why. Regardless, a given format should live all the way up to its own potential. It's not about just being as good as HDV, it's about being "all it can be" (whatever that is). I just wish it was easier to edit!

A1/H1 successors will not be on top, RED Scarlet will be [120fps with 180fps burst, 3K resolution, RAW format, 2/3" chip, professional handling, 3000$ price tag...

As nice as Scarlet seems, I'm not sure she's the answer for event guys like myself who need longer record times. And unless you want to start a holy war, it might not be a good idea to bring her up in a discussion about a camera being released by an established player in the video industry.

All in all, I'm eagerly waiting for 24Mbps AVCHD samples.

Me too.

It's not about just being as good as HDV, it's about being "all it can be" (whatever that is). I just wish it was easier to edit!

I'd agree with you on both points. The light at the end of the tunnel for editing AVCHD is what we just finished going through with HDV a few years back. When it was first released, editing HDV was a chore. Now it's as easy as DV was before that.

It's scary to think that I've been doing video professionally for only 5 or 6 years now and we've been chewing through formats faster than I care to admit. Anyone remember DV50 and BetaCam SX? My how time flies.

As nice as Scarlet seems, I'm not sure she's the answer for event guys like myself who need longer record times. And unless you want to start a holy war, it might not be a good idea to bring her up in a discussion about a camera being released by an established player in the video industry.



Me too.

Exactly scarlet should be great but that doesn't make it great for all markets.

Hmm, has anyone ever done extensive analysis on how HDV and AVCHD quality compares???

My story on H.264 and MPEG-2 appears in the next/current issue of Broadcast Engineering.

You've got to factor in AVCHD use of FullHD vs HDV's use of 1440x1080. The two match each other at about 16.5Mbps so 21 to 24 is about 32Mbps. Almost XDCAM EX HQ and just a bit more than my JVC HD7.

My story on H.264 and MPEG-2 appears in the next/current issue of Broadcast Engineering.

You've got to factor in AVCHD use of FullHD vs HDV's use of 1440x1080. The two match each other at about 16.5Mbps so 21 to 24 is about 32Mbps. Almost XDCAM EX HQ and just a bit more than my JVC HD7.

Hurray for solid numbers.

I'm going to make an assumption here that may get me in trouble, but is it possible that the AVCHD codec wasn't quite as efficient as they once thought? I remember it supposedly being comparable quality of HDV at roughly half the bit rate, but if that were true, why would all these companies feel the need to release a 24mbps version? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for higher quality recording options, but as I understood it AVCHD was billed as the HDV successor for typeless acquisition due to it's smaller bit-rates.

It probably does do it in half the bit-rate on the ambarella codec hardware based cameras more often. The problem is that to more efficiently encode with H264 you not only need the expertise, but also the processing power. I don't think that AVCHD started off with leading edge solutions because the power consumption and heat production of a fully efficient 24mb/s codec would be too great a few years ago. I think it is obvious that companies like Canon might be catching up in efficiency, and of bit-rate over the years. The guys at ambarella, on the other hand, had lots of experience, even on the video side, and a leading edge processing to power consumption solution to start with. I've been reading up on the story behind them.

While I wait for a Red Scarlet (Jim, where and when can I test over here) I am actually looking at a 11+mb/s Ambarella based camera for 720p. We have been having some success (whining) in getting the bit-rate on hybrid pocket cameras up enough to eliminate low bit-rate codec artifacts with suitable quality, and handle motion better, which makes it suitable for consumer shooting. I love doing it, because it points things out and gets better cameras into users hands.

What I am going to say, that's controversial, is that the top end for data rates for consumer video should be close to Blu-ray's, and XDCAM HD 35mb/s mode. While you can eliminate codec issues at 12mb/s for a certain resolution a frame rate, there is more to video than that. A higher data rate means that the camera also does not have to visually reduce the differences between adjacent pixels, flatten the colors, or reduce the detail so much, making a moire striking picture, and enables it to handle low light noise better. It just so happens that at this level it also suites some videographers. In defence of the camera industry, I still think 50mb/s+ (Mpeg2) is a good professional level (Full 1080i).


Steve,

Have you tried different h264 cameras set to the same DOF and SNR characteristics? I would not be surprised if you would still get a wide range in results between h264 models even now (though not on test charts and static scenes).

Is there going to be an HF110?

Meaning, is there going to be a 24mbps version of the HF100 (identical to the HF10 but card slot only, no built-in flash memory). Good question. I have no idea what their road map looks like. It's been a year since the HG10, so I kind of expected the updated HG21, but the HF11 is a bit of a surprise since the HF series was just introduced earlier this year at CES. They've only been shipping for just a few months.

It probably does do it in half the bit-rate on the ambarella codec hardware based cameras more often. The problem is that to more efficiently encode with H264 you not only need the expertise, but also the processing power. I don't think that AVCHD started off with leading edge solutions because the power consumption and heat production of a fully efficient 24mb/s codec would be too great a few years ago. I think it is obvious that companies like Canon might be catching up in efficiency, and of bit-rate over the years.

You nailed it. H.264 has a whole bunch of encoding tools in its TOOLKIT that MAY be used if your chip has the power. Which in turn means your camcorder can dissipate the heat and have enough battery power.

For example, Sony supports the MAIN profile while Canon supports the HIGH profile. Only the latter can use 4x4 macroblocks on fine detail. Perhaps this is why the Canon rez charts show greater rez.

The Canon at 24Mbps is very likely to match the $4,200 Panasonic simple because a 2.8MP Bayer filter is approx equal to 3 960x540 chips. Bayer down-samples by a factor of ALMOST 4 so one can think of it as 3 700,000 pixel sensors. Which isn't that far from the native 520,000 of the Panasonic, which is up-sampled.

These new cams sound very intriguing, and I hope they work out. Canon has clearly run with the ball in the prosumer, and semi-prosumer markets. From the numbers alone it would seem this new higher bit-rate format(yes it is all about the encoder, but it is a big jump) should really be an advantage. Hopefully hardware costs (cheap lens, ect...) don't hold it back. To me the worst case scenario is > the HV20/30 but with modern storage. Yeah!! Big thumbs up. We will find out soon enough, and I know this will be the place for the most scrutinizing comparisons.
Looking forward, big time!

Is there any indication that this camera supports 1080p60 or p50? It is not clear from the pages wherever this might be possible.

I am more interested in p50/60 these days for transfer between frame rate formats, but most cameras only do interlace. Though I don't think it will steer me away from the ambarella with the Scarlet coming.

Steve, I think ambarella uses high profile too. It is a shame Sony is doing this.

There is a footage comparison at dv.com between Sony V1, Samsung 1080p camcorder (Sony sensor) and Canon HV camera you might like to look at. It is one of the columnists, but can't remember his name.

Did anybody notice the error in max time at 24Mbps between 32GB and 16GB on the translated HF11?

Although the HF11 has 32GB internally (almost 3 hours at MA) -- there aren't any 32GB cards you can buy, are there? If 16GB costs $200, to get another 1.5 hours, then thethe HG21 seems a good buy with 5-hours and a VF and still the option for a card -- like for skydiving.

And does this mean 24Mbps AVCHD can't be played on BD players?

"DW-100 mode, using the MXP (about 24 Mbps) is recorded on the disc, DW-100 can only play."

Newegg has a couple 32GB SDHC cards listed now (class 4). 16GB SDHC cards can be purchased for a lot less than $200 also (closer to $50 for low cost cards).

Is there any indication that this camera supports 1080p60 or p50? These cameras record 1080i60, 1080p30 and 1080p24 in the Japanese and North American markets, and 1080i50 and 1080p25 in versions bought in Europe and Australia.

there aren't any 32GB cards you can buy, are there? If 16GB costs $200...Delkin offers a Class 4 32GB SDHC card for $180 at B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/560595-REG/Delkin_Devices_DDSDPRO1_32GB_32GB_eFilm_Secure_Digital.html).

Panasonic's 32GB SDHC card is Class 6 and quite pricey, $395 at B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/560123-REG/Panasonic_RP_SDV32GU1K_32GB_Secure_Digital_SDHC_.html).

The 16GB cards do not cost $200 anymore. Panasonic's Class 6 16GB SDHC card is now $130 while Kingston's Class 4 16GB SDHC card is just $110 (both through B&H). The Class 4 cards will easily handle Full HD at the 17mbps FXP mode, and the indications I read from the translated text of the Japanese press release (linked in second post of this thread) are that Class 4 should be able to handle Full HD at 24mbps as well. I expect Kingston to offer a 32GB SDHC card in Class 4 or 6 very soon.

A freshly formatted Class 4 SDHC card should be able to keep up with 24mbps, but it is cutting things close. Kingston 32GB Class 4 cards are being sold now.

Thanks, serves me right for not taking your cue and checking NewEgg. Sure enough, they have the Kingston 32GB Class 4 SDHC for just under $150. And a PNY, also 32GB Class 4, for $130. I'll bet Kingston will have their Class 6 out by the time the HF11 ships.

The 16GB cards do not cost $200 anymore. Panasonic's Class 6 16GB SDHC card is now $130 while Kingston's Class 4 16GB SDHC card is just $110 (both through B&H).

http://www.amazon.com/Transcend-16GB-CLASS-Compact-Reader/dp/B0010Z28XG/ref=pd_bbs_2/105-9246572-7744441?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1216941205&sr=8-2

"Transcend 16GB SDHC CARD (SD 2.0 SPD CLASS 6) with Compact Card Reader" -- $52.90

I've been using one of these for a while now on a Canon TX1 (pocket camera/camcorder) with no issues. Is there a reason one would pay twice as much for one of the models you listed, or is it just brand recognition? I was planning on buying a pair of the Transcends with whichever camera I go with.

Good thing I didn't get around to buying the HF100 yet. This is perfect timing for me.

A freshly formatted Class 4 SDHC card should be able to keep up with 24mbps, but it is cutting things close. Kingston 32GB Class 4 cards are being sold now.

The Sony Z7 users are having problems finding cards that REALLY meet specs. Sony's answer is to use Sony cards. Sorry. it was the Sony card that was so expensive for 16GB.

Still -- getting a VF seems to me to be the real issue. With the SR11 in Las Vegas sun there were far too many times when upon playback I could hear myself muttering "can't see a damn thing!"

Are they both really $1300?

Wow! I was at Canon's product launch for the HF10 and HF100 down here in Australia in APRIL! And they're already announcing replacements. I've been very impressed with the HF10 as it is - so the better codec should make a good thing even better.

I think speed and ease of use is the big deal with these cameras (there's so much less fussing about than there was with tape based ones) and the fact that they're the same size as a beer can means you feel far more inclined to actually carry them around with you.

... and the fact that they're the same size as a beer...Beg pardon, Mark... not sure what size beer you're used to, mate, but I'd call that one a stubby!

The Sony Z7 users are having problems finding cards that REALLY meet specs. Sony's answer is to use Sony cards. Sorry. it was the Sony card that was so expensive for 16GB.

Still -- getting a VF seems to me to be the real issue. With the SR11 in Las Vegas sun there were far too many times when upon playback I could hear myself muttering "can't see a damn thing!"

Are they both really $1300?

Personally, I wouldn't try using a Class-4 SDHC card to record at 24mbps. It would probably work, if the card were freshly formatted, but that is cutting things close enough to be flirting with trouble. Class-6 SDHC cards *should* be fine (unless they get very fragmented, like using a hard drive that is very fragmented will result in dropped frames when capturing from tape).

The Z7 records to Compact Flash cards, which are rated for performance differently than SDHC. I'm not an expert on flash memory, but I believe the ratings on CF cards are primarily based on reading speed (rather than writing speed) and the ratings are not consistent from one manufacturer to another. In a nutshell, looking at the speed rating on the label of a CF card isn't a reliable way to judge how the card will perform (especially for writing speeds. which is what matters for shooting live video reliably).

That said, among the lower priced CF cards, Transcend's 133X (or higher) CFs *should* work okay with a Z7.

Any idea when/if we will see 60p and a high frame rate for slow motion in a consumer camcorder such as the HF10/11? Also, although less of an interest, how about GPS and night-mode?

when/if 60p : when the competition heats up. Right now, this is oligarchic market, you have two maybe three real competitors who are able to "negotiate" price, technical specs etc by simply observing what the other company is doing. This is no real competency, people... and we = customers, are paying hefty premiums! For example, take SR11 and SR12 with the ONLY difference being bigger HDD in the latter. Real price difference between those camcorders is close to $200 !!! And now, will you be so kind and tell me what is the price delta between 2.5" 60GB HDD and 2.5" 120GB HDD? !!!!! OH YES, IT IS LESS THAN FIVE DOLLARS, DEFINITELY NOT CLOSE TO $200 IN MY BOOK !!!!! See what I want to show you?

You want 1080p/60fps or higher for some affordable price? The answer will be Red Scarlet next year. I don't see Panasonic/Sony/Canon willing to sell you 3072x1728 resolution, 120fps [180fps burstable] PROGRESSIVE, 2/3" chip with excellent dynamic range [!!! big thing !!!] including F2.4/T2.8 8x zoom lens, up to 100MB/s RAW format and you know the rest of Scarlet specs for $3000 next year. Sorry, I don't. Something like that would cost $30k...

next thing : fragmentation and write speeds on CF/SD cards. Fragmentation is irrelevant at all, because those cards have almost 0ms access speeds. So even if that storage has to "seek", there are no delays at all. Next thing is that there are almost no seeks at all, if you have ten files located on that card and you are trying to record eleventh one, what kind of "seeking" and fragmentation can we talk about? This is completely different storage from NTFS Windows filesystems with dozen thousands files that are small [tiny small compared to video files produced by camcorders] and overwritten dozen times daily. Camcorder storage is totally different...

recently bought class2 or class4 cards are able to sustain approx. 6MB/s and 8MB/s write speeds, that translates into 48Mbit/s and 64MBit/s so my guess is that all current class4 cards must be able to keep up with 24Mbps easily, absolutely easily. Piece of cake. Hell, even my EIGHT years old compactflash cards with integrated controller [that's what CF is all about] are able to write more than 2MB/s = 16Mbps... I think there will be no problems at all writing 24Mbps on current 4GB, 8GB and bigger SD cards.

enjoy!

While flash memory may have no physically moving parts, file fragmentation does indeed degrade flash memory performance.

The specification for Class-2 SDHC calls for a minimum write speed of 2MB/s (not 6MB/s) when the card is essentially empty. For Class-4 SDHC it's 4MB/s (not 8MB/s) when the card is essentially empty. There are no "Class-2 (4 or 6)" designations for CF.

Meaning, is there going to be a 24mbps version of the HF100 (identical to the HF10 but card slot only, no built-in flash memory). Good question. I have no idea what their road map looks like. It's been a year since the HG10, so I kind of expected the updated HG21, but the HF11 is a bit of a surprise since the HF series was just introduced earlier this year at CES. They've only been shipping for just a few months.

This is surprising Chris! This is one of the shortest life spans I've seen for a camcorder! I'll be very interested in seeing these new guys and what the increased bitrate does for PQ. I'm also hoping that Canon has corrected what I felt was a color issue with the HF10/HF100.

The Canon at 24Mbps is very likely to match the $4,200 Panasonic simple because a 2.8MP Bayer filter is approx equal to 3 960x540 chips. Bayer down-samples by a factor of ALMOST 4 so one can think of it as 3 700,000 pixel sensors. Which isn't that far from the native 520,000 of the Panasonic, which is up-sampled.

I hope you're right Steve. If this cam turns out like this, I'll be back on the Canon bandwagon. I still think the SR12 is the best out there now for overall PQ, but I'm always looking for improvement.

...I have the feeling that Canon will mate this codec to a XH-A1/XL-H1 succesor that will put it back on top.

Canon could pull the rug right out from underneath Panasonic and the HMC150 with that (an A1 like AVCHD camera, priced close to the original A1), especially since Panasonic seems stuck on 960x540 chips.

> I still think the SR12 is the best out there now for overall PQ, but I'm always looking for improvement.


Ken, rest assured there will be VERY noticeable difference in PQ as the step up from 17Mbps to 24Mbps is HUGE. You might remember the difference between 13Mbps 2nd gen and current 3rd gen 17Mbps camcorders...

Robert, I know that class2, class4 and class6 are specifications for SD and not for CF ; what I wanted to point out is that SD cards with class4 specs outclass that spec heavily. One thing is norm dictating to have 4MB/s transfer rates, another thing is reality and much higher speeds.

Canon could pull the rug right out from underneath Panasonic and the HMC150 with that (an A1 like AVCHD camera, priced close to the original A1), especially since Panasonic seems stuck on 960x540 chips.

I hadn't thought of an "A1" version using the faster codec. It would be much lighter which is important to me.

Right now the SR12 is tops.

Of course, Sony could be reserving 24Mbps for a V1 replacement using 3ClearVid chips which would compete with an "A1" Canon.

Could be an interesting next 6 months.

> I still think the SR12 is the best out there now for overall PQ, but I'm always looking for improvement.


Ken, rest assured there will be VERY noticeable difference in PQ as the step up from 17Mbps to 24Mbps is HUGE. You might remember the difference between 13Mbps 2nd gen and current 3rd gen 17Mbps camcorders...



We can hope so, but let's face it, it remains to be seen. I think it's logical to assume that as we continue to progress up the 'mbps' scale, there will be a diminishing 'return on value'. I'm not sure what that is or how noticeable it will be, but most of the issues surrounding the original low bitrates have been solved. Rarely do people complain about macroblocking or issues with panning with the latest gen of Sony & Canon AVCHD units. Those were caused by the low bitrates and bumping them up to 16 & 17 mbps, seems to have solved those.

So we'll have to wait and see what the new bitrates bring to the table in terms of perceived picture quality. It sure can't hurt, but let's see what kind of an increase in PQ we actually get.

My biggest concerns will center around color fidelity and dynamic range since I found these less than ideal in the HF10/HF100. IMO it would be ashame if Canon did nothing in these areas with the new models. We shall see.

Is there a reason one would pay twice as much for one of the models you listed, or is it just brand recognition?It's not just brand *recognition,* it's brand *reliance.* If you check out Transcend's ratings on NewEgg, they're definitely not the highest. Same for PNY and other low-cost brands. I prefer Kingston and SanDisk simply because they get very good customer feedback relative to the dirt cheap cards.

I wouldn't look at it in terms of paying more for the card -- I'd consider the value of my images. I just don't trust irreplaceable data to cheap cards. And the better brands are not all that expensive anymore... good quality flash memory doesn't really cost a lot right now. I remember paying $40 for a 64MB card just a few years ago. Good flash is inexpensive. Cheap flash is a risk.