Hello,

I recently got the chance to purchase a XA10 which are in very short supply in Germany. Overall I am very impressed with the camcorder. In particular the build quality and manual settings.

But there are two areas in which I am not entirely satisfied. The first one is the sharpness. I am really surprised that the picture isn't that sharp. Now it could be that as I recorded in 25p (which is 50i in 25p) that I see motion blur and the picture is sharper then the impression but still

The second part is that the model sold in Germany doesn't support true 24p or 25p but just 25p recorded as 50i in a 25p wrapper. Now I do fully understand the technical difference between 25p recorded as 50i and 50i but I don't understand the visual difference because I would expect it to be not that different to the viewer. And I could see that it doesn't record true 25p before I purchased the cam. And I really don't understand Canons decision to just offer this in the states. When I found out my first reaction was that I wanted to sell the camera but then I decided to keep it because I wouldn't know which model to get instead.

If you like you can see a first short movie that I recorded during an event and created it for the people who have been there and not for external viewers. The second short movie is recored with my old Canon HF10 and you can decide yourself how big the difference is between a $600 and $2000 cam (not a lot).

Please view them on my site Cosmocreek Medien Produktion (http://www.cosmocreek.com)

Btw - the first movie is edited in FCPX which overall I like but has some bugs. First is that there must be a memory leak or so - I have to quit and restart the app after a while of use. Second - I added stabilization and I cannot see any difference in the clips w/ or w/o stabilization. In some scenes it is obvious that now stabilization was applied even so I clicked on the button in FCPX. The second movie was done in iMovie (even so I usually edited in FCP 6 - now I want to move on to FCPX, skimming is too good)

Best
Andreas

The first one is the sharpness. I am really surprised that the picture isn't that sharp.

what are you comparing to? I have G10 side by side with EX1, I can say for the price it performs amazing,
try your XA10 with Z1 and tell me which one is sharper :)

Well - I have no Z1 :-(

If you say that the camera really produces a very sharp image, could it be that the Hoya Filter I added confuses the autofocus? I don't think that it should but maybe that is an option?

Best
Andreas

the xa10 has a very sharp image. I was using a UV filter on my camera and took it off because of some lens flaring. I don't have a xa10 right now but have the g10 same PQ. Try it with out a filter, check out some of my test clips on vimeo from my web page and see if thats what yours is like. If you don't mind post some of your clips that you think are bad.

Btw - the first movie is edited in FCPX which overall I like but has some bugs. First is that there must be a memory leak or so - I have to quit and restart the app after a while of use. Second - I added stabilization and I cannot see any difference in the clips w/ or w/o stabilization. In some scenes it is obvious that now stabilization was applied even so I clicked on the button in FCPX. The second movie was done in iMovie (even so I usually edited in FCP 6 - now I want to move on to FCPX, skimming is too good)

Best
Andreas

Hi Andreas, I have the XA-10 too, and sharpness has never been an issue, even at low light levels with wider aperture compromise, I have several night shots right on this forum you can look at them and tell me if you see any difference or issues with yours.

FCPX will ANALYZE your clips for stabilization when you ingest them if you desire that in your Preferences
BUT……You will only get stabilization if you invoke stabilization AFTER the clip is on the timeline, it will also go thru background rendering. Analyzing on ingest and doing the actual stabilization are two different things.

Thanks,
Luis

Well - I have no Z1 :-(

If you say that the camera really produces a very sharp image, could it be that the Hoya Filter I added confuses the autofocus? I don't think that it should but maybe that is an option?

Best
Andreas

A good quality filter really should not degrade sharpness. I use B&W's on my cam, and they are somewhat more expensive relative to most others. Hoya also makes some good filters, do not use their least expensive though. Never put a piece of cheap glass in front of a good lens.

Ok, just went in my backyard and took two sample clips.. Camera on full auto(green setting).

I imported to FCPX and exported the ProRes .mov using Share-->Export movie-->current settings.

Cam was on a tripod, nothing applied in FCPX.

Please see for yourself if those are sharp:

http://www.2ontour.de/misc/Testproject.mov

Maybe it is an autofocus issue, I don't know.Maybe I just have a lemon, happens. Btw - tried it with and without the filter - there is no difference. I could try and import to iMovie to see if FCPX is the problem, but I really don't think so.

Just found that if I zoom in the picture appears to become quite sharp. Strange.

Best
Andreas

Well - I have no Z1 :-(

OK, try any other 1/3 camcorder, not sure why you're not happy with the image, but after all it's $1500 camera, and nevertheless it performs outstanding for that price

Did you watch the video linked above?

Do you have the ability to post the movie on Vimeo or YouTube I was unable to play it thanks

Of course I can but due to all the compression I am not really sure if it is visible. The clip is in ProRes - a direct output from FCPX. Could that be the problem?

I just exported again - this time in H264. Could you try if this works better? Same link:

http://www.2ontour.de/misc/Testproject.mov

I added some footage that is really zoomed in which is sharp and just fine. Maybe the additional sharpness on the zoomed in picture just comes from the horizontal resolution

http://www.2ontour.de/misc/Testproject_zoom.mov

I'll try on my laptop later it wil not let me view on my iPhone thanks

Ok, got it. I uploaded now to Vimeo as well. I zoom out after about 35s.

Test Canon XA10 zoom on Vimeo

And here is another one that I filmed at an event two weeks ago:

Kronenfest Herzogenaurach 2011 on Vimeo

At around 4:34 I added two picture I took at a concert, you can easily see the difference.

Best
Andreas

Andreas
I think it is very hard to make critical observations from a web presentation file. And frankly, it can be difficult to tell exactly what you have by viewing in the NLE or other software players.
IMO, the best way to determine the image quality you have captured is to export your timeline to full data rate Blu Ray (25 MBs), burn a disk, and watch it on a good quality HDTV. In my experience this will tell the tale about color, sharpness, contrast, dynamic range, motion rendering, etc.
I keep several rewritable BD on hand just for this purpose.

I may not be seeing what you are but to me they look good zoomed in and out.

Hi Gerald,

I thought about it and I guess I am missing resolution and not sharpness, maybe I confuse here sharpness with resolution. And if I think about it, a chip with 2K pixels can just have 1K resolution. I assume thats why my pictures from the same scene "look" much sharper as they have a 10k pixels and therfore jusst have more resolution.Hope that makes sense.

Andreas
The XA 10 chip has 1920x1080 pixels available to shoot HD video at 1920x1080 resolution.
Having more pixels on the chip confers no additional benefit.
In fact, cams that have more pixels (because they are optomized for still photos) require "line skipping" to produce the video image. This actually creates artifacts (moire, etc.), not better video images or higher resolution.
This is one of the primary unique design features of the XA 10- a 1/3" chip that is optomized only for HD video, with larger pixels, better sensitivity to light, better dynamic range.
My experience with the XA 10 image (2 days of shooting now) is that it is quite good enough on all counts to hold its own against larger pro cams like my Sony EX1, and certainly edges out the other high end consumer cams like the Sony CX 550.
You might enjoy Phil Bloom's video review of the XA 10 & XF 100.
He feels that there is hardly any discernable difference in the image quality of these two cams, even though the XF 100 is 50mbs and 4:2:2 color.
Check it out:
Video review of the Canon XA-10, XF100 and XF105 | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.net/2011/07/09/video-review-of-the-canon-xa-10-xf100-and-xf105/)

Hello,

for me in the end the main question is if my XA10 is a lemon and needs to be shipped back to Canon for repair or if this is as good as it gets.

From your feedback I get that the camera is as good as it gets, so thanks a lot for all your response.

Best
Andreas

P.S.

I watched the video from Philip and I think at least in Germany that cam doesn't support real 24p or 25p but just 25p recorded as 50i. That is at least what the datasheet says (attached).

Resolution is not the number of pixels. Looking at the Nyquist sampling theorem (Nyquist?Shannon sampling theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_theorem)) the resolution cannot be higher then half the number of pixels. IF downsampling is done right you can get a much higher resolution. That is why the pictures from my Nikon (10 MP) look so much sharper in the video.

Of course a lot pixel mean less light per pixel and that means more gain=more noise=not so good low light performance unless you increase the pixels and the sensor.

Andreas,
Yes, the footage at the Kronenfest does look soft to me (way softer than other XA10 footage I have seen).
If you, indeed, focussed properly, then I would say your camera might have a back focus issue, because this is NOT as good as it gets. Canon generally has a good warranty/service policy. Can you try another XA10 to compare?
If not, i would send it in for repair or replacement.
Hope this helps,
Ken

Nyquist theory aside, all of the major camera manufacturers equip their top of the line professional cameras with chips whose pixel count match the recorded/delivered video resolution.
The consumer cams & DSLRs, all of which double as still cams, are the only ones with high pixel count chips.
It's not plausable to imagine that Canon would equip their latest top of the line consumer cam with a chip that was inferior to the off the shelf sensors available in their cheaper cameras. This chip is the one thing that is the big deal about XA 10/G 10.
I agree with Ken- if you are not getting sharp, professional level image quality from the camera, it may be defective. There is so much XA 10 HD footage online now, you should be able to conclude if your cam is holding up to what you are seeing online.

I thought about it and I guess I am missing resolution and not sharpness, maybe I confuse here sharpness with resolution. And if I think about it, a chip with 2K pixels can just have 1K resolution. I assume thats why my pictures from the same scene "look" much sharper as they have a 10k pixels and therfore jusst have more resolution.Hope that makes sense.

Hi Andreas,

DSLR pictures often "look" sharper, but I think this has more to do with contrast between in focus/out of focus ares than real resolution. In fact, all the DSLRs have relatively low (barely above Standard Def) resolution in video mode. Video from a 22mp 5DII looks sharp, but in fact there is little detail there and horizontal res clocks in at <600 lines. The XF300 however (with the same chips as the XA10, albeit three of them) eats the 5DII alive for detail.

Resolution is a function of much more than the chip - the lens, codec, DSP etc all play a big part. I just bought an XA10 as a b-cam for the XF300, and took it for its first work out. My initial impressions are:

1 I'm really pleased with it, I find the images really appealing.
2 I share your impression: it's not all that impressive in terms of resolution.

The XF300 (again, with identical 1920x1080 Canon chips) has vastly more detail. I mean very very clearly more detail. And it should - it costs four times more. Having three chips and a very impressive lens in the XF make a big difference.

Having said that, I like the look of the XA10 images - they are softer but IMHO in a pleasing way... quite flattering/complementary for skin tones. Compared the the XF it's like a soft fx filter is in use.

The XA10 images look very similar indeed to the images I used to get from the XH-A1, but in a very small, incredibly easy to use package.

(the vimeo files are difficult to make any meaningful assessments from)

I just bought an XA10 as a b-cam for the XF300, and took it for its first work out...
I like the look of the XA10 images - they are softer but IMHO in a pleasing way... quite flattering/complementary for skin tones.

I think it is quite a testiment to the XA 10- a near pocket sized camera- that people are happily using it for 2nd unit, to mix with high end camera footage from the likes of XF 300, EX1, EX3, etc.
Regarding detail- my experience with the EX1 is that it produces so much detail that most users turn the setting down substantially, particularly if going for a "cinematic" look.
Again, my observation of XA 10 footage on 50" HDTV is that it looks quite crisp enough- on a par with much bigger HD cameras I have used, and certainly not defective/inadequate in any way that bothers me.

Hello,

thanks a lot to everyone for the feedback. I am still not sure if my unit is "good" and I am just not enough satisfied or to picky or if I have a unit that show some misalignment.

One additional comment - when I look at the initial footage I captured with it it looks just fine for me. Then the footage from that festival for which I transported the camera the first time by car doesn't look sharp enough for me. Now I am unsure if that is motion blur, or has to do with the image stabilization or with autofocus not working entire properly but then on the other hand I captured that footage of that little truck in the garden for which the camera was on a tripod and the wide angel doesn't look sharp enough for me.

So what will I do? Still not 100% decided but I think to find my sleep I will RMA the cam on Monday and hope for a fast exchange. I need it this weekend as I have two gigs coming up.

Josh - in a earlier post I linked to two H264 files on one of my website as you are right, the image quality cannot be judged from Vimeo. Why too worse due to the compression.

Luis - I am completely familiar with FCPX and I know that I have to mark that little "stabilization" icon in the info window while selecting the clip in the timeline. Again - doesn't do anything to my clip. Maybe it works a lot different then FCP7? I always found quite a difference between the stabilization in FCP7 and iMovie for example, FCP being the much better one but taking a lot a lot longer for analyzing.

If I RMA the unit I will report back if the replacement is any different.

Best
Andreas

Hi Andreas,

I realise now I've erred in model numbers: my new camera is in fact an HFG10... I didn't need the audio features of the XA10 (as I record audio either with the XF300 or a Sound Devices unit) but the picture quality should be the same.

I've uploaded a few frame grabs for you here to show you what my first shoot looked like. Actually I'm shooting with the XF300 (the little guy in a stripy blue shirt) - my assistant took these shots with the HFG10. She's a soundie and doesn't usually shoot so I set it to shutter priority (at 1/50th), everything else (including white balance!) full auto. It spits out a pretty good image!!

But like I said, there's quite a bit more detail in the XF300 images. As you can see in the attached frame grabs, the HFG10 produces images that are pleasing but not tack sharp (these were shot handheld, autofocus, so quite demanding on the camera): the edges are not dead crisp, but I don't personally view this as a negative. Last year I owned a TM700 (Panny) which was subjectively sharper (and tests sharper according to Camcorder Info) but seemed to have a lot of edge enhancement at work - I prefer the slightly softer look of the Canon. There is very little in the way of artifacts, and the colours are pleasing imho.

(sorry, had to blur out the talent's head as we were shooting a "behind the scenes" video of a celebrity endorsement product shoot... the campaign is not live yet).

The XF-300 is without doubt sharper than the XF100, XA10 or G10, but then it has 3 sensors instead of 1 and costs a LOT more money.

I'd have to apply a (very) mild gaussian blur to the XF-300 footage to make it look like the XF-100 / XA10 / HF-G10 - so if yours is not as sharp as the XF-300, that's how it is.....

Thanks Dave, that's exactly what I said:
"It costs four times more. Having three chips and a very impressive lens in the XF make a big difference."

My impressions after less than a week with the G10 are overwhelmingly positive:

* nice ergonomics for its size and useful IS
* easy enough to access manual features
* very pleasing, artifact free images
* good colours and control of noise

Very happy with what I bought. I can't really think of anything I don't like about it - I'm not really a touch screen fan but I'm getting used to it.

Josh

Just a short update. I did some more testing and I found that the sharpness problem mainly occurs if the focus is on infinity and the problem is more visible on wide angel shoots. Once zoomed in and the focus isn't set on infinity the picture is very sharp. I could add a H.264 video clip on my website if you would like to see it. In Vimeo its just too difficult to see.

I would be interested if this is a general problem with these cams (XA10 and XF100) or just with mine?

Josh - I think your pictures look sharp but I assume the focus isn't set to infinity?

Best
Andreas

Hi Andreas.

Actually those were shot by my assistant on auto-focus. I hadn't used the camera at the time. Over the weekend I did a bunch of test shots and I'm actually really impressed with the camera.

It has very little noise, edge enhancement, artifacting = a pleasing, natural image. Low light is very good indeed for a consumer camera.

Also, in cinema mode you can knock down the contrast and saturation for a flat look - good for colour correction, and not consumerish at all. I'm happy with my purchase.

In my opinion, the picture is much nicer than the Panny 700 I had last year, even if it's a fraction softer (actually, I wouldn't say soft, but natural). I really like this camera!

I haven't actually tested at infinity focus - I was checking out low light, indoors = very nice.

Place the camera's peaking mode to ON. Then change the peaking color to RED. Now, when you are making a wide shot, you can override the auto-focus by using the focus ring. The red peaking should be observed at the edges of your objects.

Just a short update. I did some more testing and I found that the sharpness problem mainly occurs if the focus is on infinity and the problem is more visible on wide angel shoots. Once zoomed in and the focus isn't set on infinity the picture is very sharp. I could add a H.264 video clip on my website if you would like to see it. In Vimeo its just too difficult to see.

I would be interested if this is a general problem with these cams (XA10 and XF100) or just with mine?

Josh - I think your pictures look sharp but I assume the focus isn't set to infinity?

Best
Andreas

Thanks a lot, I tried just that and it seems to focus just fine. At least I get fine peaking.

Maybe the cam is just as good as it gets, so I will keep it for now and work around its shortcomings. Since yesterday I have in addition the Canon 550D which I believe is called Rebel T2i in the US. With both together I hope to create some nice docs.

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.
Andreas