Assessment of the HF10 vs the SR12

[Dave Blackhurst]

The more I work with the camera, the better I like it overall, and I guess the most important comparison of stills would be against any other video cam out there... and in that respect this is "the best", at least for now!

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

The more I work with the camera, the better I like it overall, and I guess the most important comparison of stills would be against any other video cam out there... and in that respect this is "the best", at least for now!

Yeah Dave, if you had seen the stills I captured from my HF10 before I sold it, you'd realize how on the mark you are.

[Mario Salazar]

I don't know why my findings are different but in comparing the SR12 to the HF100 (I got both in a store that allows 5 days no restocking) the canon is a lot less noisy in low light when using cine mode at 60i. In these conditions, the 30i and 24p studder, and the motion is nowhere near as good. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I don't think so. The SR12 does keep focus a little better. I will let you know more results I get them.

Regards,
Mario

[Ken Ross]

Mario, I'm not sure what the Canon does in cinemode, but when I tried it I didn't care for the results (I only tried it outdoors, not under low light conditions). It really flattens out the contrast, even though IMO the HF10 contrast is too high at default. I also saw a loss of detail in cinemode, so it could be this loss of detail that's resulting in less noise in low light.

[Dave Rosky]

Originally Posted by Mario Salazar

I don't know why my findings are different but in comparing the SR12 to the HF100 (I got both in a store that allows 5 days no restocking) the canon is a lot less noisy in low light when using cine mode at 60i. In these conditions, the 30i and 24p studder, and the motion is nowhere near as good. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I don't think so. The SR12 does keep focus a little better. I will let you know more results I get them.

Regards,
Mario

I've still been looking at camcorders in stores (still haven't been able to see an HF10/100 yet), and to me the biggest problem these cameras have in low light is that they try as hard as they can to make a dark scene look like a bright scene, which isn't really what your eye sees. They don't modify their exposure strategy in dark settings, they just try to make the average scene 18% gray like they do in normal lighting. To do this, they have to boost the signal quite a bit, which amplifies noise along with the signal.

All of these cameras have similar pixel sizes (within 20-30% or so). Cameras differ in their processing, but you can't get around physics, so you either get an image with less noise but the low contrast detail has been removed, or an image with the noise passed through but where the noise is bigger than the low contrast detail anyway.

I haven't been able to see one yet, but what the Canon might be doing in Cine mode, is modifying the exposure so that a dark scene actually looks dark on the video, as it was to your eyes. The scene will look dark, as it was in reality, but there will also be less amplification of noise.

[Mario Salazar]

I have not tried Cine in day time yet. Will do so today and probably report back tuesday night (Finals are killing me). I will also review what I have shot. Dave you may be right. Ken you may also be right. There is still much to review. I wish I had more time to do so.

Until then...
Regards,
Mario

[Luke Maguire]

Originally Posted by Mario Salazar

I have not tried Cine in day time yet. Will do so today and probably report back tuesday night (Finals are killing me). I will also review what I have shot. Dave you may be right. Ken you may also be right. There is still much to review. I wish I had more time to do so.

Until then...
Regards,
Mario

See here a video on vimeo using cinemode in low-light: http://vimeo.com/897818

And here's one with cinemode in daylight (60i):

http://vimeo.com/871449

[Dave Rosky]

Originally Posted by Luke Maguire

See here a video on vimeo using cinemode in low-light: http://vimeo.com/897818

And here's one with cinemode in daylight (60i):

http://vimeo.com/871449

Unfortunately, there is no clip of the same low light scene in normal mode to compare, but the low light scene shot in cine mode does indeed look as if was exposed in such a way that the camera did not try to brighten it up as they normally seem to do. The scene actually *looks* dark, as it probably did in real life. The darkness of the scene might not match everybody's tastes, but it probably did help keep the noise down by not gaining up as much.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Rosky

Unfortunately, there is no clip of the same low light scene in normal mode to compare, but the low light scene shot in cine mode does indeed look as if was exposed in such a way that the camera did not try to brighten it up as they normally seem to do. The scene actually *looks* dark, as it probably did in real life. The darkness of the scene might not match everybody's tastes, but it probably did help keep the noise down by not gaining up as much.

I agree Dave. You can get this same effect by reducing the exposure on the SR12 or with some cameras where gain is accessible, reducing gain. I hate the 'hyped' look that some of these cameras give you by artifically upping contrast & brightness.

[Luke Maguire]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I agree Dave. You can get this same effect by reducing the exposure on the SR12 or with some cameras where gain is accessible, reducing gain. I hate the 'hyped' look that some of these cameras give you by artifically upping contrast & brightness.

The effect is achieved using a progressive frame rate (and since the frame rate is lower you get better exposure). The cinemode makes sure the gain is not cranked up.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Luke Maguire

The effect is achieved using a progressive frame rate (and since the frame rate is lower you get better exposure). The cinemode makes sure the gain is not cranked up.

But with the side effect of stuttering motion. You can achieve this too with the color slow shutter of the Sony which also brightens the scene but at the cost of smooth motion.

Hey Luc, did you move from Washington to Phoenix? ;)

[Mario Salazar]

I must be in Bizzaro world because my finding seem to differ from what I have read and seen on other sites. I did some daytime trials. The photograph of either do not impress me, but that is not what I am using this for. The HF10 seems to IS a bit better to me, but its colors are all out of wack. It flattened greens and made my cherry hedge look like it had christmas lights instead of the little cherries, i.e. the reds where incredibly pronounced, unnaturally so.

The SR12 took more realistic video that looked like real life, the cannon not so much. A very flat look indeed in the green spectrum and the reds were HOT! I will try to turn the gain down on the sony and test it out if I have a chance.

Unfortunately I don't know if the price difference justifies the sony. I got the HF100 for $668 at a B&M store around here. I could not believe it. The Sony SR12 was $1150!!!! I know I can get it cheaper elsewhere but I have credit at this place and I have until January to pay it off, so I think I will go to this place to make my purchase. I want to check out the HV30 to see how it compares. Next trial, trying to render this crap and watch it on my AMD64 3300 with 3 gigs of memory and a X1600pro. Wish me luck! ;-(

Regards,
Mario

[Dave Rosky]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I agree Dave. You can get this same effect by reducing the exposure on the SR12 or with some cameras where gain is accessible, reducing gain. I hate the 'hyped' look that some of these cameras give you by artifically upping contrast & brightness.

Yes, you can always achieve that using manual exposure or AE shift.

In bright lighting, the eye does compensate for different average illumination levels, but it also has a sense of absolute brightness at low levels of illumination and there is a point where a scene is dark enough that it actually *looks* dark to the eye. Most of the time, I like to capture that feeling in the image.

Auto exposure systems in still cameras have the same issue - they try to make every scene 18% gray - I usually have to compensate the exposure in dark settings if I want the photo to have the feeling of the original dark scene.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Mario -
No surprise for me on the "hot" reds with Canon - I saw it with my HV20, and I've seen it more than once with Canon cameras. SR11 seems to have one of the best and most natural color balances around, even better than the 7 series, which was pretty faithful on colors that usually seem to get "altered".

I almost always set AE shift a couple clicks to the minus side, although using the exposure function via the control wheel has been working well too. Zebras often show this to be needed for "best" exposure anyway. While this is somewhat limited manual control, you can get used to it and make it work well under most conditions.

That's a nice price on the HF, but I'll bet you'll end up with the Sony <wink>.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Mario Salazar

The HF10 seems to IS a bit better to me, but its colors are all out of wack. Regards,
Mario

Mario, if you're shooting at the highest resolution (which is much higher on the Sony), you should be getting both a sharper picture and better colors. We certainly are in agreement on the colors of the Canon...very weird at times.

Edit: OK, I see you were talking about the image stabilization. As a sidenote, it's kind of weird there seems to be no way to delete a post.