HV20 vs HG10

Chris Ames · August 1st, 2007, 12:14 PM

So which of these stores the video in a higher quality format? And does the HG10 do 24p?

Chris
http://dewde.com/videos

Adam Perry · August 1st, 2007, 01:20 PM

yes it does 24p. Still unclear how the pull down is addressed though. I know this one goes at a higher Mbps than other AVCHD cameras, but I still can't get a clear answer on whether its "better" than mpeg-2. From what I read, I tend to believe it is better, or will be better soon.

I'm gonna wait a couple years and let all the problems get ironed out before I go to AVCHD.

Chris Hurd · August 1st, 2007, 01:51 PM

I don't think you'd be able to see a visual "quality" difference between HDV and AVCHD with all other aspects of the camcorder pretty much the same (as they are between the HV20 and HG10). It's more a question of how established the HDV format is, and the relative ease with which you can edit, as opposed to how new the AVCHD format is and the level of NLE support it still needs to get.

So no, it's not a "quality" issue so much as it is a workflow issue.

Chris Ames · August 1st, 2007, 02:53 PM

Yikes. When I first read that Canon announced an HD *and* HDD camcorder I was thinking "CRAP!" because I just purchased the HV20 a month ago and I prefer a HDD over MiniDV.

But to hear that AVCHD is presently a more complicated workflow than HDV puts my mind at ease. I'm just now getting my sea legs with HDV and I'd hate to start over.

Also, it doesn't look like the HG10 has a focus wheel.

Adam Perry · August 1st, 2007, 03:08 PM

also, take into account that if you wanted to back up all that HDD footage, you would need a big external drive, or tons of DVDs. I'd prefer just archiving them on DV tapes that I don't tape over. that's a factor to me. I'll wait for the HV40 or 50, haha.

Nathan Shane · August 1st, 2007, 03:17 PM

I was trying to find all the stuff I read when first trying to determine if I wanted to go with the HV20 or one of the AVCHD cameras. But from what I read online, AVCHD as it currently is implemented was actually a slightly more inferior video quality format. Perhaps others have read differently - but I could have swore there were some articles about this showing still capture examples on some websites. I just can't find those websites at this moment. I say "as it's currently implemented" because one article I read said that the codecs used for AVCHD could always be tweaked and improved for better quality. But there were some other technical issues at work as well, but I'm drawing a blank here.

Chris Hurd · August 1st, 2007, 03:22 PM

Well, a good test for that will be to directly compare the HV20 against the HG10 (when it becomes available), since they share the same optics, the same sensor and the same processor. You'd have an ideal "all other factors equal" baseline with which to pit AVCHD against HDV.

Chris Ames · August 1st, 2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Perry

also, take into account that if you wanted to back up all that HDD footage, you would need a big external drive, or tons of DVDs. I'd prefer just archiving them on DV tapes that I don't tape over. that's a factor to me. I'll wait for the HV40 or 50, haha.

That's not so much of an issue for me. Tapes are nice as a pre-archive... don't get me wrong. But I have a 1 TB MyBook set to Raid 1 (mirror). And I plan to just keep adding more of those as I need the archive storage.

Chris Ames · August 1st, 2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Well, a good test for that will be to directly compare the HV20 against the HG10 (when it becomes available), since they share the same optics, the same sensor and the same processor. You'd have an ideal "all other factors equal" baseline with which to pit AVCHD against HDV.

Excellent point, Chris! I can't wait to see the results.

Steve Royer · August 1st, 2007, 04:07 PM

I agree, storage isn't an issue really with hard drives getting cheaper and cheaper... not to mention burning to a disc. I also don't want to save every single thing I film.

I hate to wait until October to see some comparisons between this and the HV20 though :( !

I suppose if I saw a short film made with AVCHD that was good enough for film festivals (or HD displays) I'd be totally sold. There's just not enough examples online of footage that's been through highly skilled hands, because pros just spend more money on higher end cameras. I understand that it'd take a lot of post production to doctor AVCHD's image, but if it can be done it seems like the easiest workflow to stay completely digital. With the new era of internet filmmakers and shows like On the Lot, I hope that the consumer HD cameras get the attention they deserve for the budget filmmaker.

Chris Barcellos · August 1st, 2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Ames

That's not so much of an issue for me. Tapes are nice as a pre-archive... don't get me wrong. But I have a 1 TB MyBook set to Raid 1 (mirror). And I plan to just keep adding more of those as I need the archive storage.

I have a about a terabyte of space over three or four drives right now, all with different projects on them, and space is getting pretty low.... With an hour running a about 13 gig in HDV, and things like the Cineform intermediate over 30 gigs an hour to do decent editing, your 1 terabyte will disappear very fast if you are doing any kind of volume at all.

Luc Fender · August 1st, 2007, 05:18 PM

Well it compresses at 15Mbps instead of 25MBps so in theory you could see inferior image in fast moving scenes (i.e. waterfall). 15Mbits though is not bad and at least better than the 12Mbps in some previous models.

I do see one potential huge improvement though and that is sound quality. In theory you shouldn't hear that tape motor... Unless it's a noisy HDD....
I do wonder why Canon (neither does Sony) doesn't offer also recordings to flash drive. I noticed the HV20 is very quiet if you remove the tape...

In my case it was an easy decision as I still needed to convert my old DVD mini-dv tapes.

Adam Perry · August 2nd, 2007, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

I have a about a terabyte of space over three or four drives right now, all with different projects on them, and space is getting pretty low.... With an hour running a about 13 gig in HDV, and things like the Cineform intermediate over 30 gigs an hour to do decent editing, your 1 terabyte will disappear very fast if you are doing any kind of volume at all.

Thats exactly what i was thinking. With the cineform codecs, i could fill up a terabyte drive every couple months. i guess it comes down to the volume of material you shoot.

Lawrence Bansbach · August 2nd, 2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luc Fender

Well it compresses at 15Mbps instead of 25MBps so in theory you could see inferior image in fast moving scenes (i.e. waterfall).

Not necessarily -- you're comparing apples to oranges. H.264 is purportedly a more efficient codec than MPEG-2.

Quote:

15Mbits though is not bad and at least better than the 12Mbps in some previous models.

The higher data rate might have been intended to accommodate the HG10's greater horizontal resolution (1,920 vs 1,440).

Chris Hurd · August 2nd, 2007, 07:32 AM

It should be clearly understood that a simple examination of just the bit rate itself, i.e. 25mbps vs. 15mbps, is not a valid comparison. Far too many people seem to think that bit rate equals image quality, and that a higher bit rate is somehow "better." It is not. As Lawrence points out above, quality is determined by the efficiency of the codec, and it's entirely possible for a lower bit rate of one codec to produce a better image than the higher bit rate of another codec.

Lawrence said it best: H.264 is purportedly a more efficient codec than MPEG-2. And yes, AVCHD to HDV is very much an apples-to-oranges comparison.

August 1st, 2007, 12:14 PM	#1
Chris Ames Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 48	HV20 vs HG10 - Video quality? So which of these stores the video in a higher quality format? And does the HG10 do 24p? Chris http://dewde.com/videos

August 1st, 2007, 01:51 PM	#3
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I don't think you'd be able to see a visual "quality" difference between HDV and AVCHD with all other aspects of the camcorder pretty much the same (as they are between the HV20 and HG10). It's more a question of how established the HDV format is, and the relative ease with which you can edit, as opposed to how new the AVCHD format is and the level of NLE support it still needs to get. So no, it's not a "quality" issue so much as it is a workflow issue. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 1st, 2007, 03:22 PM	#7
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Well, a good test for that will be to directly compare the HV20 against the HG10 (when it becomes available), since they share the same optics, the same sensor and the same processor. You'd have an ideal "all other factors equal" baseline with which to pit AVCHD against HDV. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 2nd, 2007, 07:32 AM	#15
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	It should be clearly understood that a simple examination of just the bit rate itself, i.e. 25mbps vs. 15mbps, is not a valid comparison. Far too many people seem to think that bit rate equals image quality, and that a higher bit rate is somehow "better." It is not. As Lawrence points out above, quality is determined by the efficiency of the codec, and it's entirely possible for a lower bit rate of one codec to produce a better image than the higher bit rate of another codec. Lawrence said it best: H.264 is purportedly a more efficient codec than MPEG-2. And yes, AVCHD to HDV is very much an apples-to-oranges comparison. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 1st, 2007, 01:20 PM	#2
Adam Perry Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 77	yes it does 24p. Still unclear how the pull down is addressed though. I know this one goes at a higher Mbps than other AVCHD cameras, but I still can't get a clear answer on whether its "better" than mpeg-2. From what I read, I tend to believe it is better, or will be better soon. I'm gonna wait a couple years and let all the problems get ironed out before I go to AVCHD.

August 1st, 2007, 02:53 PM	#4
Chris Ames Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 48	Yikes. When I first read that Canon announced an HD and HDD camcorder I was thinking "CRAP!" because I just purchased the HV20 a month ago and I prefer a HDD over MiniDV. But to hear that AVCHD is presently a more complicated workflow than HDV puts my mind at ease. I'm just now getting my sea legs with HDV and I'd hate to start over. Also, it doesn't look like the HG10 has a focus wheel.

August 1st, 2007, 03:08 PM	#5
Adam Perry Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lancaster, PA Posts: 77	also, take into account that if you wanted to back up all that HDD footage, you would need a big external drive, or tons of DVDs. I'd prefer just archiving them on DV tapes that I don't tape over. that's a factor to me. I'll wait for the HV40 or 50, haha.

August 1st, 2007, 03:17 PM	#6
Nathan Shane Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: Addison, Texas Posts: 178	I was trying to find all the stuff I read when first trying to determine if I wanted to go with the HV20 or one of the AVCHD cameras. But from what I read online, AVCHD as it currently is implemented was actually a slightly more inferior video quality format. Perhaps others have read differently - but I could have swore there were some articles about this showing still capture examples on some websites. I just can't find those websites at this moment. I say "as it's currently implemented" because one article I read said that the codecs used for AVCHD could always be tweaked and improved for better quality. But there were some other technical issues at work as well, but I'm drawing a blank here.

August 1st, 2007, 04:07 PM	#10
Steve Royer Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 38	I agree, storage isn't an issue really with hard drives getting cheaper and cheaper... not to mention burning to a disc. I also don't want to save every single thing I film. I hate to wait until October to see some comparisons between this and the HV20 though :( ! I suppose if I saw a short film made with AVCHD that was good enough for film festivals (or HD displays) I'd be totally sold. There's just not enough examples online of footage that's been through highly skilled hands, because pros just spend more money on higher end cameras. I understand that it'd take a lot of post production to doctor AVCHD's image, but if it can be done it seems like the easiest workflow to stay completely digital. With the new era of internet filmmakers and shows like On the Lot, I hope that the consumer HD cameras get the attention they deserve for the budget filmmaker.

August 1st, 2007, 05:18 PM	#12
Luc Fender Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 61	Well it compresses at 15Mbps instead of 25MBps so in theory you could see inferior image in fast moving scenes (i.e. waterfall). 15Mbits though is not bad and at least better than the 12Mbps in some previous models. I do see one potential huge improvement though and that is sound quality. In theory you shouldn't hear that tape motor... Unless it's a noisy HDD.... I do wonder why Canon (neither does Sony) doesn't offer also recordings to flash drive. I noticed the HV20 is very quiet if you remove the tape... In my case it was an easy decision as I still needed to convert my old DVD mini-dv tapes.