Canon VIXIA HF10 and HF100 flash memory HD cams
 

Canon announced five (5) flash memory camcorders today -- it's a little confusing, so here's the breakdown:

VIXIA HF10 (HD, black) -- $1099 / 16GB internal flash plus SDHC card / AVCHD at 1920 / 12x 3.3mp CMOS / Mic input, manual audio

VIXIA HF100 (HD, silver) -- $899 / SDHC card only / AVCHD at 1920 / 12x 3.3mp CMOS / Mic input, manual audio

FS11 (SD, gray) -- $599 / 16GB internal flash plus SDHC card / 48x 1.07mp CCD / Mic input

FS10 (SD, silver) -- $499 / 8GB internal flash plus SDHC card / 48x 1.07mp CCD / Mic input

FS100 (SD, choice of silver, blue, or red) -- $399 / SDHC card only / 48x 1.07mp CCD / Mic input

Basically you can choose between HD or SD, and dual memory recording (internal flash plus card) or SDHC card only. All of them have a mic input jack. The HF series has a new Mini-AAS jack (Advanced Accessory Shoe) hidden under a plastic tab at the top rear of the body, where you would expect to find an EVF.

VIXIA HF10 pics... click to see 'em big...

VIXIA HF100 pics... click to see 'em big...

FS series pics... click to see 'em big...

Mic inputs even on the lowest end! Wonder if they have HDMI out.

"new Mini-AAS jack (Advanced Accessory Shoe)"

Is this a proprietary plug to Canon?

I'm a little confused; I understood that the AVCHD spec provides for 1080i capture. But the Canon press release about the new VIXIA line says "the VIXIA HF10 Dual Flash Memory and HF100 Flash Memory camcorders offer a new feature called 30p Progressive Mode." Will this 30p capture still have full 1080 x 1920 resolution? If so, what bit rate will be required to deliver that much data? Or do 30p and 60i end up having the same bit rate, just captured differently?

I'd like to know what the maximum bitrates are for the HF10 and HF100.

Same bit rate. Although it's higher than it used to be on other Canon AVCHD camcorders; now 17Mbps to allow Full HD (1920) recording. But 30p and 60i are the same amount of data. For Wes... yes to HDMI output and yes the new Mini AAS jack is a proprietary connection. There will be a new external microphone, the DM-100, to fit in this accessory shoe.

One would think that 1080 30p and 1080 60i would require the same bitrate (Chris beat me to the post). I'd guess the 30p would just be recorded in a 60i AVCHD stream, you just wouldn't really notice because of the lack of pull down.

Since HDV recording to tape uses 25Mb/s bitrate, I suppose AVCHD is using more compression.

I could see some consumer confusion developing over the lovely marketing claim of "Full HD Lens-to-Screen (1920 x 1080 Full HD resolution to capture, record and output)" for the AVCHD camcorders, while the tape-based camcorders actually have a higher bitrate. The final image is what counts, so I guess we'll just have to wait for test results from actual hardware.

I'm probably in the extreme minority here but is it a crazy idea to have one of these cameras scale the captured image 50% to 960x540 and use the entire bitrate that would have been used for the 1080p video on the downsized video.

Not really good for marketing but when I scale my HV20 video to 960x540 and play it on an HDTV, sit back on the couch a proper distance I can't tell the difference between that and the 1080p. For personal use I'd love a tiny SD camcorder that records 960x540 60p.

Just a crazy idea.

And do these cameras process the image at 1440 and blow it back up to 1920 before writing to the card? Not saying that's what's happening but would it be so surprising if it was? And if so then wouldn't capturing 1920 just use extra compression bandwidth and basically just be for marketing purposes.

That's not so crazy. Count me in as wanting 60p capture in a prosumer camcorder, even at some sacrifice of resolution. It ought to be possible at 720 horizontal lines, without the bitrate being too high.

Out of interest, Where did you read that?

I think I'm more interested in the HF10 than the HV30, but as I need a camcorder very soon I'll most likely buy a HV20 then go for the HF10 in the future- If I feel I need it.

I try hard to stress to folks who come to this site that bit rate is *not* the arbiter of image quality. The efficiency of the codec is what matters. You can get a *better* looking image from a *lower* bit rate provided the processing of that codec is more efficient. Don't get caught in the numbers trap. And you are quite right, of course, the proof will be in the final image.

One cannot logically compare bit rates between HDV and AVCHD as they are two different formats.