HF10 First Look

[Tony Parenti]

Did not like the purple fringing going on there. Seems to happen a lot on the HF10. The HV20/30 do not exhibit that much CA on high contrast objects. So, no viewfinder and substantial CA...... decisions decisions.

[Chris Hurd]

Not all fringing is Chromatic Aberration. CA is only one of several possible causes of purple fringing.

[Ken Ross]

Chris, first off thanks for the efforts in posting that clip. That .dmg file was very frustrating.

This is very dangerous to do, but I'll post my initial thoughts on how this one clip from the HF10 (and remember this is just ONE clip) compares to my experience with the Sony SR12 thus far. For baselining, I'm viewing these clips on a 60" Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma (1080p):

* The HF10 appears very detailed and at least in the same ballpark as the SR12. Without doing side by side A/Bs it's tough to say which is more detailed.

* The SR12 presents a cleaner image, the cleanest I've seen in any consumer HD camcorder. I can see a bit of noise in the sky on the HF10 clip but see absolutely none in the SR12 in good light such as this.

* I see the same blue skies leaning toward magenta in the HF10. I have the same issue with my HV20 at times. The Sony colors are more neutral and blue skies are rendered as a natural blue.

* I do see the purple fringing in the HF10 which I don't have in my HV20. It kind of looks like the issues that Canon has had in their prosumer HDV cams is filtering down to the consumer end, but to a lesser degree. But with that said, I don't find it objectionable and could probably live with it. I had about the same degree of CA in the Sony FX7 I once owned. In my FX7 it was a bit different and very predictable. Objects near the edges of the frame would tend to show it in some cases.

* I think the SR12 may do a bit better job with exposure. I'm basing this on parts of the clip where Austin is zooming and we get some blowout of highlights. Sony claims they have processing that minimizes this and it does seem to work from what I've seen.

* In terms of audio there is absolutely no comparison. The 5.1 DD on the Sony actually works. It creates an ambiance and directionality of sound that I've never had in any camcorder I've owned.

* I should also mention there is vitually no edge enhancement (thankfully) in the SR12. I think this is also helps contribute to the very low noise levels.

So yes, this is based on one HF10 clip vs. many I've shot with the SR12. With that said I'd still like to try the HF10 and see how it actually does size up in A/B tests with the new Sonys. Thus far I've been very impressed with the SR12 and I've owned an HV20 since it came out.

One thing is for sure, AVCHD has made some tremendous strides. You'd have to say they are at least as good as the best consumer HDV cams at this point.

[Brian W. Smith]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Austin (Texas) from Austin (Meyers): straight off the card at 106 megabytes in size.

http://dvinfo.net/media/canon/austin1.mts

I'll try to set up the 17 minute extended recording test tonight or first thing in the morning.

My machine: win xp, amd x2 4400+ s939, 4 gig, 2 CRT monitors.

I get some rolling shutter problems I think on the pan left/right under the bridge with Intervideo in .m2ts format (even pulling from my WD Raptor).

I converted to HDV 1280x720 60p 5000k/sec, in Pinnacle Studio plus and I don't see any more glitching 1/2-2/3 of the screen down in creative media player.

I bet I will see it on my laptop, and at work on the LCD screen there. Will look later.

I think the glitch/rolling shutter is a resource problem and/or monitor type issue.

* just replayed the original to take a screen shot of the glitch, and it isn't there anymore.. has to be resource problem.


My eye isn't trained enough for see these purple color problems, video looks great from here.

[Chris Hurd]

Macro test in Easy mode vs. Program AE

http://dvinfo.net/media/canon/frogmacroeasy.m2ts (65 MB)

and

http://dvinfo.net/media/canon/frogmacropae.m2ts (43 MB)

[Chris Hurd]

And just as I suspected, I can confirm for you now that yes there is a 2GB limit on file size.

[Aaron Courtney]

Thanks Chris. The real question now is did Canon append the transfer software to correctly stitch the files back to the orginal, contiguous clip?

[Chris Hurd]

The camcorder playback menu shows it as one clip, but my computer's file browser reveals it to be two 2GB .MTS files (this is still on the camera). Then the bundled Pixela software transfers it as one clip, and my computer's file browser sees it now as one very large 4GB clip (now an .M2TS file). Upon watching it I could not discern any jump in the stitch (not to say there isn't one, but I couldn't see it). Sorry, but I'm not going to upload this clip -- you guys will have to take my word for it! I'll try to post screenshots of my file browser window when able.

[Aaron Courtney]

Wow! The fact that the software transfers the two clips as one file is a very strong indication that Canon has corrected this problem.

Anyone willing to host or upload the Pixela disc image? I'd love to try this software with the HG10...

[Chris Hurd]

Sorry, the Pixela software cannot be redistributed without express permission from Canon Inc., which I don't think will happen. Therefore I cannot upload it, and I'll do my best to prevent any links to unauthorized redistributed copies from appearing on this site.

Here's the official site for Pixela: http://www.pixela.co.jp/oem/canon/e/

And the software installation guide: http://downloads.canon.com/cpr/softw...eMixer_web.pdf

[Dave Rosky]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Not sure about the HF10, but just to let you know the low light on the SD9 is absolutely abysmal.

If you have some experience with the SD9, would it be possible to expand a bit on this and give a hint as to the degree of abysmalness. I assume I probably couldn't shoot with the light of a 60W light bulb with an SD9, but what about a relatively well lit room - say typical living room size with 200-300 watts equivalent of light. Would it work in those conditions, or would I need to bring in 3000 watts of studio lighting to get a good picture?

Also, what is the nature of the image degradation - is it a large increase in noise? Is it just too dark? Is it overly aggressive NR?

I found a thread here that had some links to some Japanese and Chinese forums where there were some samples of SD9 footage. Some of the clips (the long one of the woman in particular) had some indoor scenes that didn't seem too bad, and there was an outdoor night scene posted that also didn't seem too terrible, so I'm curious where the threshold is in terms of light level.

I'm looking for an ultra-small and light cam to capture HD footage on backcountry trips, so the choice seems to be between the SD9 and HF10/100, with the HV20 as a possibility if neither of those works out; the SR12 looks interesting, but I haven't been considering cameras with an HDD because of the 10,000 foot altitude limitation.

Both the HF10 and SD9 seem to have good image quality in good light, so the main tradeoff seems to be that the HF10 has better low-light capability, and the SD9 has better image stabilization.

Thanks.

[Ken Ross]

Let me just say that those that saw my SD9's performance in low light agreed that it was the worst of any HD cam they had seen. It is that bad!

To say it gets soft is an understatement and I would not be exaggerating if I told you at times it took on a sub-VHS look. It's not a question of noise and it's apparent that Panasonic's design philosophy was to hide the noise and they did just that...but of course they took all the detail with it.

I returned the cam as quickly as I could once I saw that performance. In good light it was very nice, but it does have a fair amount of edge enhancement. So if you're sensitive to that, you will see some artifacts at times.

[Paulo Teixeira]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I returned the cam as quickly as I could once I saw that performance. In good light it was very nice, but it does have a fair amount of edge enhancement. So if you're sensitive to that, you will see some artifacts at times.

You mean you gave it back to your friend?
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...371#post836371

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Paulo Teixeira

You mean you gave it back to your friend?
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.ph...371#post836371

Yes indeed. He was going to let me have it for several weeks since he wasn't using it. After I saw the low light performance I couldn't get rid of it quick enough. In my eyes it was that bad and there was no point in wasting more time with it.

[Dave Rosky]

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Let me just say that those that saw my SD9's performance in low light agreed that it was the worst of any HD cam they had seen. It is that bad!

I returned the cam as quickly as I could once I saw that performance. In good light it was very nice, but it does have a fair amount of edge enhancement. So if you're sensitive to that, you will see some artifacts at times.

OK, thanks. It's a shame the low light performance is so bad, I was hoping it would be a perfect cam for taking climbing and skiing. Most of my shooting with it would be outdoors, so I don't need extreme low light performance, but the question is where is the threshold between good and bad, in terms of light level. For example I would like to be able to film at sunrise and sunset. It sounds like you may not have played with it long enough to get a feeling for that. Maybe I'll have to try to find one to look at in person.

I have noticed in sample clips that there is more edge enhancement than some other cams, but it didn't seem excessive - it would be nice if it had a sharpness adjustment, however. I was really looking forward to the OIS on the SD9, which most reviewers have indicated is the best around, since I hate carrying a tripod on backcountry trips.

Some clips I saw from the HF10 had more purple fringing than I would like, so maybe I'll just get an HV30 and put up with the extra .6 pounds of weight.