Hands on the new Canon HF11

[Chippe Wallace]

Ken,

Thanks, I guess I have my answers. It would be nice to step down in size for my vacations.
I guess the HF100 is a good choice since HF11 doesn't seem to improve very much.

[Dave Blackhurst]

FWIW, looked at the clip frame by frame, and there was enough movement between frames to induce a pretty significant "jump" from frame to frame, and run at "real time" it was pretty bad, so it's not just your eyes... you can relax <wink>! It was almost painful.

I've looked at clips shot with my SR11 (60i), and didn't see similar issues. Some motion blur, but it was blur, not "jump"...

You'd either have to pan slowly so the "jump" is not so noticeable, or bump frame rates. I'd also suspect that if you could maintain a shallow DoF so there was less "stuff" in the frame to deal with, you'd have better results - these little cams have a pretty deep DoF, so that certainly doesn't help things...

[Seun Osewa]

blur versus "jump" is a function of frame rate (60i/30p) and shutter speed, not camera.

[Chippe Wallace]

Dave,
You're right about the DOF.

Suen,
Very true. Don't forget my clip is in 50i although it was shot indoors it's still pretty bright. If we skip all these common reasons it's still a litle too "jerky" imo. Im also aware that everything is so much more significant in HD.

Thanks for all the comments.
I'll stop talking about it now, atleast in this thread :-)

[Brent Ethington]

Thanks Chris & Austin for the effort on this!

Chris - you raised a number of questions in your article, do you plan to add your impressions/thoughts as to how you see the answers? Would be great if you did

[Lorenzo Asso]

Chris,

i can't download this http://www.dvinfo.net/media/canon/hf11/ i obtain "access forbidden".

and i can't see in your review same footages did by hv20 to have a comparison. It's me I'm not seeing or do you have to upload yet?

Some considerations: i see feelings about this 24mbit of Hf11 are lower than the expectations and the improvement is hard to see. Maybe the reasons can be:

- size sensor of 3.2 is the limit and doesn't permit the scalability that characterizes h264 compression. So 17mbit are enough to h264 to "saturate" the sensor in the 90% of conditions. I mean that, if other conditions are equal, h264 is so efficient that needs architectural improvements to overwork the extra bitrate...

- you can see the improvement exclusively in fast motion (as fast panning or similar) or in very complex scenes...and seeing them on big plasma or on smaller monitor enlarging the image...

PS i give you my congratulations for the choose of test condition: infact the "water proof" in one of harder test to try a codec (in particular an inter-frame compression...).

ciao!

[Bruce Morgan]

We primarly shot 35mm film
But we do special effects shots in digital for quick refrence work .
We do try to get the most out of these consumer cameras and they are generally impressive
I am almost ready to buy an hf 11 .We presently use a canon hv 20 on our 35mm filmed prductions as a quick refrence footage for our post effect department .
I like the hf 11 stated features -
however
as a buyer of the hf 11 am i about to get into the typical problem where
solid state out board memory cards are as expensive as this prosumer -consumer camera ?
Is thsi really the case or does the camera have good on board memory at hi rez?
with the canon hv 20 we only need to buy more tape .
We are trying get the highest resolution video image with some mionimal color space .
Thanks for a reply
Regards
Bruce

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Lorenzo Asso

i can't download this http://www.dvinfo.net/media/canon/hf11/ i obtain "access forbidden".

Sorry about that -- I'll try to get this resolved in a day or two.

Originally Posted by Bruce Morgan

as a buyer of the hf 11 am i about to get into the typical problem where solid state out board memory cards are as expensive as this prosumer -consumer camera ? Is thsi really the case or does the camera have good on board memory at hi rez?

Bruce, I'm not sure if I understand your question, but here goes...

The built-in flash memory is certainly good enough for full-resolution 24mbps video.

These days, SDHC cards are cheaper than dirt. You'll need a Class 4 or Class 6 card for full-resolution 24mbps video. They are laughably affordable. They are practically being given away. They are so incredibly common as to be ubiquitous. And they pay for themselves in no time. Hope this helps,

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Seun Osewa

blur versus "jump" is a function of frame rate (60i/30p) and shutter speed, not camera.

This is a myth that keeps being repeated. Yes, shutter-speed in relation to frame rate determines the amount of "judder" that is present. However, HOW it is SEEN is dependent on 5 more factors:

1) The way the edges of objects are "represented." Film, with it's very high resolution can display an edge, even a "sharp" edge, as the edge -- no more and no less. Expensive HD camcorders can do almost the same because they have a flat frequency response from DC out to the limit needed for recorded resolution (typically 1440-pixels).

Inexpensive cameras do not actually capture the detail you are lead by marketing to expect. The lens has a very low MTF -- compared to the $20,000 HD lens -- which means fine detail never makes it to the CMOS. Although the CMOS may have what sounds like high resolution, by the time the luminance is obtained by debayering RGB from the chip -- actual fine detail is lost.

In order to make the image look good, the mid-frequencies which carry EDGE DETAIL are boosted to a point just before where ringing starts. (Ringing makes the awful double edge that is called Edge Enhancement.) So now SHARPNESS is carried by the edges of objects -- not by fine detail.

You now have HARD edges, which the eye perceives TOO WELL. You now see the edges jump rather than see a scene with motion. In audio terms, you hear the singer pushed toward you and no longer part of the orchestra. Too much mid-frequency boost.

Note the BALANCE between lens and sensor resolution can be upset when three 1920x1080 chips are placed behind a prosumer class lens. This is why 24p judder can be seen on the EX1, but won't be seen on a $75,000 CineAlta. Or, a CineAlta with prime lenes. It's also why Panasonic DVCPRO HD Varicam wins praise from filmmakers. A high MTF lens passes information down to a relatively low rez recording format. And, no boost is used.

2) Real HD cameras have 2/3" sensors which minimize DOF. Our HD camcorders have tiny chips that cannot blur-out the background. So the background edges are easily seen thereby giving the eye extra information about edge movement. And, when video shooters don't pan WITH a moving subject -- the subject edges stand-out. The same thing happens when we pan at the wrong speed.

3) Larry Thorp, "inventor" of the CineAlta camera, adds a third variable: screen brightness. Unless you are a real videophile, you set your HDTV to a VERY high brightness. The higher the brightness, the more the edges stand-out and are perceived. In a movie theater, brightness is controlled.

4) To this I'll add that inexpensive cameras also try to create apparent sharpness by setting gamma to give a bit of extra contrast. Extra contrast hardens edges making them EZ for the eye to lock on. The expensive cameras have operators who know how to set gamma.

5) Most ALL monitors cannot pass through the full bandwidth need for 1920x1080. So once again, mid-frequencies are boosted to create apparent sharpness. And, once again -- edges are further hardened making them more visible. And, I'll bet the vast majority of HDTV owners have never calibrated their units and are running Sharpness at 50%. The correct value -- depending on the set's design, is ZERO to about 15%. So, HOW we watch can affect our perception of judder.

Bottom-line -- there is a reason why film and expensive HD cameras are used when "pros" need the frame rate to be 24p. And, there is a reason why VIDEO has almost always been shot at 50i/60i. Simply dialing in 24p and 1/48th doesn't turn any of our cheap cameras into film cameras.

[Rob O'Day]

Nicely put.

I'm stuck between choosing:
HV30/HF100/HF11

Sometimes shoot the camera solo (monopod/glidecam) when Im at track days, but when Im working on more serious stuff I use my Brevis35 - previously with the HV20.

I want to use the solid state recorders as its soo much more convenient, especially when I'm in racecars but if the image quality isn't on par with my old HV20, not sure what to do?
Need to purchase within a week really.

[Lorenzo Asso]

don't worry about quality...hf100/11 are equal or better than hdv...

look for example at my footage since i'm testing my hf100:
-> [Canon HF10/100 AVCHD] Topic Ufficiale - Videomakers.net

in the second post of gannjunior (it's me!!) you can download some videos...i'm updating it very often...in the next days i'll post other videos...

ciao!

[Rob O'Day]

Nice one, I'm just checking out your link now :)
I've decided I'm going to test out the HF11 to see what I think.
:)
Will head out in the AMG Black first (as it gave the old HV20 problems), and see how it copes.

[Rob O'Day]

My HF11 should arrive today or tomorrow, will try and perform some tests and I'll start a new thread for it.
(I have 7 days to trial it)

[Henry Corrilan]

my HF11 is also arriving tomorrow, according to UPS tracking status... :)

the reason I'm replying is that your location is listed as the UK.

If I take my US HF11 to the UK(or other EU countries), will I be able to plug
it into the HDTVs over there, using HDMI, and watch the footage in the
original high-def shot in 24p or 30p? (and vice versa, for UK HF11s on US HDTVs)



Thanks! :)

[Rob O'Day]

Hi,

Well, I'm still waiting for my one to arrive, seems Canon have been very slow at getting them out across the UK :(
But to answer your question, yep you'll be able to hook it up.