XF100 first impressions

[peterarcson]

Incredibly well built, amazing picture quality (still dialing the settings), great ergonomics, IR is amazing. The best bang for the buck right now on the market. I am VERY glad I sold my JVC GY-HM100 and bought this one. In comparison HM100, HMC-40 from Panasonic look like amateur versions and can't compare to this one. The amount of adjustments for picture profile is the same as on XF300. Auto ND is kind of hard to get used to, but that is the only draw back I noticed so far. LCD is good enough to get critical focus and WFM is also great of achieving correct exposure. Getting footage into FCP is no problem. Over all a big A for over all grade.

[zagnut]

You just had to rub it in didn't you? Congrats! I'm still curious how it compares to the HMC-150.

[cgbier]

http://www.spassbahner.com/newforum/wcf/images/smilies/sabber2.gif

[BMark]

Have you had a chance to use the digital tele-converter in the various modes (1.5, 3, and 6x)? If so, how's the picture quality? I haven't read any comments about this feature yet. I have the HFS100 and with the oversized sensor I don't see any loss in picture quality when I shift into 1.7x tele-converter mode. For me this helps to overcome the limited zoom range.

[cgbier]

I don't know how much more zoom you need, but I do some 130% magnification from an HV30 without much loss in post.

[peterarcson]

You just had to rub it in didn't you? Congrats! I'm still curious how it compares to the HMC-150.
Let's put it this way, I ordered HMC 150 some time ago and returned it after a day. Calling that camera an HD is a friggin joke! The CCD block tops off at whopping 960x540! No wonder the picture is as soft as baby's butt. Actually I had footage better looking from DVX100 and InstantHD.
No, this is 1080 native, no pixel shift bs. It has the same adjustment for picture profile as 300/305 series. But honetly HMC150 would a waste of your money at the moment.

[cgbier]

How does the Canon CMOS hold up against the JVC's CCD in regards to rolling shutter and jello? Any experience with that stuff yet?

[Timbit]

http://www.spassbahner.com/newforum/wcf/images/smilies/sabber2.gif
I feel like CG.

[racer-x]

How does the Canon CMOS hold up against the JVC's CCD in regards to rolling shutter and jello? Any experience with that stuff yet?

I would guess that any CMOS sensor camera will suffer this trait, regardless of expense. The slower the shutter speed, the more obvious the "jello effect" will be seen during panning or movement. That's just the nature of the beast.........

[peterarcson]

How does the Canon CMOS hold up against the JVC's CCD in regards to rolling shutter and jello? Any experience with that stuff yet?
Are you comparing to HM100? I used to own HM100 and HD100, which looking back are crap compared to the new XF100. CCD light sensitivity is low compared to CMOS. Rolling shutter issue is way overblown in these cameras. I also owned EX1 and never had an issue with it.

[peterarcson]

Judge the picture yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_5m-pdYAM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H0Q_Gp3T-M
BTW on the second video there were only four 50W bulbs overhead and 2 in the kitchen, ZERO gain, 1/48 shutter!

[racer-x]

Picture quality seams decent. I'll chalk up the poor compression to your FCP and youtube encoding.

You don't have any fast pans in your shots, so "Rolling Shutter Effect" can't be seen in your examples.

[drapeama]

Picture quality seams decent. I'll chalk up the poor compression to your FCP and youtube encoding.
You don't have any fast pans in your shots, so "Rolling Shutter Effect" can't be seen in your examples.
1) You can always render a small video with a decent encoding and upload it to the hv20.info or another file hosting website, so we'll see it better.
2) Sure if you don't have any fast move in it, then rolling shutter isn't visible. You should render a small clip with some fast movement and do like above.

[peterarcson]

You can download native file there.

http://vimeo.com/22111280

[racer-x]

That's not the native file...the MOV is the intermediate your MAC converted the native file to. Man, I hate MACs. It took a while to find a tool on my PC to read your MOV (which is using xd5d codec)........

Anyway the footage looks great. That was an excellent shot.

**Edit**** After taking a frame grab from your MOV, I noticed the frame is not a full 1920 x 1080, but it is slightly letterboxed. I'm assuming this is a MAC thing and has nothing to do with the raw footage. Here is the frame grab:

[peterarcson]

I hate when people fly off the handle and even don't know what they are talking about. Yes it is native file. MOV or .MXF are just containers. The codec is MPEG long GOP 50Mbs XDCAM 422 and it exactly what you are downloading. The reason you had hard time reading the file is because you don't have QT PRO version, which is required.

[zagnut]

I hate when people fly off the handle and even don't know what they are talking about.

Me too!


Yes it is native file. MOV or .MXF are just containers.

Technically it isn't the native file. I'm assuming you chose "native" and used Log & Transfer in FCP, which will just re-wrap the file in a .MOV container. However it isn't an untouched file anymore, hence not technically native. But that's just nitpicking.


The codec is MPEG long GOP 50Mbs XDCAM 422...

You Mac guys will believe anything your computers tell you. It is not XDCAM, despite what your precious Mac tells you. Canon would never license a codec from Sony.

At 1:08 in the video below, Tim Smith of Canon specifically refers to the XF300/305's codec (same as the XF100 and XF105) as, "we're using a whole brand new codec that was developed specifically for this camera by Canon".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73ZriWPQW3s

Sorry, but I would tend to believe the people that made the camera.

[cgbier]

XDCAM isn't a codec either. It is only the name of a product line. There are (depending on the camera) several codices used. In this case it is MPEG HD422.

[racer-x]

Yes it is native file. MOV or .MXF are just containers.

So are you saying the letterboxing in your MOV is present in the original footage as shot by the camera?

[drapeama]

You Mac guys will believe anything your computers tell you. It is not XDCAM, despite what your precious Mac tells you. Canon would never license a codec from Sony.
Wikipedia XDCAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XDCAM): XDCAM is a a series of products for video recording using nonlinear media, introduced by Sony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony) in 2003. Four different product lines — the XDCAM SD, XDCAM HD, XDCAM EX and XDCAM HD422 — differ in types of encoder used, frame size, container type and in recording media.
So, it's probably close in the specs, but certainly not XDCAM.

So are you saying the letterboxing in your MOV is present in the original footage as shot by the camera?

It's probably more when exporting. But how did that happen if he exported the same resolution as the input? Even when downscaling to 720p. Software thing. I doubt the camera sensor would "crop" the picture directly.

[peterarcson]

**Edit**** After taking a frame grab from your MOV, I noticed the frame is not a full 1920 x 1080, but it is slightly letterboxed. I'm assuming this is a MAC thing and has nothing to do with the raw footage. Here is the frame grab:
Honestly I don't see what you are talking about. The aspect ratio for shooting is 1.75:1. For some reason Canon doesn't have option for straight 16x9 (which is 1.777:1), but has 4:3, 13:9 14:9 and then 1.66, 1.75, 1.85 and 2.35. The footage was exported as 1920x1080. I downloaded my file myself last night and it might be again lack of QTpro on your PC that causes some weird cropping issue. When I looked at properties of the file it clearly shows 1920x1080, so look at the settings of the player you downloaded on your PC. I don't really have the time for this sort of nitpicking crap and pissing war on Mac vs PC. Upon request I downloaded a native file, so you guys can see what the footage looks like. I am not going to spend a lot of time on something I am doing for free. NLE (both CS5 and FCP) will recognize the stream as XDCAM 422. It's simple as this is just a flavor of MPEG2 long GOP 50Mbs 422. That what the native file is. MOV or MXF are just containers. Yes L&T allows you to re-wrap native file, and that what needed to be done, it does the same with XDCAM EX, when it re-wraps MP4 container into MOV. Gee- I am trying to do you guys a favor and as a thank you I am getting piss and moaning of some knowledge lacking complainers.

[peterarcson]

Technically it isn't the native file. I'm assuming you chose "native" and used Log & Transfer in FCP, which will just re-wrap the file in a .MOV container. However it isn't an untouched file anymore, hence not technically native. But that's just nitpicking.
You Mac guys will believe anything your computers tell you. It is not XDCAM, despite what your precious Mac tells you. Canon would never license a codec from Sony.

At 1:08 in the video below, Tim Smith of Canon specifically refers to the XF300/305's codec (same as the XF100 and XF105) as, "we're using a whole brand new codec that was developed specifically for this camera by Canon".

Sorry, but I would tend to believe the people that made the camera.
once again- the stream is MPEG2 Long GOP 50Mbs 422. Now technically which other camera used this codec before? Yes- the answer is Sony XDCAM's 422 (PDW 700 and 800), later Nano started also using the same compression scheme. So any NLE will recognize it as XDCAM 422 50Mbs as this is what was out there so far. There is nothing new about this codec, it has been around for last 4 years and nobody has to license it from Sony, but they have to license it from MPEG LA.

[drapeama]

Peter, do you see these letterboxing black bars in the NLE? Or when you play the native "imported" files?
If no, then the problem might be when exporting the final video, because I'm affraid it's not racer-x's configuration:

[peterarcson]

I don't really know what vimeo does. This is a grab from my original file:

[drapeama]

I don't really know what vimeo does. This is a grab from my original file:
Then the problem is online.
Great picture quality!

[peterarcson]

Some fast dh action from last afternoon, shot in 720/60p
http://www.pinkbike.com/video/190321/
http://www.freefilehosting.net/galbi-native

[zagnut]

once again- the stream is MPEG2 Long GOP 50Mbs 422. Now technically which other camera used this codec before? Yes- the answer is Sony XDCAM's 422 (PDW 700 and 800), later Nano started also using the same compression scheme. So any NLE will recognize it as XDCAM 422 50Mbs as this is what was out there so far. There is nothing new about this codec, it has been around for last 4 years and nobody has to license it from Sony, but they have to license it from MPEG LA.

No other camera used the codec the new XF series cams use. It's a new codec, designed by Canon, specifically for these cameras. That's my point. But obviously there are some similarities between it and the codecs used by the XDCAM's if FCP is saying it's from an XDCAM.

I'm curious as to the difference in this codec from the one the XDCAM's use.

[peterarcson]

No other camera used the codec the new XF series cams use. It's a new codec, designed by Canon, specifically for these cameras. That's my point. But obviously there are some similarities between it and the codecs used by the XDCAM's if FCP is saying it's from an XDCAM.
I'm curious as to the difference in this codec from the one the XDCAM's use.
As I stated before I will state again. IT"S A FRIGGIN MPEG-2 LONG GOP 50Mbs 422. What's new about it? it has been around for the past 4 years. AGAIN- IT'S MPEG-2 LONG GOP 50Mbs 422 stream. Your statement is nonsense. it would be like arguing to weather HDV implementation by Canon is different from JVC or Sony. Yes, most likely some of the B or P frames are implemented different and most likely some flagging in the stream is different, but it is still the same thing.
This is my last response to this topic. I am not interested in pissing match Mac vs PC or if XDCAM 422 is the same as MPEG-2. I am posting this information, so people can make decisions based on actual user, not someone paid by manufacturer. If you have questions regarding this camera I am happy to help people out, but if you are just a tolling wanker and trying to get raise out of people by posting nonsense please don't waste my time.

[peterarcson]

I had a chance to shoot for a few hours and here are some observations.
Things I like:
CF cards- I had SD cards fail, CF are much tougher. Also camera allows you to record to two cards at the same time- again for safety of critical footage. If I shoot an event I will only use double slot recording.
There is iris knob, plus 2 zoom rockers, so the lens ring can be set as focus ring only. Peaking is very accurate, WFM allows for exposure adjustments on the fly. I don't like auto ND. It kicks in at F4.0, there is 1/2 and 1/8. You can turn it off or set to auto and there is no other option.
Picture profile has real range of adjustments of a pro camera- I used settings recommended by BBC. Picture in this setting is really flat, but it can be adjusted without any quality loss due to 422 codec.
Sound controls are nice and easy to use, for an on-board microphone camera produces really good sound. It also has 3.5 mini, which is very nice feature.
LCD is the best I have ever seen, however it is too glossy, as it is harder to use in full sun. I have to get sunhood, which is also not so nice for run and gun. But is is razor sharp and between Magnification, focus assist I have never had out of focus shot! Instant AF works OK, but in lower light just stay with manual. I was doing some testing and there were slight shifts in darker conditions.
720/60 is just stunning! The detail is amazing and anyone doing sports should really consider this for the next camera to buy (or XF300).
ElipZ will not communicate with this camera to inform on time remaining, any older batteries from GL2 will work with this unit- again not showing the time remaining. BP-925 shows time in minutes and it is very accurate.
The codec works like a champ with FCP (6&7), also with CS5. FCP is easy to use- L&T, click to leave the clip native, render as ProRes 422. It also works like a champ with Magic Bullet.
The knob for iris is sluggish, I wish it was more responsive, WB is not that intuitive to use, could have been implemented different. I would estimate -6dB gain is about 80 ISO.
Over all it is the best camera of this kind (compact body) on the market. Since I do climbing, biking and ski shots it is perfect for this application. If you are a production house you'll still need a bigger camera (maybe XF300), as this one would have some limits.
Also I really like how wide the lens is 30 mm in 35 equivalent. Again if you are shooting sports and action this is really big feature.
What I need to buy now is monopod. This camera is light enough, so I can get some nice shots off one stick.

[zagnut]

As I stated before I will state again. IT"S A FRIGGIN MPEG-2 LONG GOP 50Mbs 422. Your statement is nonsense.

Sorry, I disagree. My statement is not nonsense. Nonsense is the fact that you assumed it is the same codec used by XDCAM. I merely pointed out a technicality that it is not the same codec.

My apologies for pointing out that you were incorrect. Some of us are intelligent enough to be curious about the technical differences between these two codecs. Obviously you don't fall into that category.


...but if you are just a tolling wanker and trying to get raise out of people by posting nonsense please don't waste my time.

It's trolling, not tolling. Learn to spell.

P.S. - ^That's trolling.

[peterarcson]

Sorry, I disagree. My statement is not nonsense. Nonsense is the fact that you assumed it is the same codec used by XDCAM. I merely pointed out a technicality that it is not the same codec.
My apologies for pointing out that you were incorrect. Some of us are intelligent enough to be curious about the technical differences between these two codecs. Obviously you don't fall into that category.
It's trolling, not tolling. Learn to spell.
P.S. - ^That's trolling.
So if I am wrong and you are right point out to the XF codec presets in any NLE. I have my doubts about your claims of superior intelligence since you can't understand that MPEG-2 Long GOP 50Mbs 422 is the same as MPEG-2 Long GOP 50Mbs 422. It would be the same thing if you are arguing that Canon and JVC HDV codecs are different. No, they are the same, however they differ in some implementation of B and P frames and different flagging, but basis is the same- it's MPEG-2 Long GOP 25Mbs 420. DVCPRO, DVCPro-HD, IVC intra or ProRes are different codecs, since they are all I-frame base codecs.
Now if you have any questions or information regarding XF100 most of us would be happy to read it. However since it looks like you don't own one maybe wait till you actually purchase one and until then on behalf of adult readers I would politely ask you to STFU.

[zagnut]

I have my doubts about your claims of superior intelligence since you can't understand that MPEG-2 Long GOP 50Mbs 422 is the same as MPEG-2 Long GOP 50Mbs 422.

I never once said that the codec wasn't MPEG-2 Long GOP 50Mbs 4:2:2. Once again, you assume and are claiming something that isn't without any facts to back it up. If your stupid ass would have read any of the other XF100 threads here, you would have seen that I posted the full specs back in October.

[CycleWriter]

If you guys can't discuss without being insulting, I'll just close this.

[peterarcson]

actually please do close this one. I am out. i don't want to be pissed on by some juvie anonymous troll. Since he is more intelligent then i am and shoots a ton of footage with new xf he can post all the info, first hand observations, settings and samples for the readers.

[zagnut]

My apologies if I offended you in some way by correcting your statement that the XF uses the XDCAM codec. My intentions weren't to hurt your pride, but obviously I did so by merely stating a fact that you were incorrect in stating. I then went out on a limb to assume that there must be some similarity between the two if FCP is recognizing the footage as XDCAM. At that point I commented on wondering what the dissimilarities are between the two in hopes of intriguing you (and others) to further investigate this, as I am not the worlds foremost expert on codecs and don't own an XF series camera.

As much as I would love to stoop to your level and send harassing PM's calling names (which you did), I won't. Why? Because I'm better than that.

Thank you for sharing your footage with the HV20 community.

With that said, I have nothing else to say to you.

[Timbit]

Off Canon's website:


MPEG-2 compression is both highly reliable and versatile. Developed by the Moving Pictures Expert Group (MPEG), it is one of the most widely used compression schemes in the industry for camera acquisition, over the air broadcast, cable and satellite TV. Canon's adaptation of MPEG-2 for the XF100 Professional Camcorder, named the Canon XF Codec, ensures the widest compatibility with existing industry infrastructure and non-linear editing (NLE) systems. As well, by using an MXF file wrapper, video and audio can be wrapped in a single file along with important metadata.
So you are both right.

[Jack Frost]

I can't afford your beautiful new toy, so am looking at the XA10, or the smaller brother, HF G10, both of these cameras can do exactly this same thing. Beautiful thing Canon has offered the non-pro user. (thank you Canon )

can you clarify that, you will only use "double slot recording" so you mean redundancy recording mode ? , just wondering if you trust the internal hard drive ?, I would think the internal drive would be more fail-safe than any external media.

I'm also wondering if any of these camcorders can record to the internal memory (hard drive ) AND a slot of your choice, so 2 copies are recorded at the same time, but both are not recorded on *external* devices ( in this case the SD cards or CF cards )




Things I like:
CF cards- I had SD cards fail, CF are much tougher. Also camera allows you to record to two cards at the same time- again for safety of critical footage. If I shoot an event I will only use double slot recording.

[Jack Frost]

again, kudos to Canon, both the Canon XA10 and HF G10 ( smaller brother to the XA10 ) have this same feature. ( no pixel lalalala ). I don't really understand the jargon but Canon has implemented larger pixels ( I actually thought pixels could not change in size in theory ) but there you have it, they are using larger pixels, and so there's no pixel playing, and the new sensor gives off 1080 native. NO fooling around. The sensor in the XF100 is the same as in both the less professional Canon camcorders ( XA10, and HF G10 ), so it's nice to see Canon is playing ball with a smaller budget.




No, this is 1080 native, no pixel shift bs. It has the same adjustment for picture profile as 300/305 series.

[zagnut]

So you are both right.

Indeed. I never said he was wrong about it not being MPEG-2. Just pointing out that it is not identical to the XDCAM codec, although obviously similar from the looks of it. I could be completely wrong about that the similarity, but so far nobody has been able to figure out the difference between the two. So I'm on the lookout for specs in regards to what exactly is different between the two.


I don't really understand the jargon but Canon has implemented larger pixels ( I actually thought pixels could not change in size in theory )

It's all about pixel density and photo receptor's (aka photosites). Go read posts #11-15 here for a better understanding -
hhttp://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?38796-The-XF100 (http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?38796-The-XF100)

Honestly Jack, I would save up the extra money for the XF100 if you are thinking about buying an XA10. Sure $1000 USD is a lot to some of us, but this camera will come down in price over the next few months. Or you could sell some of your gear you have now to justify the cost. The main reason I want it is for the 50Mbps MPEG-2. Don't get me wrong, I love my HF11, but hate dealing with AVCHD footage.

[racer-x]

I downloaded his latest Bicycle.mov that he claims is the native format. Here are the Media Info specs on the 720/59.94p MOV:

General
Complete name : C:\Documents and Settings\R X\Desktop\junk\Galbi-native.mov
Format : MPEG-4
Format_Commercial_IfAny : XDCAM EX422
Format profile : QuickTime
Codec ID : qt
File size : 235 MiB
Duration : 39s 402ms
Overall bit rate : 50.0 Mbps
Encoded date : UTC 2011-04-10 05:18:04
Tagged date : UTC 2011-04-10 05:26:41
Writing library : Apple QuickTime

Video
ID : 2
Format : MPEG Video
Format_Commercial_IfAny : XDCAM EX422
Format version : Version 2
Format profile : 4:2:2@High
Format settings, BVOP : Yes
Format settings, Matrix : Default
Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=12
Codec ID : xd59
Codec ID/Hint : XDCAM
Duration : 4s 967ms
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 50.0 Mbps
Width : 1 248 pixels
Original width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 702 pixels
Original height : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Constant
Frame rate : 59.940 fps
Standard : Component
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:2
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.952
Stream size : 234 MiB (100%)
Language : English
Encoded date : UTC 2011-04-10 05:18:04
Tagged date : UTC 2011-04-10 05:26:41

Audio
ID : 1
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format version : Version 4
Format profile : LC
Format settings, SBR : No
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 39s 402ms
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 128 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Stream size : 604 KiB (0%)
Language : English
Encoded date : UTC 2011-04-10 05:18:04
Tagged date : UTC 2011-04-10 05:26:41

I seriously doubt Canon would encode 128 kb/s AAC audio, so it stands to reason the file was processed and not simply re-wrapped into a different container.

[zagnut]

I seriously doubt Canon would encode 128 kb/s AAC audio

You are correct. The XF100 records PCM. So the audio for sure is not native.
I'm still curious as to what's going on with the whole aspect ratio issue. I'm downloading one of the files now, but on my slow DSL it will take a little over an hour.
On a side note, I have QTPro, so we'll see.

[HueyNRolf]

So what if the audio got transcoded into AAC? Isn't this thread about the XF100?
Seems to have transgressed into a nerd fight.

[zagnut]

Seems to have transgressed into a nerd fight.
Not yet. Still waiting for Bob to chime in, then the party will be complete.

[HueyNRolf]

Not yet. Still waiting for Bob to chime in, then the party will be complete.
:hv20-smilie81:

[zagnut]

Ok, I downloaded the bald eagle .MOV from Vimeo. I had to install a third party codec (Calibrated {Q} XD). First, the audio from this clip is in fact PCM like it should be. I was able to watch the video and did not see anything strange with any letterboxing or pillarboxing in a window, or fullscreen, using QTPro. However, viewing the video with MPC-HC, aspect ratio set to default or 16:9, the video is pillarboxed. MPC-HC was using the same codec as QTPro. QTPro reports the video as 1888x1062. as does MediaInfo. G-spot reports full 1920x1080.

After some quick Googling, it has something to do with the days of analog and over scan areas , SMPTE 274M, and some setting in FCP or Compressor called "Clean Aperture".

Here's an HV20 link that explains SMPTE 274M -
http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?9067-1888x1062-and-quot-clean-aperture-quot-question

I don't really understand this, as I'm not an Apple guy and don't use Apple NLE's. Everything I export out of Vegas, Handbrake or TMPGEnc is 1920x1080. None of this funky 1888x1062 junk.

If I go and change the "Conform Aperture" setting in QTPro to anything but "Clean Aperture", the video is displayed as letterboxed and pillarboxed. So no, this is not an "online problem" as Drapeama thought. Something happened during the export or import with FCP.

Huey, your a Mac guy, what's going on with this aspect ratio?

[HueyNRolf]

Huey, your a Mac guy, what's going on with this aspect ratio?

I know exactly 'what's going on with the aspect ratio.' I'll disclose this only if Bob Slanders asks me very nicely.
:hv20-smilie81:

[Jack Frost]

Hi zagnut,

I was just on Dpreview's site looking at the Canon 60D DSLR. It says this thing does
5.5 MB/sec (1080P), I currently have the T2i, and it has the same specs.

Gee, going from 5.5 MB/second to 24 MB/sec (XA10) should be a BIG difference shouldn't it ?


specs for the Canon XA10:
MXP (24Mbps) 5 hours 55 minutes - Allows 1920 x 1080 Full HD Recording

I shoot a lot of video at 1080p on my T2i and find the quality quite good, so I'm going to guess jumping to the A10 would make an amazing jump wouldn't it ?

I did quite a bit of Googling the XF100, it's a beauty of a camera, but out of my budget, I'm not a professional film maker ( no income from it ), I also see that the XF100 has no internal memory, that's really a deal breaker for me. CF cards fast enough to capture 50 megs per second are $$. :hv20-smilie50:

On a last thought, I don't think I've ever edited AVCHD, I don't think the Canon DSLRs like the T2i, T3i, 60D and 7D record in that format ( the file is a .mov ) which is h2.64 I believe.

I'm also a bit confused, how come Saturday Night Live and another show were completely filmed with a DSLR, the Canon 5D Mark II or one of those higher quality DSLRs, but the video coming from it is no better than the 7D. How were they able to get such good performance from a camera doing only 5.5 megs per second ?





Honestly Jack, I would save up the extra money for the XF100 if you are thinking about buying an XA10. Sure $1000 USD is a lot to some of us, but this camera will come down in price over the next few months. Or you could sell some of your gear you have now to justify the cost. The main reason I want it is for the 50Mbps MPEG-2. Don't get me wrong, I love my HF11, but hate dealing with AVCHD footage.

[zagnut]

I know exactly 'what's going on with the aspect ratio.' I'll disclose this only if Bob Slanders asks me very nicely.
:hv20-smilie81:
Hell, we know that will never happen.



Hi zagnut,

I was just on Dpreview's site looking at the Canon 60D DSLR. It says this thing does
5.5 MB/sec (1080P), I currently have the T2i, and it has the same specs.

Gee, going from 5.5 MB/second to 24 MB/sec (XA10) should be a BIG difference shouldn't it ?


specs for the Canon XA10:
MXP (24Mbps) 5 hours 55 minutes - Allows 1920 x 1080 Full HD Recording

I shoot a lot of video at 1080p on my T2i and find the quality quite good, so I'm going to guess jumping to the A10 would make an amazing jump wouldn't it ?

On a last thought, I don't think I've ever edited AVCHD, I don't think the Canon DSLRs like the T2i, T3i, 60D and 7D record in that format ( the file is a .mov ) which is h2.64 I believe.

I'm also a bit confused, how come Saturday Night Live and another show were completely filmed with a DSLR, the Canon 5D Mark II or one of those higher quality DSLRs, but the video coming from it is no better than the 7D. How were they able to get such good performance from a camera doing only 5.5 megs per second ?

Well Jack, I think you have some specs confused.
The T2i, 60D and 7D record at a rate of around 45Mb/s (Megabits per second). This translates into about 5.5MB/s (Megabytes per second). The XA10, HFG10, HG21, hfs21, hf11, etc, record at the highest of 24Mb/s (Megabits per second), or about 3MB/s (Megabytes per second). So the DSLR's record at a higher bitrate, almost twice as much.

Here's where things get confusing. Both the DSLR's and camcorders I mentioned capture footage using h.264 (MPEG4-AVC). But there are different versions, options, parts (and in the case of H.264, also profiles) to h.264. Even though two different implementations may both call themselves H.264, they may not be exactly the same.

The 5DmkII actually has a lower bitrate than the 60D and 7D. The bitrate of the 5DmkII is around 38Mb/s (megabits per second), or 4.8MB/s (Megabytes per second).

I know the t2i and 7D use linear PCM (uncompressed) audio. So, I'm not sure how much bitrate that is taking up in the data stream.

DSLR's will give you better low light due to the large sensor and availability of fast aperture prime lenses. You can also get that shallow DOF look everyone seems to crave this way. One downside to a DSLR is the "jello effect" due to rolling shutter. But this can happen with any CMOS sensor based camera, not just DSLR's.

Those shows you mention get such great looking footage because they have money to spend on the expensive Canon L lenses, or even better. The men operating those cameras have probably been operating cameras for years or are specially trained to film with a DSLR, or both.

[Jack Frost]

Hi zagnut,

wow, you've taught me lots here. Thank you. I have much to learn. I had NO clue for one that 50Mb/s = megaBITS per second and not megaBYTES. Big different there you have shown me.

zagnut, I also have an HV20, which i find gives me awesome quality, the footage looks almost "more" real than the footage from my T2i, not sure how to explain that, but it does. I shoot in regular mode, and have never used anything else. So I guess that's 29.7 frames per second @ 1080i believe. ( the video is not 1920 but is 1440 )

Now, for the HV20 what does this record at in terms of
Mb/s ( megabits per second ) and also MB/s ( megabytes per second )

This will give me a better understanding of what is going on.

I never realized that camcorders didn't record the quality that a dSLR can do, but the quality from my HV20 looks as good as the quality from my T2i.

well, it will be interesting to see what the HV20 does so I can form an opinion.

Thanks for your time


Well Jack, I think you have some specs confused.
The T2i, 60D and 7D record at a rate of around 45Mb/s (Megabits per second). This translates into about 5.5MB/s (Megabytes per second). The XA10, HFG10, HG21, hfs21, hf11, etc, record at the highest of 24Mb/s (Megabits per second), or about 3MB/s (Megabytes per second). So the DSLR's record at a higher bitrate, almost twice as much.

Here's where things get confusing. Both the DSLR's and camcorders I mentioned capture footage using h.264 (MPEG4-AVC). But there are different versions, options, parts (and in the case of H.264, also profiles) to h.264. Even though two different implementations may both call themselves H.264, they may not be exactly the same.

The 5DmkII actually has a lower bitrate than the 60D and 7D. The bitrate of the 5DmkII is around 38Mb/s (megabits per second), or 4.8MB/s (Megabytes per second).

I know the t2i and 7D use linear PCM (uncompressed) audio. So, I'm not sure how much bitrate that is taking up in the data stream.

DSLR's will give you better low light due to the large sensor and availability of fast aperture prime lenses. You can also get that shallow DOF look everyone seems to crave this way. One downside to a DSLR is the "jello effect" due to rolling shutter. But this can happen with any CMOS sensor based camera, not just DSLR's.

Those shows you mention get such great looking footage because they have money to spend on the expensive Canon L lenses, or even better. The men operating those cameras have probably been operating cameras for years or are specially trained to film with a DSLR, or both.

[zagnut]

Hi zagnut,

Now, for the HV20 what does this record at in terms of
Mb/s ( megabits per second ) and also MB/s ( megabytes per second )

This will give me a better understanding of what is going on.

I never realized that camcorders didn't record the quality that a dSLR can do, but the quality from my HV20 looks as good as the quality from my T2i.


I'm not positive, since I've never dealt with DV or HDV, but I believe the bitrate is 25Mb/s or about 3MB/s.

There are camcorders that can record video much better than a DSLR, bigger sensors, 3 sensors, etc, but they cost a lot of money. I also know some Panasonic cameras record at 100Mb/s (about 12MB/s). $$$$+

HDV cameras, like your HV20, encode footage using h.262 MPEG-2. While the DSLR's and camcorders mentioned earlier encode using h.264 MPEG-4. Bit for bit, h.264 is more efficient than MPEG-2. Meaning that at the same data rate, H.264 usually offers better quality, if everything else were equal and the same. However, h.264 requires much more in terms of processing power. Long story short, MPEG2 at 25 Mbps should look about as good as anything you get from a broadcast HDTV signal or an H.264 file at a lower data rate (say ~10-12 Mbps). MPEG-2 is also easier to edit / work with and faster to encode when compared to h.264.

[Jack Frost]

Hi zagnut,

thanks for the response. I did a search and found out that yes, it's 25Megabits per second. You are pretty good ! :hv20-smilie03:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HV20-Camcorder-Review/Format.htm

thank you for the info below, very good to keep handy.

Can you tell me about AVCHD, do Canon SLRs use AVCHD ? the files I produce with my Canon T2i are in the .mov format, and I am sure AVCHD files are with the .MTS format.



I'm not positive, since I've never dealt with DV or HDV, but I believe the bitrate is 25Mb/s or about 3MB/s.

There are camcorders that can record video much better than a DSLR, bigger sensors, 3 sensors, etc, but they cost a lot of money. I also know some Panasonic cameras record at 100Mb/s (about 12MB/s). $$$$+

HDV cameras, like your HV20, encode footage using h.262 MPEG-2. While the DSLR's and camcorders mentioned earlier encode using h.264 MPEG-4. Bit for bit, h.264 is more efficient than MPEG-2. Meaning that at the same data rate, H.264 usually offers better quality, if everything else were equal and the same. However, h.264 requires much more in terms of processing power. Long story short, MPEG2 at 25 Mbps should look about as good as anything you get from a broadcast HDTV signal or an H.264 file at a lower data rate (say ~10-12 Mbps). MPEG-2 is also easier to edit / work with and faster to encode when compared to h.264.

[Jack Frost]

for anyone interested, I found a link to the Canon XA10 camcorder user manual in .pdf format:
http://xa10forums.com/Canon_XA10_Manual.pdf

and yes, there's a new forum specifically for the Canon XA10.
http://xa10forums.com/

[zagnut]

Hi zagnut,

Can you tell me about AVCHD, do Canon SLRs use AVCHD ? the files I produce with my Canon T2i are in the .mov format, and I am sure AVCHD files are with the .MTS format.

Both the .mov from the Canon DSLR's and AVCHD .mts files are h.264. They use the same type of compression. They are just packaged differently.

[Jack Frost]

Last night I was looking for Canon XF100 video on YouTube and came across a user that posted a link to a lot of raw files from his Canon XF100.

If anyone wants to play with these, here they are:

There are 20 raw files available ( .MXF files )
http://www.mediafire.com/?vrp637b9gdc0m

I found the links here at the bottom of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Qmhku1YnS8

Youtube user: http://www.youtube.com/user/unimpacked

[peterarcson]

Allan Roberts PAL XF100 tests:
http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD65_Canon_XF100-105.pdf
"2.8 Conclusion
This camera performs reasonably well at HD, for such a small-image format with a single sensor. Resolution
is maintained up to 1280x720, but contains inevitable spatial aliases due to the use of a Bayer-patterned
sensor. Detail controls work reasonably well, but not as well as they would have done with 3 sensors. Noise
levels are typical for a ⅓” single sensor, and sensitivity is as expected. Operating the camera at significantly
lower gain will reduce the noise level without sacrificing significant sensitivity.
The integral lens has a maximum aperture of F/1.8, normal for a small camera, and there was no perceptible
loss of resolution through iris diffraction until the lens was stopped down to F/11, at which point significant
resolution was being lost (iris diffraction would normally be expected to start at about F/5.6, but the spatial
aliases effectively disguise the effects of diffraction). Thus, the camera has a useful aperture range from
F/1.8 to about F/10. This, together with the in-built neutral density filters (up to 3 stops), means that the
camera has a good exposure control range.
Performance at 720p is acceptable, since it appears to have been derived directly from the sensor, rather than
from 1920x1080 signals. 720p performance can be improved significantly with the use of the noise reducer,
which also reduces video noise to a respectable level.

[BIG SKILLY]

im picking up my xf-100 this weekend...1 question...what type of system requirements for mac do i need??...cant wait to get it i will show footage once i do

[Jack Frost]

Big Skilly, are you watching the thread on the XF-100 over here ?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20416602#post20416602

[BIG SKILLY]

Big Skilly, are you watching the thread on the XF-100 over here ?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=20416602#post20416602

Thanks i did...read all 60 pages and nothing about the xf-100...only thing they spoke on was the xha1...

[cgbier]

Ah, another 720p sensor. That'd be fine with me, as my end product is either DVD or 720p web anyways.

If I just could find the money. :(

[peterarcson]

For Apple/Mac you will need FCP 6 or 7. There is a plugin either on the disc or download from Canon web site. You can edit native, don't have to transcode. FCE and iMovie will not handle the files.
XF100 is not 720 sensor, it is a full 1080 sensor, single chip 1/3".

[ejolson]

The imager of the FX100 has 2371040 photo sites arranged in a Bayer pattern. Assuming a 4:2:2 color space

720p video has 1280 x 720 Y + 640 x 720 U + 640 x 720 V = 1843200 distinct values per frame.
1080p video has 1920 x 1080 Y + 960 x 1080 U + 960 x 1080 V = 4147200 distinct values per frame.

Since there is no way to get 4147200 distinct values from 2371040 photo sites, the FX100 does not produce full resolution 1080p video with a 4:2:2 color space. However, 720p is possible.

[peterarcson]

I am sure you'd know better then Allan Roberts, who posted the report.
"Fig.1 shows a single quadrant of one pattern; for this
exposure, the camera detail enhancement was turned
down to minimum level (-10) which presumably
means no correction, so this is probably the native
performance of the camera. There are strong diagonal
aliases, and coloured horizontal and vertical aliases,
which is a clear indication that the sensor has a Bayer-
pattern structure. Also, the fact that the coloured
aliases are centred on the extremes of the pattern
proves that the sensor is 1920x1080, confirming the
specification in the manual"
"In a camera with a single Bayer-patterned sensor, the red and blue patterns each
have half vertical and horizontal resolution, because the pattern of pixels alternates
between …RGRGRGRG… and …GBGBGBGB… line by line, thus red pixels
appear in alternate columns and lines as do blue pixels. Therefore the clean
resolution limits for red and blue are half that of the sensor. The green pixels form
a quincunx array (Domino-5 pattern), which is best understood as an array of
diagonal lines rather than horizontal and vertical. Thus, the green resolution is
rotated by 45º, and therefore reduced by 1/√2. This results in the green resolution
achieving full horizontal resolution when there is no vertical resolution, and full
vertical resolution when there is no horizontal resolution, a diamond shape rather than square with the
diagonals reaching the sensor’s horizontal and vertical extremes. The diamond nature of this resolution is
clearly visible in Figure 1, where the demarcation between wanted and aliased resolution is a diagonal line
from the horizontal extreme to the vertical. The coloured aliases around 1920 horizontal and 1080 vertical
are due to the reduced nature of the red and blue resolutions.
The only way to get good resolution from a Bayer-patterned sensor is to have more pixels, typically
2880x1620 would be enough to deliver full resolution at 1920x1080Figure 2 Bayer pattern "
"The internal down-conversion to 1280x720 performs as expected, frequencies outside the resolution limits of
1280x720 are aliased in the image. Better down-conversion is possible using a separate conversion process,
either in software or hardware. However, the noise reduction filtering can be used as an alternative, as will
be shown later. "
In short I am trusting his opinion, not yours.

[ejolson]

I am sure you'd know better then Allan Roberts, who posted the report...In short I am trusting his opinion, not yours.

Dear Peter, I'm in full agreement with Allan. I only explain the mathematics behind his statement that "typically 2880x1620 is enough to deliver full resolution 1920x1080" and "internal down-conversion to 1280x720 performs as expected." I think the XF100 is a really nice camera and am looking forward to hearing more about it.

[BIG SKILLY]

For Apple/Mac you will need FCP 6 or 7. There is a plugin either on the disc or download from Canon web site. You can edit native, don't have to transcode. FCE and iMovie will not handle the files.
XF100 is not 720 sensor, it is a full 1080 sensor, single chip 1/3".

Thanks for the info...i have fce now i have to get fcp...anyone has a free download lol...the fx100 has a wide lens?...

[BIG SKILLY]

also the camera doesnt support tiger for macs?

[peterarcson]

also the camera doesnt support tiger for macs?
Sorry, but what are you talking about?
Yes, XF100 has wide angle lens- 30mm in 35mm equivalence.

[cgbier]

Skilly, did you check if the Canon transfer software works with Tiger? Snow Leopard is only 30 bucks (if you have an Intel machine), and there is plenty FCS2 for cheap on ebay.

[peterarcson]

Tiger is OS, FCP is a program. FCP can run on any OS above 10.4. I am on 10.5 running FCP 6.0.6 and the plugin for L&T works just fine. In June Apple is releasing the new FCPX, which is going to cost $299, so if you don't own it yet just wait till then. I am still keeping FCP6, because I own the whole Magic Bullet, and I don't want to upgrade that. Most likely I will wait with the purchase to see how it works, as I have a working edit station and I don't want to change anything else.
To answer your question Tiger has no bearing on how Canon plugin works, as it works in FCP program and has nothing to do with OS itself.