Canon Vixia HF10

[bluegrass]

After gathering information about the new Canon products that were just announced, I am more interested in the HF10 than any of the other new camcorders. I am hearing concerns about the AVCHD high definition format and need to do some more research concerning this newer format. Maybe we can have some discussion here on this thread about AVCHD.

The biggest advantage that I can see with this new camera is having no moving parts involved in video recording and thus no onboard noise that can find it's way into the videos. Plus I would think that moving your video from the camera to an NLE would be a piece of cake compared to reading a tape or hard disk file into your NLE. Here is another factor that seems to me would be a great enhancement.

Below are a couple excerpts from data posted on the Amazon.com site:

"Full HD lens-to-screen: 1920 x 1080 capture and recording The Canon HF10 not only captures images in full HD, but records and outputs 1920 x 1080 as well, so you get full HD from lens to screen. Experience the ultimate in clarity and detail."

"Genuine Canon 12x HD video lens The HF10 comes equipped with a 12x HD video lens. An aspherical lens is used to help achieve low aberration and high resolution. The lens also features super spectra coating technology which lowers flare and ghosting. A gradation ND system is used for better exposure in bright shooting situations. This lens design creates true HD image quality."

"30p Progressive Mode 30p Progressive mode delivers clarity for fast-action subjects and is the perfect frame rate for the web. Plus, it is ideal for displaying crisp images on your home theatre system or computer monitor. Before now 30p was exclusively featured on pro-level camcorders but Canon now offers the widest frame rate options for every videographer. "

"Canon DVD burner compatible Take care or those precious moments shot with your HF10 by backing up your footage on the new Canon DW-100 DVD burner. This simple and easy to use burner eliminates the need for a pc but still guarantees the assurance of knowing your memories are preserved to an AVCHD disc. Additionally, the Canon DW-100 DVD burner can be used as an AVCHD player when connected to your HF10 camcorder."

Note the Canon DVD burner is a separate an other new product that is suppose to retail for about $250.

I ddint' specifically see it mentioned for this camera but I did see that some NLE software does ship with the Canon HV30 which of course we never got with the HV20. That would certainly be a plus if Canon is indeed shipping some sort of NLE with there new Vixia line of cameras.

I will be waiting to see how this camera gets reviewed. It would be on my list for the next consumer camcorder I would like to purchase unless I read about to many negatives to this camera and or working with the AVCHD format.

[Ian-T]

Well... with my current cam I never edit with M2T files. It is always converted to an intermediate file and makes life a lot easier. If I am able to do the same with AVCHD then I think this cam is the cam of my future. The only reservations about this cam is the smaller chip and smaller lens size. Also...it remains to be seen how the picture holds up to the HV20....I definately cannot go backwards in this area. Despite its shortcomings what sold me on the HV20 is its final picture.

[bluegrass]

Well... with my current cam I never edit with M2T files. It is always converted to an intermediate file and makes life a lot easier. If I am able to do the same with AVCHD then I think this cam is the cam of my future. The only reservations about this cam is the smaller chip and smaller lens size. Also...it remains to be seen how the picture holds up to the HV20....I definately cannot go backwards in this area. Despite its shortcomings what sold me on the HV20 is its final picture.

The quality of the final video has to be as good or better for me also. The solid state recording aspects of this camcorder is definitely appealing to me. Otherwise, the price is the same as what the HV20 was realeased at. As for as the 6mm difference in lens size, that doesn't bother me, the end result is what is key for me.

[Noel]

This is what i've been waiting for. An everyday camcorder. Durable/easy to transfer. Had a chance to use the panasonic sd1. The output was really good . Only problm I can't control the exposure. Leading to noise. Canon's the only consumer cam i know that can do this. IMHO my hv20 isn't that much better than any consumer HD cams. Especially when watching with HDMI to HD LCD. The thing that sets it apart is being able to control the exposure along with 24P + CINE mode. This camera has it. Maybe i don't need to get anything special like the CineForm Direct-to-Disk Recorder. Unless they can get aggressive on pricing.

[vj_jasper]

recording at 1920 and not downrezzing to 1440? thats awesome.

i really love the record-to-chip format. it is the most convenient workflow i have ever experienced with filming etc.

if the same gain-locking workarounds can be done for the HF10, then perhaps i will choose it above the HV20 or HV30.

the last two years i have been filming with, of all things, a Panasonic Lumix: 848 by 480, true 30p, a lovely image. records to a chip, and that is so convenient.. i just connect the the macbook via usb and download all the clips into a folder.

however, i need a new camera to film with, cos the Lumix only does 30p and the rest of my work is PAL 25p.

to back up the data, just toast it all to a dvd rom with the macbook, no special DVD burner required.. that would be the same for the HF10 workflow; i see no need for the special Canon DVD recorder.

the 24p mode is something i will not use at all. i am working in PAL, my animations are at 25p.. it is abundantly clear to me that i will continue working in 25p.

something i hope the HF10 has is AV-in .. this is very handy feature to record realtime video mixing, etc.

if the HF10 chip is smaller than the HV30, then something is lost, perhaps.. well, the depth-of-field is even larger.. and we all want shallow depth of field sometimes. and yet, that issue is not so much of a concern if intending to purchase a 35mm adaptor system like Cinevate's Brevis35 for example. assuming the lens-rings would fit and all, the same they do for the HV20?

talking of lenses, i would probably want to get the telephoto zoom lens (1.7) and wide-angle lens (0.7) that are available for the HV20.

very interested to hear from others about the pro's and con's of the HF10 vs the HV20 and HV30.

thanks to bluegrass for starting this thread :)

[bluegrass]

I guess we can't do much but conjecture about the possibilties with this camera but it certainly hold my attention at this point in time. Amazon states May 1, 2008 will be when it's available. I think they list the price higher than what Canon does. I'm not sure what that's all about.

What other consumer camcorders on the market have the ability to record directly to a 16gig memory chip and also be able to plug in an external memory chip to transfer or record HD to? It seems like a dream to me to be able to pop out an SD chip from the camera and into a PC or MAC and transfer the video directly into an NLE. Seems like a timesaver and simple operation to me. Evidently the sensor gathers the same amount of pixels as the HV20 or HV30. The only downside I can see with this camera is the slightly smaller lens and possibly the capture format of AVCHD. I've yet to see what the big negatives of the AVCHD format are. Perhaps we'll have more discussion of the pluses and minuses of this new format.

Here is a link to where I have gathered most of my information on this cam so for.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-HF10-Definition-Camcorder-Stabilized/dp/B001144JQU/ref=br_lf_m_1000186531_1_1_ttl?ie=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&s=photo&pf_rd_p=347058001&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1401&pf_rd_i=1000186531&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0P10HD5EPWZYC036GSMZ

Here is another link to some info I found. I'll just keep adding new ones as I run into them.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2246128,00.asp

another nice article revealing a few more details.

http://gizmodo.com/341768/canons-hd-vixia-hf10-and-hf100-need-no-tape

another link to a Canon site that lists accesories available. I see a new wide & telphoto lens adaptor is listed.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=177&modelid=16186#SNAModelSuppliesAct

I'm sure that these specs will be of interest that I grabbed off the Canon US site.

Maximum recording time
16 GB Internal Flash Drive
LP (5 Mbps) 6 hours 5 min
SP (7 Mbps) 4 hours 45 min
XP+ (12 Mbps) 2 hours 50 min
FXP (17 Mbps) 2 hours 5 min -Allows 1920x1080 Full HD Recording
Greater Capacity is Possible by Adding an SDHC Memory Card.

Lens
Zoom Ratio 12x Optical/200x Digital
Focal Length f=4.8 - 57 mm
Zoom Speed Variable/3 Fixed Zoom Speeds
Max. F/Stop f/1.8-3.0mm
Filter Size 37mm

[Ian-T]

FYI, A poster at another site who attended CES was infomed by a Canon representative that the picture quality of the HF10 is very close but not quite as good as the HV30.

Still...it remains to be seen.

[ForwardLooker]

The only reservations about this cam is the smaller chip and smaller lens size.

I'm abit confused.

Is the size of a cmos sensor measured the same way as a CCD?

I understand that with CCDs the smaller the number the bigger the chip, 1/4", 1/3", 1/2" etc..

But is that the same for a cmos sensor? as the hv20 has 1/2.7" = 2.96 megapixel and the HF10 has 1/3.2" = 3.31 megapixel which idicates a bigger sensor right? :hv20-smilie51:

[Worley]

You ARE confused. The smaller the number, the smaller the chip.

The HF10 has a smaller sensor. 1/3.2 = 0.3125 whereas 1/2.7 = 0.370. As 0.370 is close to 1, this is the larger chip.

The individual cell size on the HF10 is smaller than the HV20, so each cell collects less light. Therefore low light performance is almost certainly worse than for the HV20.

[Ian-T]

Yeah...what Worley said...also background blur would be better on the HV20.

[ForwardLooker]

You ARE confused. The smaller the number, the smaller the chip.

The HF10 has a smaller sensor. 1/3.2 = 0.3125 whereas 1/2.7 = 0.370. As 0.370 is close to 1, this is the larger chip.

The individual cell size on the HF10 is smaller than the HV20, so each cell collects less light. Therefore low light performance is almost certainly worse than for the HV20.

AAh I SEE now. thanks for putting this into prespective worley.

[Worley]

I like numbers.

Nothing quite like a simultaneous equation to convert from x degrees celius to gas mark y.

And a little of Pythagoras' theorem to work out the dimensions of a widescreen display when all you have is the diagonal.

Johnny Ball is my hero.

[bluegrass]

Yeah...what Worley said...also background blur would be better on the HV20.

I've started seeing mention of background blurr on a few threads. Is background blur a negative or a positive or is that in the eyes of the beholder?

Are cmos sensors digital or analog. I was thinking that the signals coming off the cmos where either digital or converted immediately through some circutry to digital. If that were the case, than wouldn't the amount of pixels being captured be the same. I would think you are right, that being smaller they might be less light sensitive.

That brings up a good question concerning the HF10. Why wouldn't Canon have chosen to manufacture with the same sensor and lens as the HV20 & HV30. It doesn't make any sense to me that they would want to capture with any less quality than the HV series of camcorders. I would think it would even cost less to manufacture a product without the tape drive apparatus and supporting circuitry than it would be to run them ones & zeros right into a memory chip instead of through tape & tape head circutry.

Speakin' of giving up some quality with the HF10 versus the HV20 or HV30, wouldn't the fact that it captures at a true 1920 instead of 1440 make up and even produce better quality frames. I suppose cmos pixel size and lens size play a part in quality too, but I doubt they play as big of part in frame quality as does engineering and manufacture of these two components.

[Ian-T]

I've started seeing mention of background blurr on a few threads. Is background blur a negative or a positive or is that in the eyes of the beholder?

This is definitely a positive. Especially for folks who currently don’t own a DOF adapter. Of course you get a lot more blur with an adapter but the cam’s sensor is big enough to at least give you some.



Are cmos sensors digital or analog. I was thinking that the signals coming off the cmos where either digital or converted immediately through some circutry to digital. If that were the case, than wouldn't the amount of pixels being captured be the same. I would think you are right, that being smaller they might be less light sensitive.

This is a good question. I know in regards to CCDs this is true…but CMOS gathers light differently than CCDs…so I hope someone else could chime in on this question. I do believe though that it will affect the amount of light in a negative way (being smaller that is). The more light you are able to pull into the camera will help you to get a better background blur. I would think one would need a bigger sensor to accomplish this…whether it’s CMOS or CCD.




That brings up a good question concerning the HF10. Why wouldn't Canon have chosen to manufacture with the same sensor and lens as the HV20 & HV30. It doesn't make any sense to me that they would want to capture with any less quality than the HV series of camcorders. I would think it would even cost less to manufacture a product without the tape drive apparatus and supporting circuitry than it would be to run them ones & zeros right into a memory chip instead of through tape & tape head circutry.

Maybe it’s part of their quest to have the smallest HD cam. I think manufacturers are getting a bit ridiculous in this regards. When is enough enough? The lens on the HF10 is smaller than the HV20…so I don’t know if that had anything to do with it.




Speakin' of giving up some quality with the HF10 versus the HV20 or HV30, wouldn't the fact that it captures at a true 1920 instead of 1440 make up and even produce better quality frames. I suppose cmos pixel size and lens size play a part in quality too, but I doubt they play as big of part in frame quality as does engineering and manufacture of these two components.

Well…I don’t know if there is really any discernable difference between 1440 x 1080 and 1920 x 1080. perfect example would be JVC’s current consumer cam…HDV..1920 x 1080… hard drive… but its picture is not on par with the HV20. Even Panasonic HDD HD cams are 1920 x 1080 and the HV20 puts out better pictures than they do (I know that's subjective but...really....it does :-)).

[CJDaniels]

Isn't a huge issue editing as well. i mean isn't a whole new workflow and some NLE systems don't accept it, no?

[Ian-T]

Well...6 to 8 months ago...yeah. But lately you will find more and more support for AVCHD. But if you think HDV is difficult to edit then AVCHD is even more. I have a pretty decent PC for editing HDV...but it is still very slow...so I use intermediary files 95% of the time. If one can find a way to turn their AVCHD files an intermediary file (with pulldown removed)..."easily"....then life is good.

[Worley]

...wouldn't the fact that it captures at a true 1920 instead of 1440 make up and even produce better quality frames...

The HV20 has a true 1920*1080 sensor too. And it can capture at that resolution, but only on stills.

Comparing the spec of the HV30 against the HF10, both have the same number of pixels on the sensor, both capture the same range of resolutions when capturing stills, but only the HF10 records at 1920*1080.

Given that the pixels are smaller than on the HV20/30 (due to the smaller sensor size) I wonder if there will be any discernible difference in the quality of the final image.

Interesting...

[africanmarty]

The HV20 has a true 1920*1080 sensor too. And it can capture at that resolution, but only on stills.

Comparing the spec of the HV30 against the HF10, both have the same number of pixels on the sensor, both capture the same range of resolutions when capturing stills, but only the HF10 records at 1920*1080.

Given that the pixels are smaller than on the HV20/30 (due to the smaller sensor size) I wonder if there will be any discernible difference in the quality of the final image.

Interesting...

i'm sure its well known but the hv20/30 can too capture at 1920 x 1080 via hdmi

[Erik Bien]

In my very humble opinion, the picture quality (or lack thereof) of the HF10 will have much less to do with the sensor size, number of pixels or whether or not said pixels are square than it will with the AVCHD compression.

I know in theory higher-bitrate AVCHD should ultimately be able to surpass the quality of HDV, but in practice every AVCHD cam I've seen has so far come up short in this regard. If Canon reps are really saying the HF10 is "not quite as good" as the HV20/30, that suggests to me that we're still a product-cycle or two away from HDV-beating AVCHD.

[bluegrass]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head - AVCHD compression. It seems from everything I've read, it's the quality is lagging behind other formats but apparently this is going to be changing.

Storage and compression are improving every time we turn around. Isn't it great.

The question I have is whether as the software masters improve AVCHD compression, can the improvements be updated in the camcorder or will it require a new camcorder to take advantage of the newly developed software improvements?

Someone mentioned camcorder size might be the reason for a decrease in cmos size. I doubt that. I think it has more to do with the cost of manfacturing the cmos array. I'm not a professional and don't really understand all the pluses and minuses of various sizes but I can't see much advantage for decreasing the size beyond what the HV20 is. If the weight was not too much, I wouldn't mind working with the size of say a Canon A1. Don't you think eventially that perception of whether a shoot is being done by a professional or amateur will become more blurred with the advances in camcorders. If perception was such a big deal, I would think manufacturers could easily fit an HV20 into a professional size cabinet without increasing the cost more than $100 or so.

[Ian-T]

....Someone mentioned camcorder size might be the reason for a decrease in cmos size. I doubt that. I think it has more to do with the cost of manfacturing the cmos array. ....

Yeah that was me. I was hoping somebody would correct me on that because I am really not sure. But I agree with what you said.

As far as picture quality, Worley, wouldn't smaller pixels on a even smaller sensor mean worse low light capability? In good light the cam might shine...but low light might be a problem.

[24Peter]

In my very humble opinion, the picture quality (or lack thereof) of the HF10 will have much less to do with the sensor size, number of pixels or whether or not said pixels are square than it will with the AVCHD compression.

I know in theory higher-bitrate AVCHD should ultimately be able to surpass the quality of HDV, but in practice every AVCHD cam I've seen has so far come up short in this regard. If Canon reps are really saying the HF10 is "not quite as good" as the HV20/30, that suggests to me that we're still a product-cycle or two away from HDV-beating AVCHD.

I think you're right Erik.

The little investigation I've done says 17mbps AVCHD may be quite close to 25mbps HDV so we'll have to see how Canon implements it.

I too am interested in a solid state 24p camcorder, so one of the HF's may be in my future. I have to see how the IQ holds up first though.

[cinemasteve87]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HF10-First-Impressions-Camcorder-Review-34262.htm

First impressions.

[pitonyak]

With a smaller sensor, you end up with greater depth of field (DOF) for the same field of view (FOV). So, if you have both cameras next to each other and record the same image at the same resolution, the camera with the smaller sensor will have more of the image in focus. On the other hand, with the HV20, if you write to tape, you are not using the entire sensor.

The larger sensor is expected to have fuller more saturated colors, less noise, and better low light performance (compare the Canon 30D or 40D to a 5D).

If AVCHD really compresses an extra 50%, then 17 mbps (mega-bits / per second) will be the same as 25 mbps so there would be the same amount of information. Hmm, but there are more pixels (about 33% more), and above, it is mentioned that there may be twice as much color information. OK, can the compression cut the size more than in half from the format used on the HV20?

Hmmm.

I cannot wait to see some real world tests.