HV20 v HF100

[Nature]

Okay, I read the FAQ and while some posts came close to answering my question, none seemed to address it directly.

The HV20 shoots in 1440 x 1080, while the HF100 shoots in "true HD" at 1920 x 1080. I understand the techinical difference.

But, forgetting about any other differences in the two cameras, is there going to be a noticeable difference in my end product because I shot in "true HD" vs. in 1440 x 1080?

In other words, is it worth purchasing a new HF100 over the well-tested HV20simply because of this difference?

Thanks

[net]

Okay, I read the FAQ and while some posts came close to answering my question, none seemed to address it directly.

The HV20 shoots in 1440 x 1080, while the HF100 shoots in "true HD" at 1920 x 1080. I understand the technical difference.

But, forgetting about any other differences in the two cameras, is there going to be a noticeable difference in my end product because I shot in "true HD" vs. in 1440 x 1080?

In other words, is it worth purchasing a new HF100 over the well-tested HV20simply because of this difference?

Thanks

I look at this way; where is your final footage going to be viewed?
The internet: are the minor differences going to make a difference on YouTube or Vimeo?
On a TV: are your friends and family, who are going to be impressed by HD quality video to begin with, going to even know the difference?

The biggest difference is that that the HF100 uses the AVCHD format... the topic which has been pounded into the skulls of forum users here. :hv20-smilie20:
(You'll need a pc the size of a Home Depot with 5 jillion gigs of RAM just to get to the intro screen of the the editing software.)

In any event, Amazon already has the HF100 listed cheaper than both the HV20/HV30.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-HF100-Definition-Camcorder-Stabilized/dp/B00114162K/ref=sr_1_1/002-5254583-9458449?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1207261992&sr=1-1

[Pauly Forte]

(You'll need a pc the size of a Home Depot with 5 jillion gigs of RAM just to get to the intro screen of the the editing software.)

[/url]

thats one mighty big exaggeration.


users of the HV20 use sony vegas movie studio platinum here. Can we agree on that?

Well that same program supports AVCHD format. Also to edit and run the program no problem for me onmy moderate PC.
What exactly was pounded into your head? The AVCHD processing needs CPU not RAM anyway!




Unless you have a tv with 1920 by 1080 then not that big of a deal.

Vimeo supports up to 1280 x 720 so again not a big deal. But providing vimeo with the best quality will produce bbetter results. But again no big deal.

Connect your camera to a tv with 1920x 1080 then yes a big deal


But it may be the chip sets and software that are producing better AVCHD with these new cameras.

[divide]

You have some HV100 vs HV20 shots here:
http://lucienk.spaces.live.com/photos/cns!A4AE3FB12A26635!708/

[net]

thats one mighty big exaggeration.

I was being sarcastic.. I don't have a problem with (the idea of using) AVCHD.

I actually contacted a couple of camcorder manufacturers for recommendations regarding minimum specs. Neither specifically stated that a pc with a huge processor was needed.
One stood by 2.8ghz (single core) as a minimum for editing AVCHD, which they had also recommended for HDV..
The other stated that only Windows XP/Vista and USB 2.0 was needed.


I really like the concept of the HF100 having similar technology, but using flash media, compared to the HV30's miniDV---(haven't purchased either yet) .

But the thing I'm concerned about is if the HF100 might turn out to be inferior compared to what Canon will release next year; maybe 25mbps? If so, the HV30 is already ni that 25mbps threshold.

[divide]

But the thing I'm concerned about is if the HF100 might turn out to be inferior compared to what Canon will release next year; maybe 25mbps? If so, the HV30 is already ni that 25mbps threshold.

HV30 is mpeg2, HF100 is h264.. you can't compare bitrates.

[net]

HV30 is mpeg2, HF100 is h264.. you can't compare bitrates.

Please elaborate ...

Is the quality of the HF100'S 16mbps/h264 going to be actually close to 25mbps/mpeg2 HV30?

I like the HF100; but am concerned it might be quickly outdated.

Thanks.

[divide]

h264 use a more efficient compression algorithm. You can find perfect 1920x1080p movies on the web at only 13mbps (.mkv files). Of courses theses are multiple pass, what a camcorder can not do (realtime recording). But with 17mbps (HF100) you already have very nice quality. Have a look to theses HF100(left)/HV20(right) comparison shots:

outdoor (http://uppix.net/9/3/5/cfae9d506e8608e40cc44c845721d.jpg)
indoor (http://uppix.net/a/9/4/7c2996dadea54686b20e7f21be49e.jpg)

[divide]

h264 use a more efficient compression algorithm. You can find perfect 1920x1080p movies on the web at only 13mbps (.mkv files). Of courses theses are multiple pass, what a camcorder can not do (realtime recording). But with 17mbps (HF100) you already have very nice quality. Have a look to theses HV100(left)/HV20(right) comparison shots:
outdoor (http://uppix.net/9/3/5/cfae9d506e8608e40cc44c845721d.jpg)
indoor (http://uppix.net/a/9/4/7c2996dadea54686b20e7f21be49e.jpg)

To Admin: Why are my post deleted all the time ??? I had to post this message 4 times now.. What's wrong ?

[bluegrass]

h264 use a more efficient compression algorithm. You can find perfect 1920x1080p movies on the web at only 13mbps (.mkv files). Of courses theses are multiple pass, what a camcorder can not do (realtime recording). But with 17mbps (HF100) you already have very nice quality. Have a look to theses HV100(left)/HV20(right) comparison shots:
outdoor (http://uppix.net/9/3/5/cfae9d506e8608e40cc44c845721d.jpg)
indoor (http://uppix.net/a/9/4/7c2996dadea54686b20e7f21be49e.jpg)

To Admin: Why are my post deleted all the time ??? I had to post this message 4 times now.. What's wrong ?

I believe if a moderator deleted your posts, there would be an identification saying post deleted. Maybe Taky can answer your question. I believe it has probably has something to do with your browser or your Internet connection.

[RicanJoe]

h264 use a more efficient compression algorithm. You can find perfect 1920x1080p movies on the web at only 13mbps (.mkv files). Of courses theses are multiple pass, what a camcorder can not do (realtime recording). But with 17mbps (HF100) you already have very nice quality. Have a look to theses HV100(left)/HV20(right) comparison shots:
outdoor (http://uppix.net/9/3/5/cfae9d506e8608e40cc44c845721d.jpg)
indoor (http://uppix.net/a/9/4/7c2996dadea54686b20e7f21be49e.jpg)

To Admin: Why are my post deleted all the time ??? I had to post this message 4 times now.. What's wrong ?

Hmm, the HF100 looks sharper compared to the hv20 in some areas(look at the plants and shadows to start). Can someone explain?

[Ian-T]

It depends on what mode they were shot in. It (HF100) looks brighter with more edge sharpening. But if it (HF100) was shot in 30p and the HV20 in 24p then that's not really a good comparison.

[Alsone]

Camcorder info (www.camcorderinfo.com) has a HV100 test.

I've posted some shots on here before so I'm not going to bug everyone by repeating it.

However, in conclusion, the official verdict seems to be its very close but the HV 30 still has the edge. From the shots I saw (look in the review) where there is a fire hydrant connection on the wall, the HV30 has better colour, is sharper and has recorded more detail in my opinion.

Personally, I don't currently own a HV although I intend to get a camera shortly (not certain it will be the hv30 but likely). So I have no axe to grind. I personally would love to go solid state, but I've yet to find a camera that convinces me to make the jump.

[net]

Camcorder info (www.camcorderinfo.com) has a HV100 test.

I've posted some shots on here before so I'm not going to bug everyone by repeating it.

However, in conclusion, the official verdict seems to be its very close but the HV 30 still has the edge. From the shots I saw (look in the review) where there is a fire hydrant connection on the wall, the HV30 has better colour, is sharper and has recorded more detail in my opinion.

Personally, I don't currently own a HV although I intend to get a camera shortly (not certain it will be the hv30 but likely). So I have no axe to grind. I personally would love to go solid state, but I've yet to find a camera that convinces me to make the jump.

But, honestly, as I replied to the OP earlier; what situation, specifically, is this really going to matter?

Is the slight difference going to be noticed by anyone on YouTube or Vimeo? If, on an HDTV; who is going to complain/or even know to compare a difference?

The only situation I can think it would matter is if someone is using a camera for a film course and the final gets scrutinized on a projected screen in a screening room.

[Ian-T]

..... on a projected screen in a screening room.I think this is what a lot of people would like to shoot for...realistically...probably none of us would ever go that route (or maybe just a small percentage). But just knowing you can get the best possible picture...without breaking the bank....is a benefit in most peoples eyes. Sure...the average Joe-Blow family shooter might not even care....but why do so many Americans (not even talking about the rest of the world) obsess over their Hi Def television...and big screen projectors... I think because they want the absolute best IQ that "their" money can buy. Nothing wrong with that.:hv20-smilie70:

[Alsone]

But, honestly, as I replied to the OP earlier; what situation, specifically, is this really going to matter?

Is the slight difference going to be noticed by anyone on YouTube or Vimeo? If, on an HDTV; who is going to complain/or even know to compare a difference?

The only situation I can think it would matter is if someone is using a camera for a film course and the final gets scrutinized on a projected screen in a screening room.

I think the answer is it depends what you want it for.

Most of the people on here are enthusiasts / serious amateurs and its performance that attracts them to the HV20/30. They simply want the best camera money can buy within their budget. If out and out performance doesn't matter for you, then you'll probably be happy with the HF100. At the end of the day, there's very little between them, HV arguably has slightly better motion handling / detail retreival but it is slight. If you can live with a lsightly less perfect picture as a trade off for memory card convenience, then the HF maybe for you. Only warning here comes from the editing side as AVCHD isn't supported in all editng programs and it requires a lot of processing power by all accounts so a powerful pc is a must.

[dcloud]

hv20 has manual focus. hf100 manual focus through the menu.
hv20 is still tape. hf100 is SD card

i say
hf100 for shooting home videos
hv20 for indie filmmaking

[net]

Ian-T, Alsone, dcloud...you all make good points.

I am just emphasizing, for the sake of discussion and camera consideration, that it may come down to method of distribution and audience. Yes, definitely; people want the best picture quality their money can buy -- sometimes just for the sake of it. And this is a reason for some to get the camera in the first place...

A video goes through so much transfer/render/upload...
...with YouTube and Vimeo as a popular final destination: are these differences, (in all finality of the situation/minus the benefit of knowing you have the best), really going to be noticeable to the audience? (Not the owner of the camera.)

I mean, knowledgeable people aside, is the average person going to be watching an indie film online and get turned off by some minor artifacts?

It's just that, presently, the internet populace is extremely tolerant of crappy quality video. It seems to be content over quality. I'm just talking about the present state of things, Maybe it could rapidly change: maybe YouTube, or another site just with just as big of an audience, will go high quality streaming these little differences would matter.

Also, just a short time ago, a standard definition camcorder like the Panasonic PV-GS500 was considered amazing picture quality. So, in this regards...it would seem that something like an HD, HF100 would blow that away..and how, in such a short space of time.. could the audience's general eye evolved so much? An HF100 is an advancedment to that standard.

I know, I'm kind of beating a dead horse, here...:hv20-smilie20:
I just want to hone in on the reality of the final product and not any other benefit a cam may provide.
Just to reiterate; I was all set on the HV30 -- but the HF100 is getting cheap fast...and the possibility of flash is kind of freakin' me out.:hv20-smilie02:

[divide]

Hmm, the HF100 looks sharper compared to the hv20 in some areas(look at the plants and shadows to start). Can someone explain?

According to CCI's tests, HF100 has better resolution than HV20 (HF100 60i:675x600, HV20 60i: 625x575, HF100 24p: 650x650, HV20 24p: 625x600). Plus true 1920x1980 recording. So I don't think HF100 should be ashame on the big screen ;)

[dcloud]

i would actually take hf100 if only it had better or equal to hv20 manual controls and other stuff like peaking, zebra etc... i mean, i dont want the hassle of focusing on the goddamn menu.

[faustofernos]

Hi there, can somebody post a sample of the file the Canon HF100 creates so we can experience working with it on our own?

At the end of the day, it's the experience of importing and editing the file (besides the video quality) that will make me go with the HF100 over the HV30.

Thanks!:hv20-smilie03:

[oddmanil]

I like the HF's advantage of not having to shift tape in the middle of a happening, but will HV30/20 give me better image flow?

[Alsone]

If you're going to shoot sports look at the comparison vids I reposted here (thanks to Eskin):

http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=10986

The HF10 / 100 doesn't handle movement well.

Mods could we perhaps have a Hv20/30 vs HF10 /100 sticky with the 2 video links from the linked post and some commentary about movement, as it seems to come up a lot. (Provided Eskin is happy to leave those vids up or have them hosted here).

[oddmanil]

I suppose the same goes for Sony SR12 as for HF10? Almost identical camcorders in handling movements?

[barnyard27]

i was told by the people at canon that there is no difference in video quality in the hv30 & the hf100 ..it's just a matter of what your needs are (tape or flash media)..me personally am going for the hf 100 because it's smaller & has a better zoom and also plan on watching my movies on a tv with 1920x1080 ..maybe doing some editing in the future...why waste 2 or 300 more on the hv30 when i say the hf100 outperforms it..i've seen the videos on vimeo.

[meajedi]

Bought the hv20 less than a year ago. It is a great backup to my aging Canon GL1, which I can't part with due to it's gorgeous lens and full set of manual controls. However, the hv20 allowed me to get into hidef while maintaining a MiniDV format with my existing standard def rig.

The HV20 is great - I'm keeping it/will keep using it BUT I also just bought the HF100 because:

In my part of the world (Saskatoon, Canada) true HD tapes are around $13/each. I find that normal, cheaper DV tapes (I've tried panasonic, fuji and sony) tend to drop out a bit. I might have more success with other brands.

If you use your camera a lot you will eventually have to replace the heads - or get a new camera. It ain't cheap!

My workflow takes longer with tape. I shoot a miniDV tape, then burn a timecode DVD on a standalone DVD recorder. From this I review the footage, make paper edits, then capture the necessary clips from the miniDV master and edit from there.

With the HF100 I fill up and SD card, burn a data DVD (under a buck) faster than real time. From this I can preview the footage in HD on a PS3 or a computer - without worrying about wearing down heads and possibly getting a dropout on the tape. If a need another backup I can quickly dub another DVD.

Having said that, miniDV is very robust. I have tapes going back years that still play well.

I still haven't used both the hv20 & hf100 yet together in a single production, nor have I done any side by side comparisions. But they are both great cameras. Yes you need a super powerful computer to edit AVCHD, but using the HF100 will save me lots of time for certain projects, and will ultimately save me tape costs as well.

Am I ready to go totally tapeless? Not yet. My critical stuff will continue to be shot in HDV and standard DV. This is due to familiarity, plus my best camera (GL1) is standard def miniDV. AVCHD will definitely be used for family stuff and for in-house promotional productions. But I expect to be using the HF100 more and more in the near future.

Now if they'd just make these cameras with full manual control so we wouldn't have to do the flashlight/exposure lock in shutter priority mode we'd all be happy...!

[MrGibbs]

users of the HV20 use sony vegas movie studio platinum here. Can we agree on that?

Well that same program supports AVCHD format.

Vegas (movie studio only?) only supports avchd for Sony cams (I think). Can someone confirm?

[wanderingeye]

i was told by the people at canon that there is no difference in video quality in the hv30 & the hf100 ..it's just a matter of what your needs are (tape or flash media)..me personally am going for the hf 100 because it's smaller & has a better zoom and also plan on watching my movies on a tv with 1920x1080 ..maybe doing some editing in the future...why waste 2 or 300 more on the hv30 when i say the hf100 outperforms it..i've seen the videos on vimeo.

I agree. I just bought an HF100, and think it's brilliant. A decent converter will take your m2ts files and decompress them to whatever format your current editor can handle so you don't need to spend loads on a new editing package. And they still look brilliant. I like miniDV a lot, but afraid it's going. But 16GB of data on something the size of a guitar pick that you can take anywhere?

People mention a lot on this forum about needing a mega powerful PC to edit AVCHD...well, mines a two year old 3500 athalon 64 bit with 3GB RAM. I would hardly call that mega powerful.