2008 November 15th, 07:24
HG10 or HG20?
After playing quite a bit with some footage from the HG20 that I got from best buy. I'm wondering if I might like the HG10 better. My HG20 footage seems a bit grainy. i.e. shiny blue plastic that dominates the best buy infrastructure looks like paper / sand paper on the footage. At full resolution anyway. Scaled down to DVD quality, it looks pretty good. So I'm weighing the pros and cons.
Pro - Larger sensor - 1/2.7"
Pro - 4:3 mode - 1920x1440
Con - XP+ (12Mbps AVCHD) best quality
Con - 10X zoom (relative to the HG20)
Con - 40GB HDD (relative to the HG20)
Pro - MXP (24Mbps AVCHD)
Pro - 12X zoom
Pro - 60GB HDD
Con - Smaller sensor - 1/3.2"
Con - 1920x1080 video ONLY
Is there any raw HG10 footage out there in 4:3 mode at the highest rate? Is 12Mbps AVCHD enough to make the sensor and video mode not be an advantage over the HG20? I really like the way that the HG20 handles motion and panning. But would I get a better picture quality from the HG10? Are the still images better / worse / the same (2048x1536)? Or is there something better coming out next month?
2008 November 15th, 07:59
The fact the you can only record video on the HG10 hard drive and the SD slot is for pictures only, would kill it for me.
I'm already concerned about the HG20 having a hard drive w/ movable parts even though that can record video to a card, too.
2008 November 15th, 15:22
Or should I just get a samsung?
2008 November 15th, 15:46
The noise in your image is probably due to overexposure and gain. Try locking the exposure and using a slower shutter speed.
Of course, that's just an educated guess, can you post screenshots so we can get an idea of what the problem is?
2008 November 15th, 16:23
Just wondering why you're considering other cams besides the HG20...
Originally Posted by Shadow_7
I probably should of waited a bit for the HF11 to come down. Actually, the HF10, being the price it is now I would have been satisfied with.
The HF100 is not bad for $550.
I also like the Panasonic HDC-SD9. The Canons are supposed to be superior but there's something about the video quality I've always liked. Maybe it's the oversaturated/3CCD image. Should probably mention that it doesn't have a mic jack and it only takes cards.
B&H has it for only $499:
Last edited by net; 2008 November 15th at 20:22.
2008 November 16th, 01:28
I'm considering it mainly to have more options. And the samsung has a larger sensor(1/1.8"), larger than even the HV30. The option to shoot 1920x1440, the option to shoot SD, the option to capture 300fps for 10 seconds(SD Only). And roughly the same cash. Most of my deliverables will be DVD at best. The option to choose between 4:3 and 16:9 has more appeal to me this week. And option available on the HG10, but not on the HG20.
Originally Posted by net
When I shot my HG20 footage I went for the largest aperture and fastest shutter, or tried to anyway. In addition to no OIS to check the motion stutter / blur mainly. From what I can tell anything with a solid color, or a slow gradiant ends up looking patchy / kind of like sandpaper IMO.
2008 November 16th, 02:58
>Or should I just get a samsung? SC-HMX20C
The Samsung is nowhere near the quality of the HG20, despite the larger sensor. Manual control is also NOT there. Samsung's files also are not AVCHD, they are their own kind of MP4 h.264 files.
Between the HG10 and HG20, the quality is vastly superior on the HG20. Go for that.
Also, I am not sure what you mean by 1920x1440, this is not a valid resolution. You probably meant 1440x1080, and 1920x1080.
2008 November 16th, 08:55
- 4:3 mode: Approx 2.76 Megapixels (1920 x 1440)
Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru
Tricky one there canon. It's for still images listed under effective pixels, on the same line as Movie. Although it would be nice to shoot video in that mode.
Yes the Samsung is MP4 with H.264/AVC tucked inside. But ffmpeg doesn't seem to have too much of an issue with them, from a video perspective. Although I only have but a few samples so far. And my relatively slow computer can almost play them without conversion. As opposed to the MTS files where playback occurs at only 25% of the original framerate (or lower) without conversion.
Is it as detailed and sharp, NO. But for my current needs it seems a slightly better fit. DVD resultant, completely linux workflow, merging of external audio, producing a DVD result in hopefully less than 3x's the source footage. Something closer to 2 to 3 hours of capture delivered within 12 hours of starting the capture process. Without having to invest in even more hardware. And it offers a slightly larger still image 3264 x 2448. Not to imply better, but statistically superior, if only in specifications.
2008 November 16th, 11:33
hey man, if it works for you, you should go for it. I think the video quality looks good on the Samsung and the slow motion ability is cool.
Originally Posted by Shadow_7
These little details between cams, especially for online posts, are not going to really matter.
More importantly, most of the people who will end up seeing the videos, in whatever form, are not going to even know there's a potential issue with quality from one camcorder to the other.
2008 November 18th, 20:35
I'm really liking the workflow for the Samsung.
ffmpeg -r 30000/1001 -i Samsung_Boardwalk_Clip.MP4 -an -sameq -vcodec mjpeg -r 30000/1001 -y sb_video.avi
ffmpeg -i Samsung_Boardwalk_Clip.MP4 -vn -acodec copy -y sb_audio.aac
faad -o sb_audio.wav sb_audio.aac
ffmpeg -i sb_video.avi -sameq -s hd720 -i sb_audio.wav -qmin 4 -f avi -vcodec msmpeg4v2 -y sb_new.mp4
Temp file < 10x size (although if I used .yuv instead...)
Processing time < 4x's length (2GHz 32 bit CPU'd laptop)
Although there is a noticably lower bitrate and stabilization is not as good as the canon's appear to be. But some reports of scoring these for < $300. I guess I'll keep an eye out. Minimum balance be damned. I could probably bypass the temp file with doing the audio extraction / conversion first. For some reason ffmpeg doesn't seem to be able to convert AAC internally (yet).