It is time for me to upgrade to an HD Camcorder. I have narrowed it down to the Canon HF10 and the Sony HDR-CX7. They are fairly similar, but I am having a really hard time deciding between the two of them. I would appreciate any help or information anyone could provide to help me make my decision.

The HF10 is a new gen AVCHD cam and will likely offer better picture quality than the older CX7. The HF10 is also 1920X1080 while the CX7 is not.

It may be too early to tell which is better since the only review we have of the HF10 was on cnet (http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/canon-vixia-hf10/4505-6500_7-32786396.html?tag=prod.txt.1) recently (not the greatest source IMHO).

In addition, to the higher resolution, the Canon HF10 also provides recording in 24p and 30p and, most importantly, accepts SDHC cards which are larger and cheaper than Sony's memory sticks.

It may be too early to tell which is better since the only review we have of the HF10 was on cnet (http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-camcorders/canon-vixia-hf10/4505-6500_7-32786396.html?tag=prod.txt.1) recently (not the greatest source IMHO).

In addition, to the higher resolution, the Canon HF10 also provides recording in 24p and 30p and, most importantly, accepts SDHC cards which are larger and cheaper than Sony's memory sticks.

http://mp40modelguns.com/forum/Canon H comparison.JPG

You should probably wait for the CX9 or get the SR11/12....or HF10/100!:D

ericvonzipper: Thanks for those samples, very nice! Can I ask where they came from?

ericvonzipper: Thanks for those samples, very nice! Can I ask where they came from?

I did a quick cut and paste from the Austin Meyers HF10 comparison video.

Unsure if Austin is ready to show the website though....?


You can check for updates here:
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=839244#post839244

Austin just posted that his overall impression of the HF10 was that it was comparable to the HG10, but not quite as good in terms of sharpness as the HV20. The Sonys may wind up being the 'best in class' on this go-around...at least what I'm seeing thus far with the SR12.

Yeah I saw that too Ken.. I would worry a bit about the size of the HF10 (as it looks similar in size to the SD9 from Panasonic) as I think the SR11 is actually a bit small to my big hands, which means those must be absolutely tiny in comparison.

The SR11/12 are about the same size as the Canon HV20. But yes, the SD9 and HF10 are quite a bit smaller than those. I guess that's why the viewfinder was eliminated.

I think size/weight isn't too bad as long as steadyshot works well (hv20 that I got is pretty poor in terms of correction). I think with all these cams you have to buy a wide-angle lens anyway which will help with stabilizing since it increases weight.

I also would say that I'd definitely choose the HF100 over the CX7. However the comparison between the SR11 to HF10/HF100 is more difficult and I'm also trying to decide between these 2 (I have a HV20 but the audio quality annoys me).

I think picture quality should be very similar (and I leave that to upcoming reviews) but otherwise I see following differences:

- SR11 Memory stick expensive and only come at this point in smaller sizes (16GB SDHC cost $72). If HDD is as silent as MS than that's a non-issue perhaps
- SR11 'Docking station/base'. Seems a big hassle on vacation? No?
- SR11 touch screen. Could Sony at least have included play/rew/ff buttons:-(
+ SR11 higher quality screen (if you don't have dirty fingers:-)).
+ SR11 Dolby digital 5 channel. Not sure if it really works well but potentially better
- SR11 very few adjustments compared to HF100. E.g. shutter/aperture priority modes, sharpness/contrast settings, ...

The HF100 probably will become the better deal. I already seen $750 advertised and SDHC is already fairly cheap and will drop further this summer.

I'm also considering the HF10, but also read about the Sanyo HD1000. Is the Sanyo way out of its league, as in below that of the Canon? I currently have the Canon HV10, love the PQ, but never got around to do any editing, mostly because transferring tape to PC is a hassle. I'm hoping flash memory based is much quicker and simpler, just insert the card and be done, right?

Thanks,

The HF10 is a new gen AVCHD cam and will likely offer better picture quality than the older CX7. The HF10 is also 1920X1080 while the CX7 is not.

I agree...I Returned my CX7 for the new Gen Sony HDR SR11. The CX7 only supports up to 1440x1080 res. While the other supports full 1920x1080i res with a higher bitrate and face detection.

If you had to pick between the HF10 and CX7 I'd go Canon HF10 for sure, but your going to be waiting a little while longer for the Canon to be released, while the Sony SR11/12 is out now and supports both flash memory and has a built-in harddrive.

Camcorderinfo.com has their review of the HF10 up...according to them, it is the best AVCHD camcorder yet and may even be on par with HDV cams like the HV20/30.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF10-Camcorder-Review-34711.htm

Camcorderinfo.com has their review of the HF10 up...according to them, it is the best AVCHD camcorder yet and may even be on par with HDV cams like the HV20/30.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF10-Camcorder-Review-34711.htm

Thanks for the tip! Seems they just posted it.

I think the claim that 1920x1080 has more resolution than 1440x1080 is a myth at this point. The typical resolution of a HD camcorder is around 600x600. However one advantage I do see is the more even resolution / pixel size.

The SR12 review has just been posted on watch impress:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080312/zooma349.htm

Here's a comparison of the wide-angle shot to the HF10:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080312/ezsp0136.jpg
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/ezsp350.jpg

These are taken under different circumstances but I do see what I suspected: less noise for SR11 but less detail as well (look at the branches, softer than the HF10).
I also do see bit more (bluish/ purple) fringing on the HF10 as I noticed before but it also has higher contrast setting so you could adjust that setting.

Can you summarize what they say as compared to the HF10??

Can you summarize what they say as compared to the HF10??

Watch impress didn't compare it to the HF10. I just looked at the picture they always take with each camera.

The CC review didn't compare the HF10 since it's not a HDD Hybrid system (so they compared it to the older CX7 and noted a successor is planned).

The SR12 review has just been posted on watch impress:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080312/zooma349.htm

Here's a comparison of the wide-angle shot to the HF10:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080312/ezsp0136.jpg
http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/ezsp350.jpg

These are taken under different circumstances but I do see what I suspected: less noise for SR11 but less detail as well (look at the branches, softer than the HF10).
I also do see bit more (bluish/ purple) fringing on the HF10 as I noticed before but it also has higher contrast setting so you could adjust that setting.


Luc, tough to compare those shots since it's obvious they were not only taken on different days but at different times with differernt weather conditions. I've used the same cam at different times on different days and gotten different sharpness results. So I'm not sure we can draw any conclusions from those shots.

The purplish fringing is often an issue with Canon lenses. It was a very common complaint on their prosumer HDV models. I don't see much of it at all on the HV20 though, but the HF10 is using a different lens, so who knows.

But it's obvious the HF10 is a great cam if we use the CCI review as an indicator.

Thanks for the tip! Seems they just posted it.

I think the claim that 1920x1080 has more resolution than 1440x1080 is a myth at this point. The typical resolution of a HD camcorder is around 600x600. However one advantage I do see is the more even resolution / pixel size.

Actually they acknowledged it's the highest resolution of any consumer HD camcorder they've tested. It got 675 measured lines of horizontal rez, a new high. I really wish the thing had a real viewfinder!

Is the viewfinder on the SR11/12 an electronic viewfinder or a true optical viewfinder?

Actually they acknowledged it's the highest resolution of any consumer HD camcorder they've tested. It got 675 measured lines of horizontal rez, a new high. I really wish the thing had a real viewfinder!

Sure but most likely that's because of the increased pixel count on the imager (as they mentioned).
I have to say if you compare the fire hydrant scene than the HV20 beats the HF10 big time. The other pictures look similar. The distinction of noise they were referring to is luminance and chroma noise. Seems HF10 has less of the latter and more of the former.

Overall they liked the HF100 and after my (unscientific) comparison on watch impress I favor the HF100 over the SR11 at this point. Not sure when we'll see a SR12 review at CC. WatchImpress had some mixed feelings about the large imager (not sure if they were referring to the photos only).

Is the viewfinder on the SR11/12 an electronic viewfinder or a true optical viewfinder?

Optical? You won't find any of those on any modern camcorders, they're all electronic these days.

Sure but most likely that's because of the increased pixel count on the imager (as they mentioned).
I have to say if you compare the fire hydrant scene than the HV20 beats the HF10 big time. The other pictures look similar. The distinction of noise they were referring to is luminance and chroma noise. Seems HF10 has less of the latter and more of the former.

Overall they liked the HF100 and after my (unscientific) comparison on watch impress I favor the HF100 over the SR11 at this point. Not sure when we'll see a SR12 review at CC. WatchImpress had some mixed feelings about the large imager (not sure if they were referring to the photos only).

Well yes, it would make sense that the higher rez is due to the increased pixel count, but who cares? As long as the rez IS higher, that's what counts. 675 lines of horizontal resolution on the HF10 is pretty impressive when you look at some of the highly regarded HDV cams, including the HV20. The funny thing is, their enlarged rez chart, even though showing a bit more detail on the HV20, showed quite a bit of artifacting relative to the HF10. The HF10 was clean by comparison and I'm surprised they didn't mention it. The HV20 appeared to have some edge enhancement going on in those charts.

I've never been a fan of using still captures or frame captures to judge the quality of moving video. I've often found little correlation. You really need to judge moving video of cam A to cam B. Stills just don't cut it for that purpose. If those hydrant scenes were truly indicative, you know for sure that they would have killed the HF10 in that review. It obviously was not indicative of the quality of the video.

I never use a camcorder for stills anyway, so even that function is kind of moot for me.

I noticed that too Ken. The res chart of the Hf10 looks better to me then the HV20. The HV20 looked like it was oversharpened with some significant halos around the numbers. The HF10 looks more like a RAW image capture.

Yeah...it's very interesting comparing those shots on CCI. My first impression when looking at the fire hydrant shots was that the HV20 was much better. It appears as if they HF10 has some stair-stepping issues (i.e., along the edge of the window frame)...but then I noticed the HV20 shot showed similar issues with other parts of the picture as well. It also looked as if the HF10 shot was a bit out of focus...and objects futher away in the shot (i.e., the concrete area right in front of the door) appeared to be sharper on the HF10 shot than in the HV20 shot.

I also thought that the resolution comparison with the chart was a bit fishy. The HV20 shot looked a little over-enhanced and showed a higer degree of compression artifacting then the HF10 shot did, which looked almost as sharp but just a tad bit softer (and the artifacting wasn't as noticeable).

The comparison of the "real world" low light shots was interesting as well. As they mentioned in the article, the grain on the HF10 appears to be more monochromatic than the grain on the HV20 when shooting under low light conditions. The HF10 also appears to maintain its higher resolution as well...again, despite conventional wisdom, the HF10 seemed to produce a BETTER picture than the HV20 under the same low light conditions (despite having a smaller image sensor). Also, the detail of the white dogs fur seemed to be much sharper and free of the edge artifacts that were apparent in the same HV20 shot.

Again, it's a really close call...but at this point, I think my money is still with the HF10. If AVCHD has finally come so close to HDV that only the pros can tell them apart, then I think we may have a winner in this category. But I suppose I really won't know for sure untill I have one in my own hands...

Otakuon, good observations. The stills of the darker dog show much more artifacting in the HV20 than the HF10. I'm still amazed that CCI said nothing about those blown up rez charts. There's no question there is sharpening going on with the HV20 and I've seen precisely the same thing in my A/Bs with my Canon HV20 and the SR12. Initially I could see people picking the HV20 in some scenes due to a greater apparent sharpness. But as you look closely, it is primarily due to edge enhancement that seems to be almost totally absent on the SR12. The overall look of the Sony is unquestionably 'tighter' and cleaner than the HV20. But to be fair, in most shots it's tough to pick a winner. Much comes down to color preference.

But it may well be that they've been able to achieve a cleaner, more artifact-free picture with the best of these new AVCHD cams.

Do think CCI is going to review the SR11/12??

No doubt about it. I have no idea when though.

Otakuon, good observations. The stills of the darker dog show much more artifacting in the HV20 than the HF10. I'm still amazed that CCI said nothing about those blown up rez charts. There's no question there is sharpening going on with the HV20 and I've seen precisely the same thing in my A/Bs with my Canon HV20 and the SR12. Initially I could see people picking the HV20 in some scenes due to a greater apparent sharpness. But as you look closely, it is primarily due to edge enhancement that seems to be almost totally absent on the SR12. The overall look of the Sony is unquestionably 'tighter' and cleaner than the HV20. But to be fair, in most shots it's tough to pick a winner. Much comes down to color preference.

But it may well be that they've been able to achieve a cleaner, more artifact-free picture with the best of these new AVCHD cams.

Good call Ken and Otakuon.

One of the reasons(the other being tape)I avoided the HV20 was the weird noise and grain effect in many HV20 videos. It's really distracting to me and once I started looking for it, I now see it in every HV20 video. :(

The Hf10 pictures/videos look natural to me, no edge enhancements, grain, ect..(of course I'll find something to distract me in HF100 videos... ;) )

Think I'll get the SR11 and the HF100! :) :p

Otakuon, good observations. The stills of the darker dog show much more artifacting in the HV20 than the HF10. I'm still amazed that CCI said nothing about those blown up rez charts. There's no question there is sharpening going on with the HV20 and I've seen precisely the same thing in my A/Bs with my Canon HV20 and the SR12. Initially I could see people picking the HV20 in some scenes due to a greater apparent sharpness. But as you look closely, it is primarily due to edge enhancement that seems to be almost totally absent on the SR12. The overall look of the Sony is unquestionably 'tighter' and cleaner than the HV20. But to be fair, in most shots it's tough to pick a winner. Much comes down to color preference.

But it may well be that they've been able to achieve a cleaner, more artifact-free picture with the best of these new AVCHD cams.

One tricky thing is indeed that nowadays all camcorders do extensive sharpening and PP (just like digital cameras). In the case of SR11 there's probably very complex PP going on so it's very hard to figure out the underlying PQ. You don't have manual control with the SR11 unfortunately to adjust sharpness or contrast (before compressing it down).

From all the video's I've seen it seems to me that the SR11 removes more noise than the other cams but also destroys some fine detail in the process. I might be overly picky but watching these videos on my 133" HD projector that's how it looks like to me comparing it to my HV20 video's.

The HF10 has less chroma noise than the HV20 but it's quite possible that there's some PP going on to reduce it. Who knows...

I looked back at the fire hydrant and I suspect indeed out of focus issues. You would really be better off seeing the entire scene to see any potential differences.

In the end regardless what reviews say, looking at many clips gives you the best idea if you're going to like the cam.

...
One of the reasons(the other being tape)I avoided the HV20 was the weird noise and grain effect in many HV20 videos. It's really distracting to me and once I started looking for it, I now see it in every HV20 video. :(
...


Nice thing with the Canon is that you can adjust sharpness, contrast and color saturation. If you would reduce all of these you would get less grain (and less visible sharpness).

Wolfgang's web site shows the HV20 various mode differences://fxsupport.de/01_Canon_HV20.html.

Nice thing with the Canon is that you can adjust sharpness, contrast and color saturation. If you would reduce all of these you would get less grain (and less visible sharpness).



Yes, that's true. The decision for most will come to the following:

* A camcorder with a larger form factor, viewfinder, 5.1 audio that actually works, internal hard drive and memory stick recording.

* A camcorder with a smaller and lighter form factior, 24p & 30p recording, no viewfinder, recording to memory card only and some additional picture adjustments.

It's not an easy call. I myself am wrestling with this.

Good call Ken and Otakuon.

One of the reasons(the other being tape)I avoided the HV20 was the weird noise and grain effect in many HV20 videos. It's really distracting to me and once I started looking for it, I now see it in every HV20 video. :(

The Hf10 pictures/videos look natural to me, no edge enhancements, grain, ect..(of course I'll find something to distract me in HF100 videos... ;) )

Think I'll get the SR11 and the HF100! :) :p

Eric, have you found additional HF10 videos? The only ones I can find are those from DVInfo and those are in a weird file format that makes it impossible for me to get them in to ULead Studio 11+ for placement on to a DVD-R. I really want to see HF10 clips on my 60" plasma.

The only thing that leads me to the HF10 is the frame rate choices. I like the ability to record in 30p or 24p. I myself happen to like 24p look. BTW, Camcorderinfo didn't elaborate on how 24p looks on the HF10. I know they said it was dismal on the HG10 but I wonder how 24p on the HF10 compares to HV20.

Eric, have you found additional HF10 videos? The only ones I can find are those from DVInfo and those are in a weird file format that makes it impossible for me to get them in to ULead Studio 11+ for placement on to a DVD-R. I really want to see HF10 clips on my 60" plasma.

Have you tried installing quicktime or the MacDrive trial to open the DMF file? That should allow you to import the mov files into VS11+.

Also there are some additional raw clips on watch impress:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/zooma344.htm

Personally I'd prefer the SR11 without HDD (upcoming CX9 I guess). Looking at the manual it seems the HDD might be always in use even if you only use MS. That gives you some limitations in more extreme conditions like max height (9000ft) and sudden jerky movements.

The only thing that leads me to the HF10 is the frame rate choices. I like the ability to record in 30p or 24p. I myself happen to like 24p look. BTW, Camcorderinfo didn't elaborate on how 24p looks on the HF10. I know they said it was dismal on the HG10 but I wonder how 24p on the HF10 compares to HV20.

I thought they said it was much better. I might like 30p, but 24p jitters don't work for me. I'll amend my 'choices' post. Thanks.

There may be more post-processing going on on the HF10 due to the smaller sensor in order to contain noise, but to me, going by the res charts, the HF10 looks the most neutral of them all. You can always add sharpness in editing. If it's done internally too much in the camera you cannot subtract it. I'd rather have less internal sharpening imho.

No doubt 24p is more jittery but I tend to shoot more documentary type work in which for me gives it a great look. I would never shoot sports or anything with 24p though.

Have you tried installing quicktime or the MacDrive trial to open the DMF file? That should allow you to import the mov files into VS11+.

Also there are some additional raw clips on watch impress:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/zooma344.htm

Personally I'd prefer the SR11 without HDD (upcoming CX9 I guess). Looking at the manual it seems the HDD might be always in use even if you only use MS. That gives you some limitations in more extreme conditions like max height (9000ft) and sudden jerky movements.

Yeah, I tried it, but I kept getting a Windows message that 'data was lost'. I was never able to transfer clips in to ULead. I just don't know why he posted those clips in that format, I've never seen that.

The hard drive is not running when you select memory card recording. There is a very very faint periodic click (never heard in recording) when using the hard drive. When you're recording to stick, you hear nothing. You can also see greater battery life when recording to stick.

Yeah, I tried it, but I kept getting a Windows message that 'data was lost'. I was never able to transfer clips in to ULead. I just don't know why he posted those clips in that format, I've never seen that.

The hard drive is not running when you select memory card recording. There is a very very faint periodic click (never heard in recording) when using the hard drive. When you're recording to stick, you hear nothing. You can also see greater battery life when recording to stick.

I also was unable to transfer 2 of the stream files but the other 3 worked (try single file copy). The mov files though are also great quality at 20k. Installing quicktime should do it.

Are you sure the HDD is not running at all when using MS? The SR11 manual gives me the impression it uses the HDD to maintain library of contents but not sure. Also the manual says you can't use the SR11 above 9000ft (regardless whether you use MS or not).

Eric, have you found additional HF10 videos? The only ones I can find are those from DVInfo and those are in a weird file format that makes it impossible for me to get them in to ULead Studio 11+ for placement on to a DVD-R. I really want to see HF10 clips on my 60" plasma.

The clips I've watched are these on Watch.impress:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/ezsample.m2ts
152MB

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/ezroom.m2ts
21MB

The SR12 review also has the EZROOM sample clip:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080312/ez_room.m2t
33MB

I use this product to watch them:
http://www.elecard.com/products/products-pc/consumer/converter-studio-avchd/

There may be more post-processing going on on the HF10 due to the smaller sensor in order to contain noise, but to me, going by the res charts, the HF10 looks the most neutral of them all. You can always add sharpness in editing. If it's done internally too much in the camera you cannot subtract it. I'd rather have less internal sharpening imho.

I couldn't agree with you more. That's one of the great things about the SR12, no edge enhancement and no phony processing to boost sharpness. That's why the SR12's picture is so tight and noise free. It looks like the HF10 is following the same design principle.

However, the give back is that many will 'think' it's not as sharp. People are so used to edge enhancement that when they don't see it they think the picture is somewhat 'soft'.

The clips I've watched are these on Watch.impress:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/ezsample.m2ts
152MB

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080206/ezroom.m2ts
21MB

The SR12 review also has the EZROOM sample clip:

http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/av/docs/20080312/ez_room.m2t
33MB

I use this product to watch them:
http://www.elecard.com/products/products-pc/consumer/converter-studio-avchd/


Eric, is that 30p clip of the pond and the cat? I've already seen that one. Yeah, just confirmed it is. I'm amazed at how few HF10 clips there are anywhere.

Yeah...those Watch.impress clips that eric posted is what really started me thinking that perhaps AVCHD had a chance this year after all. Amazing looking stuff, especially when viewing on a large 1080p monitor at its native resolution. So far, the one PQ issue that has me a little concerned is the ghosting that appears to be evident with most AVCHD format cams when filming high contrast moving objects (especially objects that are colored bright red). But even the example of this that I have seen from the HF10 is so slight that unless I knew what I was looking for, I probably wouldn't notice it. Of course, I have only seen this from a still image and not an actual clip. I am very interested too in how the SR11/12 compares after the final analysis. The few sample clips that I have seen from it look very good as well. AVCHD may be a little ways off still before the pros will even consider touching it, but I think that it might finally be starting to show promise and perhaps live up to its initial hype. Hopefully more NLE packages will begin to support the format natively so that we don't have to deal with the slightly more complex workflow that AVCHD editing requires at the moment.

Eric, is it just me or did the SR12 "EZRoom" clip seem quite a bit sharper than the HF10 clip of the same shot? I'm more than a bit surprised.

Wow, I just burned those two EZRoom clips to DVD-R using Ulead AVCHD export and sure enough the SR12 is considerably sharper. You can clearly make out grain on the leather handle of the basket and the HF10 you can't. Colors are brighter and the overall clip is much more alive and more artifact free.

In fact, there's such a difference that I'm actually wondering if the first clip is actually from an HF10?

Eric, is it just me or did the SR12 "EZRoom" clip seem quite a bit sharper than the HF10 clip of the same shot? I'm more than a bit surprised.

Yeah go figure... Although the SR12 is 1440x1080 while the HF10 is 1920x1080. Rescaling the image it's bit closer. The HF10 clip also has some stepping artifact issues I noticed earlier. The HF10 is definitely prone to this but in moving images hard to detect.

I do wonder though if the reviewer checks the aperture settings since the HF10 might have a narrower field of depth looking at the right side of the image (unless it's really softer and not out of focus).

I'd say for everyday use both cameras will do but I don't really need HDD and MS is too expensive for me (and I can't use it on any other device).

The HF10/HF100 isn't available anywhere yet (except on ebay from Japan). That might explain lack of clips. I hope it will be available by mid April here in the US so I can test it.

Yeah go figure... Although the SR12 is 1440x1080 while the HF10 is 1920x1080. Rescaling the image it's bit closer. The HF10 clip also has some stepping artifact issues I noticed earlier. The HF10 is definitely prone to this but in moving images hard to detect.

I do wonder though if the reviewer checks the aperture settings since the HF10 might have a narrower field of depth looking at the right side of the image (unless it's really softer and not out of focus).

I'd say for everyday use both cameras will do but I don't really need HDD and MS is too expensive for me (and I can't use it on any other device).

The HF10/HF100 isn't available anywhere yet (except on ebay from Japan). That might explain lack of clips. I hope it will be available by mid April here in the US so I can test it.

No Luc, the SR12 is indeed 1920X1080. I'm really shocked at how much better the SR12 is than the HF10 in that clip. On my Pioneer plasma it's kind of shocking.

The larger clip of the SR12 also looks sharper than the large HF10 clip. However here, I believe the larger HF10 clip was 30p, so it's not directly comparable if true.

Hum...yes, the Indoor clip from the SR12 did look very impressive. Also, the vertical panning shot ( Ezsmhdfh.mts) looked great at first, but as soon as it started to pan down, I saw a bunch of motion artifacts. I don't know if this was due to my player or if it's becase the video is interlaced or what. The HF10 clip that included the same shot with the vertical pan did not have this same issue when viewed on the same player...could be becase the HF10 shot was done in 30p. It's hard to judge the overall quality of these cameras just from the few clips online that we have...

Wow, I just burned those two EZRoom clips to DVD-R using Ulead AVCHD export and sure enough the SR12 is considerably sharper. You can clearly make out grain on the leather handle of the basket and the HF10 you can't. Colors are brighter and the overall clip is much more alive and more artifact free.

In fact, there's such a difference that I'm actually wondering if the first clip is actually from an HF10?

YEs, a very odd looking HF10 sample....film like? the SR12 looks very video to me the HF10 daydreamy look.

I think they ar both sharp...just different..

HF10

http://mp40modelguns.com/forum/encode_ezroom_001.JPG

SR12

http://mp40modelguns.com/forum/encode_ez_room(2)sony_001.JPG

I looks like they may have had cine-mode invoked on the HF10 possibly. The SR12 just has more contrast to my eyes. Cine-mode will flatten-out the dynamic range and reduce sharpening.

Hum...yes, the Indoor clip from the SR12 did look very impressive. Also, the vertical panning shot ( Ezsmhdfh.mts) looked great at first, but as soon as it started to pan down, I saw a bunch of motion artifacts. I don't know if this was due to my player or if it's becase the video is interlaced or what. The HF10 clip that included the same shot with the vertical pan did not have this same issue when viewed on the same player...could be becase the HF10 shot was done in 30p. It's hard to judge the overall quality of these cameras just from the few clips online that we have...

I would like to see a indoor ezroom clip shot with the HF10 @ 60i and see if it looks more video like?

Right now I'll probably get the HF100...I really like the dreamy film look.

The option of 24p 30p and 60i @17mbps is too much to pass up.

And the 650x650 resolution noted at CCI is very impressive.

I looks like they may have had cine-mode invoked on the HF10 possibly. The SR12 just has more contrast to my eyes. Cine-mode will flatten-out the dynamic range and reduce sharpening.

Hmmm...yeah you are probably right. Good eyes! or 30p versus 60i?

The advantage of the 30p mode with regards to motion is pretty obvious in this clip...you can clearly see in the SR12 shot the interlacing in the motion on the object in the background...the image in the SR12 shot looks to be a bit more saturated as well...again, the difference could simply be due to different settings between the two cams...

Hmm, 'daydreamy'...for me another word for 'soft'? ;)

IMO there's no comparison between these clips. One is simply sharp and poppy with no artifacts and the other is soft with artifacts. The SR12 clip makes me feel like I'm there watching the scene, which to me is the ultimate goal of any video camera. Afterall, it does shoot 'video'. Excellent video should make you feel like you're there.

As I said, the difference is so great I suspect something is wrong with the HF10 clip.

I looks like they may have had cine-mode invoked on the HF10 possibly. The SR12 just has more contrast to my eyes. Cine-mode will flatten-out the dynamic range and reduce sharpening.

I think that's a distinct possibility. Cine-mode always give a softer look. But that's a foolish way to post these clips. If they post the same scene with every cam they test, they must keep shooting conditions the same, otherwise these comparisons are worthless.

If it was 30p it should actually be sharper then 60i. I have a feeling they have it on cinemode. I'm only speaking from experience with the HV20 and cinemode. It would dramatically decrease overall image sharpness and contrast. AFAIK cinemode automatically invokes 24p so that may explain the lack of interleaving that's present in the Sony framegrab.

No Luc, the SR12 is indeed 1920X1080. I'm really shocked at how much better the SR12 is than the HF10 in that clip. On my Pioneer plasma it's kind of shocking.

The larger clip of the SR12 also looks sharper than the large HF10 clip. However here, I believe the larger HF10 clip was 30p, so it's not directly comparable if true.

I downloaded the SR12 indoor clip twice to be safe and both Sony Vegas and media player classic report this as 1440x1080. The other odd thing is the file sizes. I don't think these 2 files can be compared properly:

SR12:
Size: 32.4MB
Length: 9 sec
Video: MPG2 1440x1080 (16:9) 29.97fps [Video]
Audio: MPEG Audio 48000Hz stereo [Audio]

HF10:
Size: 20MB
Length: 10 sec
Video: MPEG4 Video (H264) 1920x1080 29.97fps [Video]
Audio: Dolby AC3 48000Hz stereo [Audio]

Why is the SR12 so big? Weird.

I downloaded the SR12 indoor clip twice to be safe and both Sony Vegas and media player classic report this as 1440x1080. The other odd thing is the file sizes. I don't think these 2 files can be compared properly:

SR12:
Size: 32.4MB
Length: 9 sec
Video: MPG2 1440x1080 (16:9) 29.97fps [Video]
Audio: MPEG Audio 48000Hz stereo [Audio]

HF10:
Size: 20MB
Length: 10 sec
Video: MPEG4 Video (H264) 1920x1080 29.97fps [Video]
Audio: Dolby AC3 48000Hz stereo [Audio]

Why is the SR12 so big? Weird.

Well Luc, if that's true, they had the SR12 in the wrong setting!!! The SR12 can and does shoot in full 1920X1080, that's a 100% certainty. Everything I've shot with the SR12 is a full 1920X1080. If they used a lower quality setting, than they screwed up and the quality is even better than you're seeing!

The SR12 is not big, it's the same size as the HV20, just a tad smaller than the HV20. That's not big. It has a 160 gig hard drive which makes for a larger size obviously.

Somethings up with that HF10 clip... even if the sr12 is better I cannot see it being THAT much better then the HF10. Not after CCI's raving review.

Well, when I translated the SR12 page from Japanese to English, the reviewer did post this:
"Editorial department NOTE: Video samples are converted Canopus HQ Codec, EDIUS Neo edit the HDV format (. M2t) in the output file. Play video card and the environment, drivers, OS, software vary from play to play video posted guarantee NO REFUNDS. Also, in the editorial department of environmental regeneration of the answer individual questions Please, please do not spectacularly. " (sorry for the ENGRISH from the translation)

I aggree that in the larger file clip, the SR12 footage looks sharper..but the interlacing was very apparent...the HF10 footage of the same clip was very smooth in comparison. Also, it looks like the SR12 footage was shot on a warmer day while the HF10 footage was from a cold winter day, which can play a major part in the final outcome of a shoot. I have seen still images from the HF10 which appear to be just as sharp as the SR12 shots when taken in 60i...but again, I really need to see a side by side comparison of the two Cameras, with the same relative settings shooting at the exact same subject under the same envrionmental conditions.

(I am also seeing that the SR12 clips are 1440x1080 MPEG2...so it must be that they were converted to HDV...that would also account for the larger file size since AVC/h.264 is a higher compression that MPEG2)

I agree with you persiannight. The fact that they even had the SR12 set to the wrong resolution, not even showing it at its best, is clear evidence of that. BTW, I put their clips in Ulead and Luc is right, they are indeed 1440X1080. I'll tell you, some of these reviewers are so sloppy it's amazing.

Well, when I translated the SR12 page from Japanese to English, the reviewer did post this:
"Editorial department NOTE: Video samples are converted Canopus HQ Codec, EDIUS Neo edit the HDV format (. M2t) in the output file. Play video card and the environment, drivers, OS, software vary from play to play video posted guarantee NO REFUNDS. Also, in the editorial department of environmental regeneration of the answer individual questions Please, please do not spectacularly. " (sorry for the ENGRISH from the translation)

I aggree that in the larger file clip, the SR12 footage looks sharper..but the interlacing was very apparent...the HF10 footage of the same clip was very smooth in comparison.

Otakuon, when viewed on my 60" Pioneer plasma, there is zero evidence of interlacing artifacts with the SR12. Perhaps in the computer environment this might be an issue, but I inevitably watch all my footage on a big screen HDTV. When viewed on the Pioneer, it would be an understatement to say the SR12 blew the FH10 out of the water. On a big screen HDTV those HF10 compression artifacts become really ugly and the difference between the two pictures is further accentuated.

I honestly don't care which cam wins, since I'll probably wind up with the one with the best picture, but based on those clips there's no contest. That's precisely why I think there's something wrong with the HF10 clips since I firmly believe these cams will be very close in PQ. Keep in mind too the SR12 was NOT set to the highest quality setting, so the quality is even better than you saw. Having played with this cam now for several days, I can attest to that for sure.

Yeah...but I think that if I read the editorial note right, the clips were converted from their native 1920x1080 AVC to standard 1440x1080 MPEG2 HDV...why they did this with the SR12 while posting direct clips from the HF10 is a mystery to me...almost makes me wonder if the cameras were reviewed by two different people. I would like to see some full motion clips from CCI for comparisons...I will deffinately have to watch the SR12 clips on my HDTV once I get home...

But if you look at the outdoor clips, they have the Sony set at 1440X1080 and the Canon set to 1920X1080, yet the Sony STILL looks much better. Even without a 'level playing field', the Sony still won. Very strange stuff guys.

Yeah...but I think that if I read the editorial note right, the clips were converted from their native 1920x1080 AVC to standard 1440x1080 MPEG2 HDV...why they did this with the SR12 while posting direct clips from the HF10 is a mystery to me...almost makes me wonder if the cameras were reviewed by two different people. I would like to see some full motion clips from CCI for comparisons...I will deffinately have to watch the SR12 clips on my HDTV once I get home...

Yeah, pretty sloppy reviewing.

But I think time of day and weather conditions make a big difference.

http://mp40modelguns.com/forum/SR12 HF10.JPG

I know the SR12 is sharper than that!

I could probably find a clip to support any camcorders greatness! :D

Ok...after looking over the translated HF10 review, it looks like they filmed the HF10 clips in 30p WITH cinemode turned on...which would attribute to the flattened tonal qualtities...but I don't know how much Cinemode also affects overall resolution.
From the translated review:
"The sample, in contrast KITSU lingering snow, or touch, so the cinema mode +30 P mainly to the shooting."

This is so flustrating...I just want a simple set of comparison shots between the HF10 and the SR12 with both set to the same settings to see if one or the other has a highly noticeable difference in overall picture quality...

(maybe we should change the title of this thread to HF10 vs SR12)

Cinemode softens the image (probably by applying no in-camera sharpening). That is a known fact. Just what I thought. It's used to give a more "film" look.

Ok...after looking over the translated HF10 review, it looks like they filmed the HF10 clips in 30p WITH cinemode turned on...which would attribute to the flattened tonal qualtities...but I don't know how much Cinemode also affects overall resolution.
From the translated review:
"The sample, in contrast KITSU lingering snow, or touch, so the cinema mode +30 P mainly to the shooting."

This is so flustrating...I just want a simple set of comparison shots between the HF10 and the SR12 with both set to the same settings to see if one or the other has a highly noticeable difference in overall picture quality...

(maybe we should change the title of this thread to HF10 vs SR12)

UGGH! Idiot reviewers! !#@?%%$

Painfully obvious that I'll have to wait for the CCI's SR11/12 review! Or just buy both! :)

Well at least I know 30p cinema mode is nice...soft...but nice!

You don't have to use cinemode at all. 30p and 24p work fine without it.

You don't have to use cinemode at all. 30p and 24p work fine without it.

I love cinema mode. I'd like to see a SR12 in cinema mode...if the SR11/12 has it?

CCI on the HF10 cinema mode:


Cine Mode - The Cine mode on the Canon HF10 is an alternate gamma curve for color reproduction, meant to emulate something closer to film. It corresponds to the Cine 1 setting on the professional Canon XL A1 and G1 (see chart http://www.camcorderinfo.com/images/upload/Image/Canon/Canon%20HV20/Product%20Pictures/Gamma_map_web.jpg). In essence, this setting expands dynamic range in the mid-tones, while suppressing the shadows and highlights. It can make your video look great if you’ve lit the scene properly, but this is precisely the problem. Most consumers don’t shoot in the right kind of light, and the Cine mode loses details in the shadows. It’s a great tool, but use with caution.

I love cinema mode. I'd like to see a SR12 in cinema mode...if the SR11/12 has it?



I never used it on the HV20 since I don't like the look, so to be honest I have no clue if the SR12 has it or not. I think most of these modes 'try too hard' to look like something they'll never be, so I just don't bother. IMO, in the end, these are videocameras and that's what they do best, shoot video.

I never used it on the HV20 since I don't like the look, so to be honest I have no clue if the SR12 has it or not. I think most of these modes 'try too hard' to look like something they'll never be, so I just don't bother. IMO, in the end, these are videocameras and that's what they do best, shoot video.

Thanks, I'll just use some Vegas post production effects....probably better if I DON'T use any in camera effects! Get the look I want/need in the editor.

I never used it on the HV20 since I don't like the look, so to be honest I have no clue if the SR12 has it or not. I think most of these modes 'try too hard' to look like something they'll never be, so I just don't bother. IMO, in the end, these are videocameras and that's what they do best, shoot video.

The cinemode looks great for low-light scenes but then again you also lose detail since sharpening is set to lowest (and you can't adjust sharpness in that mode). I completely agree with CCinfo assessment.

I think it makes sense for WatchImpress to test this mode for this clip since he wanted to test black level. Of course for comparison it's not that great.

At this point I still believe from all SR11 clips I've seen that the HV20/HF10 is a tad visually sharper than the SR11 (I watched all clips on 133" HD projector). But I can't be sure until someone would test some daylight comparison. I don't think actual resolutions differ much.

I also believe the SR11 AVCHD definitely exhibits less artifacts compared to the HF10. But if you pickup on these watching these clips (without pausing it) is questionable.

Either way the differences aren't great and with PP you can make the cams look like each other.

Thanks, I'll just use some Vegas post production effects....probably better if I DON'T use any in camera effects! Get the look I want/need in the editor.

That's the smart money way Eric! Once you've recorded an effect to the cam, it's very tough, if not impossible to reverse.

At this point I still believe from all SR11 clips I've seen that the HV20/HF10 is a tad visually sharper than the SR11 (I watched all clips on 133" HD projector). But I can't be sure until someone would test some daylight comparison. I don't think actual resolutions differ much.



Luc, that might be because of the additional edge enhancement Canon uses with the HV20 and Sony doesn't with the SR12. Personally I much prefer a cleaner, more professional looking video without edge enhancement. Professionals would not stand for in-camera processing like that. But the EE does give the 'look' of a sharper picture even if it's a lower resolution.

I'm not sure why you feel that way regarding the HF10, since most of those clips look soft. From the clips I've seen thus far, the HV20 and the SR12 look far sharper than the HF10, but I don't believe that will be the case with better shot clips.

Are you sure the HDD is not running at all when using MS?


Nope, HDD not running at all when in MS mode.

OK. So I started with the Panasonic SD9 and returned it after one week because of its poor low light performance and its terrible design/placement of key components (HDMI out, joystick, etc.).

I then purchased the new Sony SR11 from Costco and have quickly fallen in love. There is absolutely no comparison between the videos I shot with the SD9 and those I shot with the SR11. The SR11 clips are sharper, have more natural colors, have far few artifacts and hold up much better when panning. The best surprise about the SR11 is the "Cam Control" dial on the front of the camera. This is really an awesome feature that I love. You can use it for manual focus, exposure, white balance or other adjustments and it's easy to switch from one control to another using a nifty trick I learned in post #9 in this thread (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t141278.html).

Now the CCI review of the HF10 comes out and I am left scratching my head. Should I keep the Sony or wait for the Canon? If the video quality of the Canon is at least as good as the Sony, I would love the smaller form factor of a flash-only camcorder and the ability to use SDHC cards instead of expensive memory sticks. The only downside of the Sony is the larger size and the fact that it has hard drive that is not designed for video in certain conditions (vibration/high elevation). The hard drive also compromises the reliability/durability of the camcorder because, as we all know, hard drives fail over time. Everything else about the Sony is wonderful, including its build quality, placement of all key components, compatibility with Sony Vegas Pro, menu system, touch screen LCD (I actually like the touchscreen and don't mind a few smudges now and then). This is going to be a hard camcorder to beat, but it also comes with a higher price tag. I can get an HF100 with two 16gb SDHC cards for nearly $200 less than SR11 alone. Decisions, decisions!

Those are all vaild points...but really, if you are happy with the SR11, then I don't think the HF10 is really going to make much of a difference unless you really don't trust HDD based cams. I do find the allure of the HF10's standard SDHC based format sligthly more appealing since there are alot more opition to choose from. And how often do the HDDs in camcorders fail...if they last at least 5+ years, then you are probably going to want to buy a new camcorder anyway...and by then, we will probably be arguing over camcorders that record at 4k resolution...

OK. So I started with the Panasonic SD9 and returned it after one week because of its poor low light performance and its terrible design/placement of key components (HDMI out, joystick, etc.).

I then purchased the new Sony SR11 from Costco and have quickly fallen in love. There is absolutely no comparison between the videos I shot with the SD9 and those I shot with the SR11. The SR11 clips are sharper, have more natural colors, have far few artifacts and hold up much better when panning. The best surprise about the SR11 is the "Cam Control" dial on the front of the camera. This is really an awesome feature that I love. You can use it for manual focus, exposure, white balance or other adjustments and it's easy to switch from one control to another using a nifty trick I learned in post #9 in this thread (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/t141278.html).

Now the CCI review of the HF10 comes out and I am left scratching my head. Should I keep the Sony or wait for the Canon? If the video quality of the Canon is at least as good as the Sony, I would love the smaller form factor of a flash-only camcorder and the ability to use SDHC cards instead of expensive memory sticks. The only downside of the Sony is the larger size and the fact that it has hard drive that is not designed for video in certain conditions (vibration/high elevation). The hard drive also compromises the reliability/durability of the camcorder because, as we all know, hard drives fail over time. Everything else about the Sony is wonderful, including its build quality, placement of all key components, compatibility with Sony Vegas Pro, menu system, touch screen LCD (I actually like the touchscreen and don't mind a few smudges now and then). This is going to be a hard camcorder to beat, but it also comes with a higher price tag. I can get an HF100 with two 16gb SDHC cards for nearly $200 less than SR11 alone. Decisions, decisions!

NewHD, great tip on the front control wheel! I never knew that and it sure does work! I don't even recall seeing that in the manual.

I'm in the same boat as you. I like the smaller form factor of the Canon, but I wouldn't give up any picture quality to get it. Clips posted from the HF10 are disappointing thus far, but I think that's because they've been in Cinema mode and don't have the sharpness or color depth of the Sonys because of that (I'm assuming).

One thing you may overlook in your decision is giving up the viewfinder in the Canons. I find this almost inexcusable in a camcorder. A viewfinder is not only critical in bright sunlight (despite how well the manufacturer claims it works in bright sunlight), but it also contributes significantly to the steadiness in holding the camera. Your face acts as a brace in steadying the camera. Holding a cam out in front of you is a very poor way to steady a cam.

Canon could have included a viewfinder with very little sacrifice to the size. I'm very surprised that CCI didn't mention that as a decided negative factor. The other thing regarding the HDD is that I'm not too concerned about a failure. I've never had a HDD go in any of my computers and I don't expect the cam to fail in the time period I'd expect to keep this unit (1-2 years).

The other thing is that you can back up any critical HDD clips to a memory stick while away from home. So you have an almost automatic backup system built in.

However, with that said, I'll still be looking closely at the HF10 and its picture quality. I've been very happy with my HV20.

Luc, that might be because of the additional edge enhancement Canon uses with the HV20 and Sony doesn't with the SR12. Personally I much prefer a cleaner, more professional looking video without edge enhancement. Professionals would not stand for in-camera processing like that. But the EE does give the 'look' of a sharper picture even if it's a lower resolution.

I'm not sure why you feel that way regarding the HF10, since most of those clips look soft. From the clips I've seen thus far, the HV20 and the SR12 look far sharper than the HF10, but I don't believe that will be the case with better shot clips.

Austin HF10 clips look pretty sharp to me. Especially the foliage shots. I only seen 2 outdoor SR11/12 shots and those appear to me less sharp than my HV20 footage. But I definitely could be wrong. Re indoor I find the detail in the dog clips not that great if you compare the detail in the HF10 cat/dogs clips (sure the conditions were different so I can't be sure).
Yes the SR11 is cleaner and you could use PP to make it appear sharper.

By the way cinemode cannot completely be reproduced with PP since it changes the dynamic range. However lowering all settings is certainly the way to go if you want to do PP.

NewHD, great tip on the front control wheel! I never knew that and it sure does work! I don't even recall seeing that in the manual.

I'm in the same boat as you. I like the smaller form factor of the Canon, but I wouldn't give up any picture quality to get it. Clips posted from the HF10 are disappointing thus far, but I think that's because they've been in Cinema mode and don't have the sharpness or color depth of the Sonys because of that (I'm assuming).

One thing you may overlook in your decision is giving up the viewfinder in the Canons. I find this almost inexcusable in a camcorder. A viewfinder is not only critical in bright sunlight (despite how well the manufacturer claims it works in bright sunlight), but it also contributes significantly to the steadiness in holding the camera. Your face acts as a brace in steadying the camera. Holding a cam out in front of you is a very poor way to steady a cam.

Canon could have included a viewfinder with very little sacrifice to the size. I'm very surprised that CCI didn't mention that as a decided negative factor. The other thing regarding the HDD is that I'm not too concerned about a failure. I've never had a HDD go in any of my computers and I don't expect the cam to fail in the time period I'd expect to keep this unit (1-2 years).

The other thing is that you can back up any critical HDD clips to a memory stick while away from home. So you have an almost automatic backup system built in.

However, with that said, I'll still be looking closely at the HF10 and its picture quality. I've been very happy with my HV20.

I never used the viewfinder on my HV20 and never had the need for it (even though it's not a great screen). But I can see that that is personal preference.

I think the difference between SR11 and HF100 comes down to personal preference.

I took a look at the SR12 clips from watch impress since it does contain some similar scenes to the HF10. I have to admit the SR12 does look sharper in some scenes than the HF10. In some they were about equal.
I also noticed again SR12 has less compression artifacts. So you can't go wrong with the SR12 but I still hesitate since I don't really want/need a HDD and the HF100 is ultimately considerably cheaper with the use of SD.

Austin HF10 clips look pretty sharp to me. Especially the foliage shots. I only seen 2 outdoor SR11/12 shots and those appear to me less sharp than my HV20 footage. But I definitely could be wrong. Re indoor I find the detail in the dog clips not that great if you compare the detail in the HF10 cat/dogs clips (sure the conditions were different so I can't be sure).
Yes the SR11 is cleaner and you could use PP to make it appear sharper.

By the way cinemode cannot completely be reproduced with PP since it changes the dynamic range. However lowering all settings is certainly the way to go if you want to do PP.

The N.Y.C. clip I posted got pretty positive feeback for sharpness even though it's by far not the sharpest clip I've shot. Having done extensive A/B comparisons between my HV20 and the SR12, I can tell you the SR12 has at least as much resolution as the HV20 without the edge enhancement. I've viewed clips in an A/B fashion and then tried just sitting back and watching all the A clips and then all the B clips. Every time I see the SR12 it just appears more 'professional' looking due to its lower noise floor, yet I see every bit as much detail as I do with the HV20. I'm hoping the HF10 does the same thing.

Now, due to the lack of edge enhancement the SR12 can appear not quite as sharp as the HV20, but in fact it is. Most professional videographers would pick up on that right away since they prefer a noise-free picture with detail as opposed to 'apparent sharpness'. When a manufacturer adds edge enhancement, he is adding 'apparent sharpness'. That's not the same thing as true detail. The same is true in displays such as HDTVs. A high quality HDTV will give you true detail and not phony detail with edge enhancement.

It's not only a question of taste, but it's also a question of getting used to a detailed picture without EE. Most people do not initially like the look of an HDTV that has been given an ISF adjustment. The ISF adjusted TV is more accurate, but has a tamer picture, but to the untrained eye the non-ISF picture 'looks' better because it is artifically hyped.

Not sure if I'm making any sense here to you.

I never used the viewfinder on my HV20 and never had the need for it (even though it's not a great screen). But I can see that that is personal preference.



Well here I think it's more than personal preference. Using the viewfinder lends a stability to picture taking that using an LCD flip-out does not. Your face acts as a brace while looking through the viewfinder as opposed to having to hold the cam in front of you while viewing the LCD. There's just no way you can achieve the same stability by holding an object in front of you as opposed to holding it against your face.

I took a look at the SR12 clips from watch impress since it does contain some similar scenes to the HF10. I have to admit the SR12 does look sharper in some scenes than the HF10. In some they were about equal.
I also noticed again SR12 has less compression artifacts. So you can't go wrong with the SR12 but I still hesitate since I don't really want/need a HDD and the HF100 is ultimately considerably cheaper with the use of SD.

I can certainly understand that Luc.

The interesting thing in those shots Luc is that even those shots they used 1440X1080 for the SR12 (a much lower bitrate and lower rez) while using 1920X1080 on the HF10. So if anything the SR12 was given a disadvantage. However, on the other side of the coin, I don't know if were using some special mode like Cinemode on the HF10. Very tough to figure out how and why they shoot the way they do.

Well here I think it's more than personal preference. Using the viewfinder lends a stability to picture taking that using an LCD flip-out does not. Your face acts as a brace while looking through the viewfinder as opposed to having to hold the cam in front of you while viewing the LCD. There's just no way you can achieve the same stability by holding an object in front of you as opposed to holding it against your face.

See my HV20: http://vimeo.com/693877. This was shot handheld using usual tricks (lean on something). The HV20 steadyshot is almost non-existant so walking isn't really good no matter how you hold it (common issue with HD cams and not sure if SR11 is any different).

I do put my left hand under the cam which might help too.

Pretty good Luc, but I still maintain that you can achieve better results by using the viewfinder and bracing the cam against your face. You call still put your left hand under the cam. This way your bracing the cam in two directions.

I just started downloading the big file so I’m not able to compare the picture quality to other HD camcorders but what I will say is that they have been exporting to 1440 on many camcorders that have 1920 for a while now so this is not the first time. Also they claim it was on x.v. Color. That feature is only on the newest and most expensive HD TVs from Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung and Panasonic. They should have kept that feature off because on your average 1080p display, the colors will be a little off. Now if you don’t see anything wrong with the colors of that big sample than Sony might have fixed it.

As far as the HF10/100 camcorders are concerned, I think that they must have done something to make the picture look a little soft. The Canon HV10 looks sharper than that. They should have at least kept it on 60i.

I hope Wolfgang Winne gets a hold of the Panasonic SD9, Sony SR12 and the Canon HF10 so that he can compare them. His video samples will give you a much better representation of what these camcorders are capable of.

Paulo, the shot using the HF10 with the lake scene was shot using a full 1920X1080. That's why I don't understand why they set the SR12 to 1440X1080. I'm surprised it still looked so much sharper even at the lower rez. I burned both clips to a DVD-R and played them on my Blu-Ray player to my 60" Pioneer.

But I agree, something is just not right with the HF10 clips to look that soft.

I already knew that the HF10 file was at 1920 and so is the Hitachi DZ-BD9 file but like everybody, I wish they would give a fair treatment to every 1920 camcorder.

I'll bet the SR12 clip wasn't taken in 1440, but was taken in 1920 and then down-rezzed to 1440 (perhaps when transcoded into HDV which most programs will require to be down-rezzed).

I'll bet the SR12 clip wasn't taken in 1440, but was taken in 1920 and then down-rezzed to 1440 (perhaps when transcoded into HDV which most programs will require to be down-rezzed).
That’s exactly what they been doing for several camcorders including the Panasonic SD9.

I'll bet the SR12 clip wasn't taken in 1440, but was taken in 1920 and then down-rezzed to 1440 (perhaps when transcoded into HDV which most programs will require to be down-rezzed).

But they could have used the same program for the Sony that allowed a full 1920 to be exported on the Canon. Reviewers really need to learn to do apples to apples comparisons.

I'll give you another example of a very often overlooked issue when doing A/Bs. More often than not (and in the case of the HV20 vs the SR12) the wide angle settings are somewhat different. So in the case of the SR12, it has a slightly wider field of view than the HV20.

If you're doing an A/B, you MUST zoom the SR12 just a bit to make the field of view identical. If you don't, that gives an advantage to the camera with the narrower, and more zoomed field of view. The natural reaction if these adjustments are not made is to think that the slightly zoomed picture is a bit sharper.

Sometimes these differences are small enough to be missed if you're not careful, but still significant enough to impact perceived sharpness and resolution.

Yeah, pretty sloppy reviewing.

But I think time of day and weather conditions make a big difference.

http://mp40modelguns.com/forum/SR12 HF10.JPG

I know the SR12 is sharper than that!

I could probably find a clip to support any camcorders greatness! :D

Is that representative of the SR12's sharpness vs HF10's? If that's the case then SR12 image may seem to have lower noise but its losing lots of detail, just look at the patterns on those stones, you can't make out any on SR12's image. I frankly don't see much EE on HF10's image.
BTW HF 10's lack of viewfinder would be deal breaker for me too. I use it all the time for stablizing the video, and it makes stealth filming too when you don't have LCD flipped out.

Is that representative of the SR12's sharpness vs HF10's? If that's the case then SR12 image may seem to have lower noise but its losing lots of detail, just look at the patterns on those stones, you can't make out any on SR12's image. I frankly don't see much EE on HF10's image.
BTW HF 10's lack of viewfinder would be deal breaker for me too. I use it all the time for stablizing the video, and it makes stealth filming too when you don't have LCD flipped out.

The HF10 is zoomed and the weather is different. So probably not a good comparison.

I just flip the LCD inward. I wonder if you can shut it off flipped inward? and start it this way?

Some more photo chopping:

Still don't understand the Hydrant BMP? The HF10 seems out of focus....would like to see another frame or a 30P capture.http://mp40modelguns.com/forum/hv20 hf10.JPG

Is that representative of the SR12's sharpness vs HF10's? If that's the case then SR12 image may seem to have lower noise but its losing lots of detail, just look at the patterns on those stones, you can't make out any on SR12's image. I frankly don't see much EE on HF10's image.
BTW HF 10's lack of viewfinder would be deal breaker for me too. I use it all the time for stablizing the video, and it makes stealth filming too when you don't have LCD flipped out.

Godobe, it's a HORRIBLE example. I have both the HV20 and the SR12 and I can tell you the noise level is better and the sharpness and resolution is at least as good as the HV20 if not better. There is no edge enhancement on the SR12 as there is with the HV20. I've uploaded several clips from the SR12 and if you can get them on a good quality HDTV, you'll clearly see how misrepresentative those shots above are of the SR12 quality...to the point of being a joke, seriously. Frame grabs like above are without question the absolute worst way to judge moving video quality from a camcorder.

There are clips on a Japaneese website that show precisely the opposite of those still shots. I downloaded those and the SR12 is clearly sharper with better colors than the HF10. But even in that case the SR12 clips were down-rez'd to 1440X1080 while the Canon HF10 was at 1920X1080...even with that, those clips showed the SR12 to be significantly better. But I dont' even trust those results.

So you need to be careful of which downloads and examples you use as the 'truth'. For me the best proof is having both and doing A/Bs. I have no allegiance and am just looking for the best picture. There is no doubt in my mind that the SR12 has a more 'professional' looking picture compared to the HV20. What that comparison will be with the HF10 I can't tell you.

We'll see what happens with the HF10.

The HF10 is zoomed and the weather is different. So probably not a good comparison.

I just flip the LCD inward. I wonder if you can shut it off flipped inward? and start it this way?

You can do that on the SR12, and I think you can with the HF10 too if I recall correctly from the HF10 manual. But it does cost you battery life.

Guys, the only way you'll really be able to tell the truth in your own eyes between two cams is to find a store that has both. Bring along the appropriate media (it's worth the investment to get a low capacity media card for whatever format you're interested in...if you don't already have it). Shoot some A/Bs, bring them home, put them on the largest screen HDTV you have and see the results. No better way to do it unless you trust the downloads from a given site. We've all seen how dicey and unreliable that is! This what I always do when I can. Of course even this procedure only gives you results for one shooting condition, but at least it gives you some idea. I did that with the Panasonic SD9 and thought it looked great at Circuit City. Little did I know how horrific the low light video was from that unit or the edge enhancement in bright light!

For me a 'professional' looking picture that combines low noise, great resolution & honest sharpness (no edge enhancement) along wiht great, accurate color, is what constitutes a winning combo in my book.

Others may look for the 'sharpest' picture even at the expense of edge enhancement and noise. You see that all the time with the way people adjust their HDTVs. So you have to get a cam that suits your taste. ;)

This is an older thread but I was trying to get info on the HF-10/100. Interesting to note that while the SR12 looked much better than the HF-10 in the basket/markers picture, it's very clear that the two pictures were taking with different conditions. Something really bothered me in looking at them. I noticed that there was a smudging of the orange marker on the far left. Comparing the pictures again I noticed that the order of the markers was different between the pictures - hence I was not looking at identical pictures taken with two different camcorders. Quite frankly, I have no idea what to believe when I see footage taken with 2 different cameras since the result could very well be likely the cause of very different input!

Slinky, I took a few pictures with both the HF10 and SR12 (before I sold the HF10) and the SR12 took decidedly better, sharper and more color-accurate pictures than the HF10. Just another data point.

Could be. It was just something I noticed that others might notice. Between those two pictures, it's obvious one has this filmy through plastic kind of dullness. Just wasn't sure what to make of it. At times I'll get a piece of equipment and see different things, like the follow up pictures of the scene at a different time of day - same cameras and very different result. Weird.