Hi all.

I know my question may sound strange in comparing to very different products, but I haven't seen anything yet on the Sanyo's new line-up, more precisely the CG10.

Basically was settled for the HF10 or HF100 until I saw the CG10 for one third of the price (199 vs 599). What attracts me in the Sanyo is that it's more compact and lightweight and for a trip to Europe, I won't always be worried about dropping it or getting it stolen (and oh yeah... the price).

Let's say I only care about PQ and I set aside other features on the Canon's, is it worth it to pay 3 times the price for the Canon? I know for instance the bitrates are quite different (9 mbps vs 17mbps). Can anyone tell me how much of a difference in PQ does this make? Any other things I should consider regarding PQ? I expect to "get what I pay for", but I'm wondering how big/huge the difference is.

Thanks in advance!

Edit : Here is Sanyo's CG10 spec sheet (http://sanyo.com/xacti/english/products/vpc_cg10/spec.html)

it seems to me that one of your main concern is convenience. The Sanyo is definitely smaller than the hf10/100s but for me the hf100 isn't that much more cumbersome to use or store.

also, in regards to pq i'd would go on vimeo and check out different vids of the two. i can only vouch for hf100 since i have that cam and its a great cam. if you can live with the pq of the sanyo i'd go with that. however, you'll have to ask yourself if you need better pq in the long term. so you dont have to spend money again later on.

Thanks. The HF100 does have a beautiful PQ but I only found 2 uploads on vimeo for the Sanyo, so it's harder to judge.
I'm almost tempted to buy both and return one after I test them!

Thanks for the advice!

Hi all.

Let's say I only care about PQ and I set aside other features on the Canon's, is it worth it to pay 3 times the price for the Canon? I know for instance the bitrates are quite different (9 mbps vs 17mbps). Can anyone tell me how much of a difference in PQ does this make? Any other things I should consider regarding PQ? I expect to "get what I pay for", but I'm wondering how big/huge the difference is.

Thanks in advance!

Edit : Here is Sanyo's CG10 spec sheet (http://sanyo.com/xacti/english/products/vpc_cg10/spec.html)

9Mbps 1280x720 is a joke, it doesn't compare to 17Mbps 1920x1080.

you have to decide what the memories of your trip are worth.

9Mbps 1280x720 is a joke, it doesn't compare to 17Mbps 1920x1080.

you have to decide what the memories of your trip are worth.

Thanks. But may I ask what you mean by "it doesn't compare"? Is it that huge of a difference?
Thanks again.

9Mbps 1280x720 is a joke, it doesn't compare to 17Mbps 1920x1080.

(I'll preface this by saying I have a CG10.)

Hmmm. There's no doubt that more res and higher bitrate will produce better quality. But you should also refer to the long running debate about what screen size you need in order to tell the difference between HD/720p and "FullHD"/1080p video. The general consensus in the end was you need at least a 42" screen for the difference to be significant. And I can tell you I love the CG10 footage on my trueHD 42" Panasonic.

When it comes to memories, you don't need 1080p to capture the atmosphere of the moment. Just ask anybody who has shot any video up until the 1080p era.

I have personal video stored on a variety of formats, including VHS, miniDV, QVGA ASF (15fps!), VGA MPEG4 and 720p MPEG4. Of those, the QVGA 15fps is obviously technically the worst, but you know what - for me it still has managed to "capture the moment", and is every bit as precious to me as the 720p stuff.

What do you need to "capture the moment"? It's pretty basic really - I think you need something compact enough to have on your person almost at all times, and something that will shoot in almost all situations (i.e. reasonable low light capability, esp if you shoot indoors a lot). Everything beyond that is just icing on the cake, and depends on how much money you have or want to spend, perceptions of bang-for-the-buck etc. etc..

For me, I think 720p is both adequate and provides the best current bang-for-the-buck (I don't have unlimited wads of money) - perhaps in a couple of years, I'll lay out the same amount of money I've handed over for my 720p and get 1080p capability instead - and get 2 years worth of better quality/technology than current 1080p.

Check out stevesdigicams Sanyo forums. If you search for CG10, you'll find some links to the original/uncompressed footage of one of the vimeo uploads. Grab some uncompressed HF100 video as well, and do your own comparison on your own gear - see if you think the difference is worth the money - and let us know what you think!

9Mbps 1280x720 is a joke, it doesn't compare to 17Mbps 1920x1080.

(I'll preface this by saying I have a CG10.)

Hmmm. There's no doubt that more res and higher bitrate will produce better quality. But you should also refer to the long running debate about what screen size you need in order to tell the difference between HD/720p and "FullHD"/1080p video. The general consensus in the end was you need at least a 42" screen for the difference to be significant. And I can tell you I love the CG10 footage on my trueHD 42" Panasonic.

When it comes to memories, you don't need 1080p to capture the atmosphere of the moment. Just ask anybody who has shot any video up until the 1080p era.

I have personal video stored on a variety of formats, including VHS, miniDV, QVGA ASF (15fps!), VGA MPEG4 and 720p MPEG4. Of those, the QVGA 15fps is obviously technically the worst, but you know what - for me it still has managed to "capture the moment", and is every bit as precious to me as the 720p stuff.

What do you need to "capture the moment"? It's pretty basic really - I think you need something compact enough to have on your person almost at all times, and something that will shoot in almost all situations (i.e. reasonable low light capability, esp if you shoot indoors a lot). Everything beyond that is just icing on the cake, and depends on how much money you have or want to spend, perceptions of bang-for-the-buck etc. etc..

For me, I think 720p is both adequate and provides the best current bang-for-the-buck (I don't have unlimited wads of money) - perhaps in a couple of years, I'll lay out the same amount of money I've handed over for my 720p and get 1080p capability instead - and get 2 years worth of better quality/technology than current 1080p.

Check out stevesdigicams Sanyo forums. If you search for CG10, you'll find some links to the original/uncompressed footage of one of the vimeo uploads. Grab some uncompressed HF100 video as well, and do your own comparison on your own gear - see if you think the difference is worth the money - and let us know what you think!

Thanks for the heads up. I was going to update the thread because I finally bought the CG10 because I thought I'd give it a try before forking 600$ for the HF100.
I *really* hope I did something wrong (it's my first HD camcorder), but the raw footage (.mp4?) I filmed really didn't impress me. I thought I'd figure it out by the end of the 14-day limit, but until now I understand don't why it's so crappy. The menu says HD-SHQ (1280x720 30fps SHQ). The file on my macbook also says 1280x720 in the properties.

I really don't care about 1080p/i capability because my mind on the 720p vs 1080p debate is already made up. I'll be watching the footage on 46-50" plasma (which I didn't buy yet), so I'm guessing if the .mp4 footage looks that ugly on my 13" macbook with quicktime, how much worse will it look on a large screen HDTV after editing? Even if I get the HF100 I will be sticking with the 720p resolution, but how much of a difference would I see between 9mbps 720p and 17mbps 720p is my main question.

Again, I hope I'm doing something wrong. If not, then I really hope there would be a major difference between the HF100 and this. If it's 3 times the price, I would expect nothing less than 3 times the PQ.

On a side note, I saw two videos from the CG10 on Vimeo (and I saw yours, and I read your thread on the other forum) and they weren't that much uglier than the HF100. But I'm guessing it's because of all the compression on Vimeo that takes all the uploads down to the same bitrate/quality?:confused:
Thanks!

Sorry to hear you weren't happy with the footage! The HF might be the go for you. The only other thing I'd suggest is playing the video back using an alternative media player, or checking your QT settings (I've had some dramatically different results with the same H264 video in Windows using different players - in Windows, QT is by far the worst, and KMPlayer the best).
Have you had a look at the Panasonic LX3? 720p again, and more a camera than a video tool, but the photographic ability sounds very tasty for a compact!

Your macbook with quicktime might be the problem.

Why don't you connect directly to your HDTV and play from the camcorder ?

This is what you need:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001Q3M9PY/ref=s9_sims_gw_s1_p114_t1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1ADS7V78V11DK6Y9B265&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846
For that camcorder being under $450, you really cant go wrong.
It has 720 30p, 1080 60i, 30p and 60p.

Thanks. But may I ask what you mean by "it doesn't compare"? Is it that huge of a difference?
Thanks again.

it's a HUGE difference... 9Mbps bitrate will not stand up to any kind of re-encoding, and cutting the frame size down to 720p will also cause a loss of resolution.

get a real sanyo, like paulo suggested, if you like the brand... that little camcorder he posted has a lot of bang for the buck, although i'd also be looking at the hf10, it's $550 at costco, with a memory card:
http://www.**************/forums/topic_view.php?catid=18&threadid=913357&start=0

9Mbps 1280x720 is a joke, it doesn't compare to 17Mbps 1920x1080.

(I'll preface this by saying I have a CG10.)

Hmmm. There's no doubt that more res and higher bitrate will produce better quality. But you should also refer to the long running debate about what screen size you need in order to tell the difference between HD/720p and "FullHD"/1080p video. The general consensus in the end was you need at least a 42" screen for the difference to be significant. And I can tell you I love the CG10 footage on my trueHD 42" Panasonic.

When it comes to memories, you don't need 1080p to capture the atmosphere of the moment. Just ask anybody who has shot any video up until the 1080p era.

since you are happy with standard definition, why buy the cg10?

the 42" screen claims are only relevant to the distance that the viewer is from the monitor, it's got nothing to do with 720p or 1080 per se... what you don't understand is that in order to retain the picture quality after editing, you should always start off with the highest bitrate and frame size that you can shoot at.

This is what you need:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001Q3M9PY/ref=s9_sims_gw_s1_p114_t1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1ADS7V78V11DK6Y9B265&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938631&pf_rd_i=507846
For that camcorder being under $450, you really cant go wrong.
It has 720 30p, 1080 60i, 30p and 60p.

http://www.*****************/trafficreport/img/3721/k08t1221bbuq/gdsmile.gif It looks pretty nice..

Your macbook with quicktime might be the problem.

Why don't you connect directly to your HDTV and play from the camcorder ?

I don't have an HDTV. I will be buying one soon. But there is no real improvement in VLC over Quicktime on my mac. Not sure about PC but I'm pessimistic.

it's a HUGE difference... 9Mbps bitrate will not stand up to any kind of re-encoding, and cutting the frame size down to 720p will also cause a loss of resolution.

get a real sanyo, like paulo suggested, if you like the brand... that little camcorder he posted has a lot of bang for the buck, although i'd also be looking at the hf10, it's $550 at costco, with a memory card:
http://www.**************/forums/topic_view.php?catid=18&threadid=913357&start=0

Thanks for the precisions. I would love to get the HF10 but my local Costcos don't have it... In the meantime I managed to get some raw footage of the HF100 and while my cpu plays almost only still frames (very few fluid movement), I can say there is a big difference between this and the CG10. I might go to my local computer store with VLC and the file on a USB key and just play it there :)

since you are happy with standard definition, why buy the cg10?

the 42" screen claims are only relevant to the distance that the viewer is from the monitor, it's got nothing to do with 720p or 1080 per se... what you don't understand is that in order to retain the picture quality after editing, you should always start off with the highest bitrate and frame size that you can shoot at.

Actually I don't think he'd settle for SD. I think he means SD can do the job for keeping precious memories, no need for 1080p. IMO it's true. HD might be an upcoming new standard, but for now it's more of a luxury for most of people. Anyway that's off-topic. I think I'm settling for the HF100.

Thanks for the precisions. I would love to get the HF10 but my local Costcos don't have it... In the meantime I managed to get some raw footage of the HF100 and while my cpu plays almost only still frames (very few fluid movement), I can say there is a big difference between this and the CG10. I might go to my local computer store with VLC and the file on a USB key and just play it there :)

I have to admit, looking at some HF100 info, it does look stunning!


Actually I don't think he'd settle for SD. I think he means SD can do the job for keeping precious memories, no need for 1080p. IMO it's true. HD might be an upcoming new standard, but for now it's more of a luxury for most of people.

Quite. I was simply trying to say that it's all about available money vs perception of quality vs perception of value. About eight years ago, as a DINK family, we spent ~$US1200 on a miniDV camcorder - because I had the money, I wanted that level of quality, and I was prepared to spend that amount of money on it. Now - with two kids and a mortgage - my criteria have re-aligned themselves quite a bit! (OSV - I have, BTW, been recompressing/editing digital video in a variety of formats for the last nine to ten years, so I do know just a bit about the loss of quality inherent to that process.)

Anyway that's off-topic. I think I'm settling for the HF100.

SV - I hope you enjoy the HF100 - well, more than that, I'm pretty sure you'll love it!