canon hf g10 vs panasonic hs900 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 49 Old 03-02-2011, 06:03 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
marcolisi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
http://camcorder-test.slashcam.com/compare.html

What d u guys think of this first comparison at 12 lux ?

tx
LL
LL
marcolisi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 Old 03-02-2011, 06:42 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
The Canon was unquestionably better in low light. The 900 was good, but it wasn't up to the level of the G10. The Canon was sharper, with better colors and lower noise.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #3 of 49 Old 03-02-2011, 06:49 PM
Member
 
krzysiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

The Canon was unquestionably better in low light. The 900 was good, but it wasn't up to the level of the G10. The Canon was sharper, with better colors and lower noise.

Do the same comparison at 1200 Lux and see which one is sharper......My TM900 is arriving tomorrow. I will take it any day over G10, even if price was not an issue!!!
krzysiu is offline  
post #4 of 49 Old 03-02-2011, 06:55 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
I'm sure the 900 is going to be superb. But I'm taking a close look at the G10 when it comes out. After doing a side by side with a Panny 750 and a Canon HF20, I was pretty shocked to see I preferred the overall picture of the HF20 to the Panasonic.

This was especially eye-opening since I owned a 700 from its release until just recently.

In looking at the 1200 lux shots, I'm not so sure the 900 has such an edge. I'm not sure if they took the frame grab from a 1080p mode vs the Canon's 1080i mode. If so that gives a very distinct advantage to the Panasonic, but doesn't prove much in a moving video. So I'll reserve judgment on that until I actually can test both. However, looking at the frequency response graphs, it doesn't look like the Panny has much if any advantage. That usually equates to overall picture detail, but we shall see. If you look closely at the face of the doll, you can actually see more imperfections on the face (take a look at the left side of the forehead) with the Canon.

Two great cams I'm sure. Can't lose with either one!
Ken Ross is offline  
post #5 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 09:35 AM
Member
 
krzysiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
At 1200 LUX, take a look at the rose (bottom right hand corner), on TM900 it looks lot sharper and it has more defined edges. Canon has a "soft" look, and I prefer "razor sharp" image of TM900.
krzysiu is offline  
post #6 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 10:28 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
True, yet the doll has more detail in its face on the Canon. It shows facial marks more clearly than the Panny. It depends on what part of the frame you focus on.

We'll see how these two stack up before too long. I'm still concerned about color rendition and the green/blue sky issue with the Pannys that's become so prevalent and discussed.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #7 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 11:02 AM
Member
 
krzysiu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 36
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

True, yet the doll has more detail in its face on the Canon. It shows facial marks more clearly than the Panny. It depends on what part of the frame you focus on.

We'll see how these two stack up before too long. I'm still concerned about color rendition and the green/blue sky issue with the Pannys that's become so prevalent and discussed.

Look at the doll's left iris. On TM900 it's more blue and a bit brighter on my computer (IBM, Lenovo). In addition, the lipstick has "nicer" color on TM900. I can not see more details on G10. They look about the same, but color wise, TM900 is more vibrant and looks better to me. Originally I was going to get Canon XA10, but decided that it is not worth it!!! Now I want 60p, (1080i and/or 24p to me is "crap", on its way to "extinction"). I got TM900 for $999 delivered from B&H photo when I ordered it on February 4th and finally, it will arrive today. I think that TM900 gives most "bang" for the buck, as of today. Now I have to find out where to purchase Chinese "decoded" batteries?
krzysiu is offline  
post #8 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 11:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 32
I wouldn't pay too much attention to those examples anyway.

1,000 is the price the TM700 was when it first came out. I'm surprised Panasonic put a $1,100 price tag on the TM900 but at least you got it at $1,000.
Paulo Teixeira is online now  
post #9 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 12:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
workinghard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 633
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I dont know a lot about videos and photography, and I have pulled many a still frame from my videos for display and comparison. However, can still photos pulled from video really be held up to this level of scrutiny and still expect for the images to accuratly portray the minute differences between the video capabilities of these two camcorders? Overall I could believe that it allows for some basic comparisons of ability, though not as in depth as in the discussion above, except that the various models of TM700 are so wildly different in the low light tests, and we know the internal sensors and lenses are the same...so... I find this particular comparison a hard pill to swallow beyond: They are both good.
workinghard is offline  
post #10 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 12:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by krzysiu View Post


Look at the doll's left iris. On TM900 it's more blue and a bit brighter on my computer (IBM, Lenovo). In addition, the lipstick has "nicer" color on TM900. I can not see more details on G10. They look about the same, but color wise, TM900 is more vibrant and looks better to me. Originally I was going to get Canon XA10, but decided that it is not worth it!!! Now I want 60p, (1080i and/or 24p to me is "crap",

I guess we're seeing different things, but that's OK. I definitely see more details in the face on the Canon, but I agree there are more details in the flower on the 900.

I certainly disagree that 1080i is 'crap'. If you saw really good 1080i I don't think you'd say that. All things being equal, I would choose 1080p, but in life rarely are all things equal. I mentioned my A/B with the Panny 750 and the older Canon S20. The colors were more consistently accurate on the 20 and at times the 750 was just off. Detail was too close to call. But the important point here is that one cam was 1080i and the other 1080p. All things are not equal.

Both cams are great and both have their strengths and weaknesses.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #11 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 12:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by workinghard View Post

I dont know a lot about videos and photography, and I have pulled many a still frame from my videos for display and comparison. However, can still photos pulled from video really be held up to this level of scrutiny and still expect for the images to accuratly portray the minute differences between the video capabilities of these two camcorders? Overall I could believe that it allows for some basic comparisons of ability, though not as in depth as in the discussion above, except that the various models of TM700 are so wildly different in the low light tests, and we know the internal sensors and lenses are the same...so... I find this particular comparison a hard pill to swallow beyond: They are both good.

I agree, it can be hard to draw conclusions about video quality from still grabs. In fact, I could be wrong, but I think still grabs from progressive video actually gives a distinct advantage to the progressive frame grab since they are usually sharper than similar grabs from interlaced video. More can be derived from low light and color IMO than sharpness.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #12 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 12:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Paulo Teixeira's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Yes, realistically it's best to look at videos and even better when the videos are native. As I always say, just put camcorders on a multi head stabilizer and tripod and shoot in multiple different situations in manual and auto as well as indoors and outdoors to really see how camcorders perform against each other. I've been thinking about doing something like that for a while now but getting all these camcorders isn't easy.

Maybe I should try to promote some kind of event. When the snow fully clears up in Massachusetts, I'll call for a camera shoot out and will accept anyone who owns a new camera and wants to volunteer. Everybody will either see the tests done live or will be involved in the test themselves. To make it simple, it'll be nothing but real world tests. For sure something like that will have to probably be on a weekend and not be close to the NAB dates. I might loose some good people because of NAB and who knows, maybe I'll finally get to go to it.
Paulo Teixeira is online now  
post #13 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,711
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 59
TM900:



HF G10:

jogiba is online now  
post #14 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 01:43 PM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

I agree, it can be hard to draw conclusions about video quality from still grabs. In fact, I could be wrong, but I think still grabs from progressive video actually gives a distinct advantage to the progressive frame grab since they are usually sharper than similar grabs from interlaced video. More can be derived from low light and color IMO than sharpness.

Progressive and interlaced will be equal on parts of the image that are static.

The face is the interesting one, on the Panasonic the face "has a better smoother complexion" and I wonder if it isn't just a case it has recognised the doll as a face and applied deliberate smoothing to flatter the subject, as everything else seems to be as sharp or sharper than the Canon.

The Panasonic has 1 pixel for each colour, being 3 chips, whereas the Canon needs to use several pixels to derive the colour through interpolation and that will impact sharpness, which I think we are seeing. However that is in a still frame grab, you probably wouldn't notice (or scrutinise) the video when you are sat back watching it to notice such subtle differences, and other things come into play to make a bigger difference, such as noise (i.e. from filming with low light), colour, compression artefacts, editing and recompression etc. Very hard to make a judgement on a still frame, as it isn't a stills camera, that is not how we would use it.

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #15 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 03:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Here is what I see as the differences in the 1200lux picture comparison:

1. The Panasonic is sharper (looking at the pine needles and most of all the pink flower detail, for example).

2. Most astonishing is the difference in color: the reds in the Canon shot are all faded or brownish, and not believable, compared with the reds in the Panasonic grab. And the greens in the Canon picture are also not right: look at the difference in the green alligator clip covers across the two shots (and the red ones too).

3. The marred parts of the face show up more in the Canon shot it seems to me because the face is paler in the Canon photo, making the contrast greater. The paler face just seems to be due to the lack of color saturation in the Canon in the red spectra.
markr041 is online now  
post #16 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 03:59 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
I wouldn't draw any conclusions on color saturation from these grabs. Every camcorder I've owned shows much more desaturated colors on this site than I had experienced while actually using the camera. Does anyone really believe the Panasonic reds will be that desaturated? Does anyone really believe those green & red alligator clips would look that desaturated in either camera's moving video?

Again, as far as I'm concerned, these tests are better for showing low light performance than measuring sharpness, color accuracy (who knows what these colors are supposed to look like anyway) or saturation. But that's just MO.

I think we all know that Canon would not put out a camcorder that was as desaturated as the still pix would lead you to believe. I've surely never seen one and I've owned two HD Canons. Once again, not to be repetitious, but when I did an A/B with a 750 and a Canon S20, I gave the nod to the Canon based on more consistently accurate colors without the tendency to show dramatic WB shifts as I saw in the 750.

Phil, on the Panasonic that 'smoothing' must be manually engaged (assuming the camera isn't in full auto). Which brings up the point as to how any of these cameras are set up for these shots.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #17 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 04:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 108
"Again, as far as I'm concerned, these tests are better for showing low light performance than measuring sharpness, color accuracy (who knows what these colors are supposed to look like anyway) or saturation."

As the criteria for low-light performance include color saturation and accuracy and sharpness, I do not understand this statement. Or is it only noise that one can compare in low light?

The fact is that this comparison makes the Canon look obviously bad relative to the Panasonic in good light by any criteria, and look good relatively in bad light - using the same criteria. So we should only believe the dim light comparison?
markr041 is online now  
post #18 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 05:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
workinghard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 633
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

"Again, as far as I'm concerned, these tests are better for showing low light performance than measuring sharpness, color accuracy (who knows what these colors are supposed to look like anyway) or saturation."

As the criteria for low-light performance include color saturation and accuracy and sharpness, I do not understand this statement. Or is it only noise that one can compare in low light?

The fact is that this comparison makes the Canon look obviously bad relative to the Panasonic in good light by any criteria, and look good relatively in bad light - using the same criteria. So we should only believe the dim light comparison?

I would imagine that it would be effective for fairly dramatic differences, rather than minutiae...no?

But, the performance of the HS/TM/SD low light are all pretty dramatically different...so this is a bit ridiculous
workinghard is offline  
post #19 of 49 Old 03-03-2011, 07:29 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post


As the criteria for low-light performance include color saturation and accuracy and sharpness, I do not understand this statement. Or is it only noise that one can compare in low light?

The fact is that this comparison makes the Canon look obviously bad relative to the Panasonic in good light by any criteria, and look good relatively in bad light - using the same criteria. So we should only believe the dim light comparison?

I think the low light tests on this site give a good indication of noise and 'muddiness'. I don't agree though with your feeling that the Canon looked "obviously bad' in the 1200 lux tests. I also look at the frequency response graphs for luminance response, which should be an indication of overall detail. Both cams were extremely close in this respect.

Again, the best test will be an actual A/B of the two as I did with the S20 and the 750. To me the 750 won in that test and I'd love to be able to do that again with these two. We do know that CCI was extremely high on the G10 and thought the sensor choice was an excellent one. They made it clear it was a front runner so far.

We shall see. Lots of great choices this year.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #20 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 06:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 108
"We do know that CCI was extremely high on the G10 and thought the sensor choice was an excellent one. They made it clear it was a front runner so far."

In your mind, maybe. In fact, the Panasonic SD-T750 *and* the Panasonic TM700 are ranked above the G10 by camcorderinfo:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php

Look, the G10 looks to be a winner in low light, but it is not clear how it matches up in decent light, where most video is done. And the pictures posted in this thread clearly suggest there is some question about G10 performance in good light.
markr041 is online now  
post #21 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 06:16 AM
Advanced Member
 
workinghard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 633
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

"We do know that CCI was extremely high on the G10 and thought the sensor choice was an excellent one. They made it clear it was a front runner so far."

In your mind, maybe. In fact, the Panasonic SD-T750 *and* the Panasonic TM700 are ranked above the G10 by camcorderinfo:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php

Look, the G10 looks to be a winner in low light, but it is not clear how it matches up in decent light, where most video is done. And the pictures posted in this thread clearly suggest there is some question about G10 performance in good light.


Sometimes you must take data with a little context and understanding of how numbers were assigned.

"The Canon HF G10 is the first camcorder to give the Panasonic HDC-TM700 a serious run for its money. Don't take this phrase to mean the HF G10 is a better bargain than the HDC-TM700—it's not—but it may be a better camcorder overall...In our overall scoring system, the Panasonic HDC-TM700 earned a slight edge over the HF G10. The Panasonic gained points for its compact design and easy user interface, while the Canon was the better true performer in terms of video quality. "

Not mentioned above is the fact that the G10 lost several points for still picture quality...and that is a silly way to make a decision between high-end camcorders.

So, yea, that says it on its own.
workinghard is offline  
post #22 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 06:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Good point.

But now lets really look at the CCI details where they quantify video performance (not subjective ratings of handling, etc.):

The TM700 beats the Canon G10 handily in color, noise and sharpness. The better G10 video performance is in two cateogories of low light only (not in low-light noise). Look at the scores by category:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...Comparison.htm


The ratings by category are in accord with the pictures posted in this thread - the TM(7)900 is the winner in good light, the G10 in poor light.
markr041 is online now  
post #23 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 10:07 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

"We do know that CCI was extremely high on the G10 and thought the sensor choice was an excellent one. They made it clear it was a front runner so far."

In your mind, maybe. In fact, the Panasonic SD-T750 *and* the Panasonic TM700 are ranked above the G10 by camcorderinfo:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php

Look, the G10 looks to be a winner in low light, but it is not clear how it matches up in decent light, where most video is done. And the pictures posted in this thread clearly suggest there is some question about G10 performance in good light.

I don't think there's any question that its performance in good light will be excellent. How it stacks up precisely against the 900 in a variety of picture parameters (not just sharpness) remains to be seen. We also don't know whether the 900 possesses the same color issues that the 700 did (and the 750, as I found out at Best Buy) and for me that's a great concern. I haven't seen any of these color issues in the Canon. Even if I had to take a bit of a hit in sharpness for better color and superior low light without the color anomalies as we've seen in many many clips, I'll take it.

Now, regarding your comment that it 'was in my mind' that CCI felt this cam was a front runner, this from CCI:

"The G10, however, is the stronger camcorder for pros or anyone looking for a semi-professional model. It has a ton of features and its low light performance is superb. It may not have a 60p option, but it does have a native 24p mode and two more alternate frame rates in the form of PF30 and PF24. Also, we doubt most advanced users will miss the lack of high-end still image performance."

And in comparing it directly to the 700:

"The Canon HF G10 is the first camcorder to give the Panasonic HDC-TM700 a serious run for its money. Don't take this phrase to mean the HF G10 is a better bargain than the HDC-TM700—it's not—but it may be a better camcorder overall."

Or this:

"...the Canon was the better true performer in terms of video quality
. "

I don't think they would have said this if the good light performance was 'in question' as you state. Pros are not looking for cameras with good light performance that's 'in question'. I also don't take their 'best camcorders' category too seriously since it takes into account things that don't always relate to performance, such as price, compact design etc.

The bottom line is that I'm sure both of these cams will have their strengths and weaknesses. There is no one definitive choice here IMO and I think it's naive to assume this is the case. You pick the one that best fits your needs. I doubt that either will disappoint.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #24 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 10:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

The ratings by category are in accord with the pictures posted in this thread - the TM(7)900 is the winner in good light, the G10 in poor light.

It still doesn't account for the fact that CCI clearly stated the Canon was the better performer in pure video terms. I don't care about these still frame captures, I'm interested in moving video, and CCI conducted those tests and thought the Canon did a better overall job.

To further underscore this issue of still frame grabs, you should look at the frequency response graphs on Slash, which are indicative of video sharpness & detail. These charts are much like audio frequency response graphs except they show video detail capability. I tend to look at these before I even look at the frame grabs. If you look at those charts in the comparison mode, you will see how very very close both the 900 & G10 are. To me that's a better indication than a frame grab. I suspect these two will be very close in that picture parameter.

If you look at the actual scores on CCI, you'll see that the scores for color, noise and sharpness were much closer than the runaway numbers for low light sensitivity. What this tells me is that low light differences will be much more obvious than other PQ parameters.

But I'd love to do an A/B between these two and even throw in the Sony 700 for good measure. Who knows, maybe the Sony is the sleeper in this trio! But truth be told, these all pale by comparison to some of the clips I've seen from that new JVC!
Ken Ross is offline  
post #25 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 10:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 108
"The bottom line is that I'm sure both of these cams will have their strengths and weaknesses. There is no one definitive choice here IMO and I think it's naive to assume this is the case. You pick the one that best fits your needs. I doubt that either will disappoint."

I agree completely with this.

We do not need the fluff of text, however, about what is what. The CCInfo numerical ratings by category and the pictures make it clear that the TM700 beats the Canon in good light in terms of color, sharpness and noise. The point of this thread is the comparative pictures posted, and these are exactly in accord with the CCInfo numerical comparison, where the TM700 is better. The denials of the obvious quality difference in the good-light pictures or in the CCInfo good-light ratings of video quality are what I am responding to.

If I wanted the best low-light camcorder I would surely pick the GH10. And I would not exactly suffer in good light with that choice.
markr041 is online now  
post #26 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 10:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
I think the differences are FAR less than you think in terms of actual video playback. After all, we watch video, not tables of numbers. As I stated, I have little doubt the disparity in low light performance will be far greater than the differences in color, sharpness & noise.

I would not characterize CCI's verbiage as 'fluff'. They specifically stated the Canon was the better video performer. I don't see how that can be construed as 'fluff'. They specifically omitted nonsense like size, shape, price etc in arriving at that conclusion. They focused (no pun intended) purely on PQ.

BTW, take a look at CCI's color chip charts. You'll see very very little difference when you actually look at that picture comparison. I suspect they do something other than a frame grab for this, but I'm not sure. Whatever it is, it's infinitely closer than the results from Slash. But this is precisely why I say the disparity in things like color will be far far less than that of low light. But we do know that Panasonic has had some significant color issues that the Canons have not had.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #27 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
markr041's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Liked: 108
Ken, I don't get it: we all agree that there is a nonobvious choice. But you go on with rhetoric defending the GH10:

Again you cite words. Look at the *numerical* comparisons: the TM700 beats the GH10 in *every* category in good light - color, sharpness, noise. It does not make any difference what is concluded (the fluff); the numbers do not lie. The scores, the objective criteria, are better for the TM700 in good light. No one is talking about the camera shape, weight, color (of the camera) - the quantitative measures of video quality are better for the TM700 in good light.

You brought up the CCI reviews, so we looked and sure enough, the measures correlate with what we (but not you) can see in the pictures.

Now, are you going to say the numerical scores should be ignored? just like you say the posted pictures should be ignored? I don't get it, why this insistence defending the inferior performance of the GH10 in good light?

I don't own the TM700; I have no stake in this whatsoever. I, like you, am really impressed with the GH10 low-light performance; it is a breakthrough. Sure wish it had 108060p and better good light specs.
markr041 is online now  
post #28 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 11:29 AM
Senior Member
 
Philip_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Hi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post

But we do know that Panasonic has had some significant color issues that the Canons have not had.

Which doesn't ever seem to show up in reviews no matter how technical, it's a strange one.

Personally I think many examples of bondi-blue skies are simply over-exposure, this youtube clip demonstrates it very well. Freeze it at around 17 seconds where the brighter part of the sky starts getting a green hue as the person starts deliberately over exposing.

Take a screen shot, dump it into a paint program and sample the colours at around 17 seconds.

All that is happening is blue sky contains a lot of blue, a good chunk of green but very little red. On over exposing once blue reaches 255 it can't go any higher, it is clipped, so the blue channel is overexposed, but as exposure continues upwards, the green and red channels continue to register more as they have some head room. Eventually green clips at 255, but with there being less red in sky that takes a lot more to over-expose.

At around 17 seconds if you sample the sky towards the left/middle, you will find RGB values of Blue 255, Green 255 and Red around 200. With blue and green at 255 that shows overexposure and clipping, what the camera is really seeing is perhaps blue at 400, green at 300 and red at 200, but can only register 255 maximum.

Mix the clipped RGB values with the not yet overexposed lower Red value and what do you get? Towards the right at the same 17 seconds the sky is brighter and over-exposed more and we get red clipping also, so essentially white sky, which no one thinks to complain about. At around 20 seconds into the clip it is over exposed even more, so we get the darker sky taking on the bondi-blue and if you sample you can see blue is clipped at 255 over what was blue sky, so the colours are now skewing towards green.

If this were a single chip camcorder with interpolation, I expect you get this scenario much less often due to the way colour is derived by taking averages of surrounding pixels so as one channel starts to clip and over expose that pushes the others towards over exposure much quicker.

Watching various TV programs, I've seen similar bondi-blue skies popping up from time to time. I expect many more are tweaked afterwards.

It is basically the cameras ability to process colours separately that shows up how overexposure is effecting colours. It might explain why one report which I think I read here reported using the extended colour space to a TV that supported it showed blue sky, yet it was green on the computer. The extended colour space meant blue and green were not over-exposed and could be recorded correctly, but were clipped on a computer that didn't support that extended colour space.

I suspect if you sample all cases of bondi-blue skies and test the blue, they will probably all show blue as clipped at 255. Once blue is over-exposed, the colour can only skew. That isn't a fault with the camera, it's just how these things work and why we have things like graduate filters etc.

Regards

Phil
Philip_L is offline  
post #29 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 11:42 AM
Advanced Member
 
workinghard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 633
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip_L View Post

Hi

Take a screen shot, dump it into a paint program and sample the colours at around 17 seconds.
Phil

Dude, you did not actually read the post about that. I said that originally I was trying to evaluate how to test for the bondi blue issue, and I adjusted the iris at a locked shutter speed. And the youtube video gives the link to the thread and the post number. I said, in a post on AVS forum on this topic, that this original test was ineffective. However, I also found that when simply adjusting shutter speed, there is a sudden change from 1/750-1/1000.

Yes, it is obviously overexposed when I opened the iris, but not when I adjusted the shutter-which resulted in the iris adjusting automatically.

Watch from around 25-37 and you will see it...but that video is certainly not meant to be watched at 17 seconds.
workinghard is offline  
post #30 of 49 Old 03-04-2011, 12:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,220
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 564
Quote:
Originally Posted by markr041 View Post

Ken, I don't get it: we all agree that there is a nonobvious choice. But you go on with rhetoric defending the GH10:

Again you cite words. Look at the *numerical* comparisons: the TM700 beats the GH10 in *every* category in good light - color, sharpness, noise. It does not make any difference what is concluded (the fluff); the numbers do not lie. The scores, the objective criteria, are better for the TM700 in good light. No one is talking about the camera shape, weight, color (of the camera) - the quantitative measures of video quality are better for the TM700 in good light.

You brought up the CCI reviews, so we looked and sure enough, the measures correlate with what we (but not you) can see in the pictures.

Now, are you going to say the numerical scores should be ignored? just like you say the posted pictures should be ignored? I don't get it, why this insistence defending the inferior performance of the GH10 in good light?

I don't own the TM700; I have no stake in this whatsoever. I, like you, am really impressed with the GH10 low-light performance; it is a breakthrough. Sure wish it had 108060p and better good light specs.

Mark, many buyers are hung up with stats, specs and charts. Did you look at the color chip chart on CCI? Did you look at the frequency response curves on Slash? If you did, you would see that those charts say something different, very little difference between these two. Does this mean anything? Who knows, I haven't seen the moving image comparison, only CCI has.

But I do know that despite the 'wonderful' color scores of the Panasonic, we have had TONS of complaints and TONS of videos to show there is something not right. The 700 simply can not render the sky with a consistently believable blue in many of these cameras. Have you ever seen this referenced in a review? I sure haven't. I don't really care about the 'numbers' in a chart, but I sure have seen many of these videos that do not show the 700 as being accurate in regards to blue. I myself had several instances of this when I had my 700, but fortunately they were the exception, not the rule. For many, it seems they are not so lucky. I am trying to be as objective as I can and most here know how high I've been on the 700. It was the best camcorder I ever owned. But we'd have to be blind to not acknowledge that this camera is afflicted with a bug that does odd things to the color blue in certain situations (as yet, undefined), particularly the sky. We have no idea why some cams are more prone to this issue than others. I look back at my experience with the 700 and consider myself lucky.

Charts & graphs are great, but when I compared video from a real live Panny 750 to a real live Canon S20, the color was consistently better on the Canon IMO. The 750 showed a whacked out AWB (much too red/pink) until I finally zoomed up on a white price tag. That should not be, as the video was shot in a very well-lit BB store. The Canon didn't have this issue at all. So do what you like with the numbers and I'll stick to actual video. Nothing new here, it's the same with many other pieces of equipment. Stats are stats and nothing more. Until you hear or see the output from the product in question, you simply don't know its performance.

What does the video look like? That's the only thing that counts. This is an easy concept and apparently CCI compared the two with actual moving images (whod'a thunk?) and came to the conclusion the video on the Canon was better.

I too have neither camera, but their summations are what they are.
Ken Ross is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off