New HF100 review- More contradictions - Page 2

What are custom picture adjustments?

RAW images captured on a digital sensor are always processed by the camera into the format of that particular camera. For stills these are jpegs or TIFF's. I always shoot RAW images on my still cameras because it gives "me" the choice of how I want to process that file.

Someone here may be able to enlighten me of a video camera that gives the equivalent RAW data of a still camera? As far as I know there is no RAW format in video, so that tells me every video camera processes the imagery into whatever compressed format the manufacturer set out for that model. Each camera manufacturer decides how they want the image processed which gives you the footprint for that particular camera. With good lighting the HF100 exceeds any comsumer camera I have seen in color balance, saturation, and sharpness. Many would agree with this. In my opinion the Sony SR-11/12 has cleaner imagery with increased noise reduction taking away from the sharpness and the saturation. Sony decided on this method of processing and Canon decided to not over process. Hence the Canon HF10/100 produce the pop in the imagery when the lighting conditions are optimal. The Canon's have more noise in low light but retain the sharpness surprisingly. This would describe a camera design in which the manufacturer decided to capture everything it could out of this sensor at 1920x1080 resolution at 60i/24p/and 30p.

For me I would rather adjust my camera instead of having the camera do it for me. This is not about which camera gives you manual adjustments. It is about the camera owner making the best of the equipment they already have. Again we are dealing with consumer cameras with small lenses and small chips. The differences among the best of these consumer cameras is negotiable, which is why this thread exists. From what I have seen from the jump into pro gear on the still imagery side, this is kind of funny that we are arguing about cameras we all know we have to compromise about.

In fully auto-mode? Or after manually adjusting the settings?

I am sorry rldivide, please don't take any offenese, but this is a ridiculous statement. Anyone that can take this with any merit is doing themselves an injustice. I have shot several clips in the last fifteen minutes in auto mode on the HF100 and felt it was more than adequate.

Let me explain further. I shot all these clips in a D50 lighting environment. What does that mean? I shot under specifically engineered daylight bulbs. used in the print industry for matching colors. Well folks, under balanced lighting the HF100 performs with perfect color balance when using a white balance card(neutral white reference card) in custom mode to select your white balance. In Auto white balance mode it produced very acceptable results that I would expect 5 deltaE off tops. I custom whit balance because I am a color geek and feel like getting it right off the bat. The video produced in auto mode was well exposed, crisp,and saturated especially in 30p mode.

I think it is not fair to any camera to say the auto(famous green button) mode is horrible in any lighting conditions that are not ideal. This is foolish talk especially when considering the size of these sensors. Any pro videographer or photographer will tell you that lighting is one of the most if not the most important element to collecting the imagery. I don't know many pros that would shoot under incandescent bulbs in their house even if it was of their cat and their dog. If you got orange or blue bulbs, how in the hell do you expect to get any good results from any camera.

The auto mode is perfectly fine on the HF100. When lighting conditions are not optimal, "you" have 30p mode and the ability to creatively control the aperture(depth of field), the shutter speed(for motion effects), and the custom white balance(for accurate color).

If you are on this thread than you are probably savvy enough to frickin use the controls on your camera. If mom, pop, grandma, and uncle Harry want to shoot in auto mode, well then frickin' let them. It is their loss that they bought a camera that can give them so much more and they are too lazy to figure it out. It takes me less than a minute to get the camcorder exactly the way I need it for proper exposure. It takes me a third of the time on a still camera. If a camera manufacturer took out the auto mode all together to make a point that the best images come from the operator of the camera and not the camera itself, I would buy it just for that reason alone. Don't be foolish. Learn how to use your frickin' camera.

The zebra stripes would be an awesome feature on the HF10/100, and why Canon didn't offer it is really stupid IMHO.


It could be that the contrast was higher on the Canon? Did you try the same aperture, shutter speed, contrast, white balance? Unless the comparo is controlled better, one cannot really say one camera blows more then the other. Frankly, if I set one camera up a certain way, I can make it provide the worse image quality one will ever see.

And what is wrong with using custom functions? Sure it's in-camera realtime post processing, and sure it does not change the exposure, but it is still a nice thing to do. For example, if you make contrast fully negative, and sharpening fully positive, one can get wider dynamic range (after shadows are normalized in post processing) and save a bit of time later in post processing. Cutting down the contrast could also lower noise in the shadows too, and save nuances and image details in that range.

And do you guys know that our cameras have an AA filter in front of their sensors? This means our footage can often benefit from post processing sharpening, which till mitigate the downside affects of the anti-alias filter over our sensors.


You're right, most people will use our camcorders in the Point & Shoot mode, but that is most people. I'm not most people, and those in the know are not either. I'm anal about trying my best to eek out the most quality I can.

IMHO, Sony delivers the "eye candy" that most people want. This over the top saturation and contrast may please aunt Jenny and Uncle Bill, but it will not please advanced amatuers, semi-pros, pros and those in the know. And when you say Sony does a "better" job, well that is highly subjective...since I hate over the top "eye candy" I would argue that Sony does a horrible job, but my teenaged kids would disagree ;-) they love the over the top saturation and such...but then at their age, they like Strawberry soda too...

Our AVCHD camcorders do not produce truly raw images, as they're all "post processed in-camera and in realtime. However if one uses custom functions and "turns off" or nuetralizes the in-camera post processing effects, one can get as close to "raw" as one can get in video. So no, our camcorders don't produce a true raw image, but they do produce a psuedo-raw images ;-)

I always turn off/nuetralize contrast, color depth, and at times the exception is that I crank up the sharpening but often I nuetralize sharpening too. Also, I intentionally over expose about 1/2 to 1 stop to lift the shadows, lower noise, then during post processing I "normalize" the shadows back to where they should be and the benefit is (1) less noise, and (2) a bit wider dynamic range is realized, (3) more nuances and details in the shadows. Shooting with the contrast and/or color cranked up too high means narrower DR, and more noise can often happen. BIG NOTE: For the sake of highest image quality, it would be far better to get the white balance close or spot on during filming as it will effect exposer. Sure one can mitigate weird color casts during post processing, but often at the costs of introducing digital artifacts such as combing, narrowing DR, and such.

Yea, it's more work, but if the footage matters then it is often worth the hassle.

As to the Sonys showing less noise in low light, could it be it is at the expense of precious image details/nuances in the shadows? You know how these cameras mitigate noise? They smear it away...bye, bye image details.

There needs to be a balance between noise mitigation and level of sharpness, and this point lies someplace in the middle.

Yes. I could see Red producing a consumer level modular design. Their new camera is the Red Scarlet I believe. They could call the consumer model the "Red Start"

Ok, I was a bit extreme in my sentence. Canon HF10's auto mode doesn't "suck", but it's no better than average camera.
That is, when I go outside, in a bright day light and shot in the street, I can be sure the sky will be blown up (even with cinema mode activated);
The quick way I solve this is briefly shoting at the sky (so to reduce exposure), then lock exp, and fine adjust.
Spot mode would probably fix this issue, but you can't adjust WB in this mode.

To answer Paul Fort, yes I confirm that for independant movies, Canon HF10 is way better than SR12, even with the lack of focus wheel.
Why ?
-you can lock shutter to 1/48, adjust aperture and lock it
-cinema mode (and picture contrast adjusment) dramatically expend dynamic range
-progressive frame
-and I could add manual audio level, since I don't think you can fine adjust it on SR12

So none of theses critical things for independant filmmaking can be done with SR12.

What about the focus ? Well, if you really want to play with focus, then a mini35 is the way to go, you have too much DOF on theses consumer camcorders anyway (unless you want to shot all your movie in tele, but common...). So what do we need to use a mini35 ? focus lock. Can we do it on HF10 ? Yes, bingo.

The only thing it lacks is zebra, so bad they removed it. But with a bit of tests and training you can judge when colors start to be clamped (and yes you can rely on the LCD screen for this, just lower the LCD luminosity to get a better perception of levels).

That said, I would rather recommend SR12 for soccer mom, as it deals better with automatic exposure and automatic white balance.

PS: I finally received my HF100 two days ago, been playing a lot with it since, here's my first (experimental) attempt with HF100
http://www.vimeo.com/1014375

eos5d,

There is no such thing a a pseudo RAW image. You know this as you own the 5D and understand the concept. In order for an image or video to be RAW it needs to be totally uncompressed and unprocessed. Only a RAW image can be a RAW image, there is no in between. All video camera compress and process the clips into a format recognized by editing programs to be "post" processed. There is a big distinction here and I think we should not confuse people into thinking they are getting anything but processed clips from their camcorder. My point was to say that I would rather have a bit more control of how the camcorder processes the image through manual control than to have the camcorder do it for me.

Quote, "As to the Sonys showing less noise in low light, could it be it is at the expense of precious image details/nuances in the shadows? You know how these cameras mitigate noise? They smear it away...bye, bye image details.

There needs to be a balance between noise mitigation and level of sharpness, and this point lies someplace in the middle."

This is exactly what the anti-aliasing filter does with still cameras. It reduces noise at the expense of fine detail. you would notice for instance with the Sigms D14 still camera that the reduction of anti-aliasing brings out fine details at the expense of noise from the sensor. In my opinion Canon has gone this route with the HF10/100 and Sony has gone the route of less noise/less fine detail in the SR-11/12.

Being a soccer dad , I can say that most soccer moms would prefer the smaller, lighter camcorder (as would I). In this case that's the HF100, not the SR12. Now if they read all these comments about auto exposure and white balance, they might want the SR12 instead. Likewise, if they saw A/B videos comparing both cameras on auto mode, they might want the SR12.

BUT... most soccer moms don't read these forums, nor do they do A/B tests. They go to Circuit City or Best Buy, hold each camera for a minute, then say "I like the little one. It's cute."

First off my friend, ALL DSLR raw files are compressed, lossless compression. And I think you're reading too much into my term "psuedo-raw", and I did use double-quotes, yea? ;-) The fact that I used the term "psuedo-raw" should not confuse anyone..."psuedo" and double-quotes...how could they misunderstand?

What I was saying was that if one nuetralizes and/or turns off the in-camera realtime post processing, then one can get a file that is less processed, and leaves more decision making to the shooter during post processing on a computer. I never suggest that the file was a true raw image, and I think others would agree if they read my posts on this.

I will whole heartedly agree with you that for highest image quality, and artistic license, comes from taking advantage of the manual controls on the camera are a must, and the thing to do in order to eeek out the most IQ possible. What I really hate about all these camcorders is that the teeny tiny sensors mean even F1.8 shows too fat a depth-of-field...DOF is way too fat, so then every single element is often too sharp in a frame...I want more selective focus...it gets worse as one backs away from the subject but now we talk optical physics ;-)

True, the AA filter minimizes noise, but it also removes moire too from patterns such as clothing, plaids, fibereous close shots, and such subjects/elements when shooting. In the case of the fullframe 5D DSLR, since it's photo sites are huge, and this produces less noise, the AA filter on that body is less aggressive, so straight out of camera shots are sharper then out of other bodies, although the body is prone to more moire then others...like you said, it is a balance...if I had to choose, I would choose someplace in the middle, but really, the best thing in regard to noise would be for the makers to offer the same number if pixels, but on much bigger sensors...that would mitigate lots of the noise, but of course they solution might prove very costly...Still, I seem to prefer the HF10's slightly more noise low light shots to Sony's noise-free plastic (I exaggerate for effect).

Eos5d,

I want you to know that my post was not an attack on what you said. Everyone reads more into posts than what was really intended. I do understand the RAW compression scheme of my 5D as well and just wanted people to understand that there is no such RAW file with video cameras. I guess I should have not used the words uncompressed and should have said lossless. I would imagine that their is pretty heavy compression being performed in video cameras to keep file size down. Our computers would blow up if camcorders offered a RAW format, at least at this point.

I did not mean for you to take offense. I just wanted to clarify what you said.

Nice video. Any details?

OK OK OK ther HF10 is better for independent movies when compared to the SR12. But on a scale of 1 to 100 where 100 is the best independent film camera and 1 is the worst. The Sony Sr11/12 is at 0.01 and the canon HF10/100 is at 0.015.


Now the canon Hf10/100 wins hands down as the soccer mom camera due to its compact size and light weight. It fit s so nicely in a purse next to the baby wipes and snack crackers

Haaaaa thats funny

Cinema-mode, lock exp (1/50, f2.8 or something), tungsten WB preset, progressive mode
The original record is 30min long, it has been accelerated to 3min in Vegas (no intermediate codec, direct AVCHD editing), gamma and contrast has been adjusted (+zoom/pan). Music made in FLStudio.


I think you underestimate it

SoundsStage28, no offense taken. I just wanted to make sure that anyone else reading my posts don't go away thinking that there is a true raw mode with camcorders. No worries!

Paul, what holds the HF10 and other Sony camcorders back from being close to an ideal indy camera is either lack of manual controls, or lack of a fast convenient way to get at those controls.

As to image quality, the Sony SR12 and the Canon HF10/100 both can provide more then enough image quality to satisfy any indy shooter...but what good is that great IQ if manual controls are missing or too cumbersome to work?

What both Sony and Canon need to do is to provide a sub $1,200 body that has profoundly better controls, and more manual controls and if they do that, then indy folks can get awesome performance without having to break the bank.

Just like DSLR bodies....the $800 Canon Rebel will deliver the same IQ as the $8,000 model most of the time, and for enlargements at 11" x 16" or smaller, so then why do people pay $8,000 for a body that only gives marginably better IQ? For the body build quality, features, dust/moisture sealing, manual controls, better ergonomics, all things that have little or no direct benefit to IQ. And I think the same thing can be said for the SR12 and HF10/100....they deliver the best IQ, but their ergo's, and lack of controls are what make them less then ideal for serious pro Indy projects.