HF10/100 Color Accuracy - Is it adjustable/fixable?
 

I just ordered the Canon HF100 a couple days ago and now I'm reading posts here and there about how it's "color accuracy" is so out-of-whack - posts which usually are comparing it to the "perfect" color of the Sony cams, such as the SR11/12.

Is there any way to adjust/tweak this color problem on the HF10/100? Could this be fixed by a firmware update from Canon? Is this just a problem with the canon's CMOS?

Is this really noticeable? I have an HV20 which has always got such great reviews so I figured the HF10 would be just as good in terms of PQ. Or, does the HV20 also have this color problem when compared to the Sony cams?

Is this a real problem with the canons or is it just a "preference" thing between the users???

My real reason for this post is to ask if there is any way to adjust the color on the HF10/100 to match the "perfectness" of the Sony SR11/12. If not, how fix-able is this issue in post?

I'm fairly new to video production.

Zack, I had both the HF10 and the SR12 and found no way to get the HF10 to match the color acccuracy of the SR12. It was one of the two reasons I sold my HF10.

Now before you panic, it doesn't happen on every clip and in every lighting situation, but it happened often enough for me that it was a deal break. I tried both presets (outdoor white balance etc.) as well as manual white balance. When the color was whacky, these didn't help, they only changed the nature of the 'error'. I also felt that since this was going to be used essentially as a 'point and shoot' camera, I didn't want to have to screw around with controls all the time to get things looking right. In the end it didn't help anyway.

However, this is not a characteristic of Canon in my experience. I had the HV10 and still have the HV20. Both of those cams exhibited fine color, although still not quite as consistently good as the Sony, but nothing that would make you say 'wow, that looks kind of weird'.

Ken Ross, thanks for the info. Does anyone know of some sample side by side video or still shots that would demonstrate to me the color issue with the HF10/100?

Why are all these cam so close, yet so far - if you know what I mean? Even the Sony cams have drawbacks, IMO, such as no SDHC, etc.

I just got the HF100 and maybe I'm just not that finicky, or it may be that I never had one of those "perfect color" Sony's. Just finished most of the shooting on my UWOL #8 challenge entry with the new Canon and the color looks reasonably accurate for me.

I don't use the 24fps mode because I don't want to have to mess with pulldown issues but I do use the Cine mode for the muted colors, reduced contrast, and all that and just as with this mode on two other cams I find it often turns out too flat for my tastes. So in post I "tune" each clip that needs it until I like what I'm seeing.

With this Canon, as with a previous Panasonic and with my HV20, the look I wind up with is somewhere between the brilliance and crispness of video and the muted, flat look of Cine mode.

My only complaint about the HF100 is the lack of a real viewfinder, outdoors in daylight you absolutely have to use a good hood on the LCD. IMO the Hoodman product is inadequate and I use the Cinetactics Screen Hoodie and still wish for something longer.

This cam is so small I'm almost ashamed to put it on a tripod (ever have your tripod snicker at you?).

Just curious... is there any way in post to adjust the color balance of the HF10/100 footage to be like what you get from a Sony SR12?

Zack, a couple of points on your question:

* First, you will find that when some clips are off due to poor white balance, you may be able to get them to look 'better', but they will never look as good as if the white balance was accurate in the first place.

* Second, doing this kind of correction in HD is very very time consuming. It's not nearly like taking a .jpeg and color correcting that. Video is dynamic and ever changing...even in the same clip! You may actually see the white balance changing within just one clip. How do you correct for that? Whatever change you made at the beginning of the clip no longer applies later in that same clip. That means you may have to split the clip and apply two different color corrections to the same clip.

* Third, you'll find the error isn't always the same. This means you will be apllying a different color correction to many, if not all clips that require it. Again, a time consuming task that will not turn out as well as if the cam had done it properly in the first place.

* Renders...hope you have lots of time for those. HD editing is just not like editing in SD.

Ack, I am sorry to report that the colors of the HF100 are awful. If I could I would get out of that sale. I am even considering spending 40% more for the sony sr11 or getting an HV20 somewhere. It was a real bummer.

For those who report that there are not any weird colors:
Try shooting anything bright red in sunlight and then report back.

I just looked at the first few scenes of a just completed project where I caught a variety of bright, medium, and deep reds on the street.

Color looks pretty normal. You may have a bad camera so I'd take it back and see if they will exchange it or allow you to pay the diff on the Sony.

But I'm pretty happy with mine. Maybe I got a good one.

Bruce, if you're not seeing color issues then maybe you did get a good one. Many people report the same issues with funky colors that just can't be corrected. It was the main reason I returned mine aside from a too hyped contrast.

Zack, Ken, I also saw the white balance shift when I was using a friend's HG10 to film a local theater production. It would change just by moving the camera even when the stage lights were static. I also saw some white balance shifts when doing some test shooting in the store with the Panasonic SD9, though they were smaller and more gradual. On the other hand, my Panasonic AG-50 does not do this (at least I've never seen it in 5 years). I suspect the difference is whether the camera determines white balance from the scene, as to the SD9, HG10, and HF10, or by using an external white balance sensor, as the AG-50 does. If the SR11 doesn't show any white balance shifts and it determines white balance from the scene, then perhaps Sony has done a better job of this than Canon.

One thing that could help is to use a WB preset, or manual WB. You may not get a perfect WB, as Ken has noticed, but at least it won't shift and will be easier to correct in the NLE.

Also, when correcting white balance in the NLE, some (most?) NLE's will let you keyframe effects on the timeline, so you can shift the correction as the WB shifts without having to break the clip up, or break up the effect into sections.

If your like me your probably going to be using your camcorder casually, that is you're not shooting a documentary, small film, wedding etc... If you were you'd probably be getting a different camera.

With that in mind you have to ask yourself how important is color accuracy? I find "out of whack" to be pretty extreme in this case. Have I noticed some differences in color on the fold out screen as I shoot something, yeah maybe but nothing that screamed "her red shirt looks orange or why is his blue shirt black?". Did video look a little closer to accurate on the Sony SR11 when I had it, perhaps. The screen is better than that of the Canon's so maybe it does a better job re-displaying the colors captured.

Here is what I do know. When I display footage from either camera on my television they both look great and unless you've had your television professionally calibrated there is good reason to think it isn't 100% accurate anyway. I've tried to look for signs of colors being "out of whack" and frankly I can't find anything that is offensive but maybe I'm color blind.

A friend was over the other day who was trying to decide between the two cameras. He liked the Canon picture better so go figure.

Paul

You do have some custom adjustments on the Canon HF100.

I mentioned that I use the "Cine" mode (but not the 24fps) for the muted lower contrast less vivid look that some feel is closer to the way film often portrays what it records. Sometimes this looks just right to me (sunny bright outdoors), sometimes a tad flat.

When I switch over to one of the other modes I notice a sudden jump in vivid color and contrast. This may be what some are complaining about, but you can go to the custom settings on the menu and tone down color depth, vivid, contrast, brightness and sharpness a notch.

But here is what I did with my first project with the HF100 in "Cine" mode, but with some "tampering" with some clips in post.

http://www.uwolchallenge.com/challen...gthelegacy.mp4

Hello,

the only difference between hf10 and hf100 is that hf10 has also an internal 16gb memory? that's all? qualiy is the same?
thanks!

PS i'm not able to download your clip Bruce...

Hi Bruce.

I guess the correct D/L URL should be this:

http://www.uwolchallenge.com/challen...gthelegacy.mp4

yes it works, thanks Joe!

Reporting back before I go on my trip. Cinemode seemed to fix some of the color problems. Also, using the white balance for daylight and cloudy conditions also helped. I decided to keep the camera because for $832 with accidental damage insurance (you break it, we replace it) for 3 years was to good to pass up.

Figured I'd update this thread in case anybody still cares. I bought an HF100 recently (July 2008). I'm still within the 30-day return window for Amazon.com, and seriously considering returning the camera. I've had no end of problems with color accuracy. Auto white balance worked well one or two sessions, but usually adds a distinct blue cast. It's enough to be annoying.

The real problem, though, is that manual white balance doesn't seem to work. I've tried several white objects and it causes the image to be VERY warm every time, like you're looking through a piece of pink glass. At first I thought maybe it was just that I was balancing off of something that has an invisible blue bias but it's happening with every white object I use -- paper, towel, pillow, shirt, etc. It's noticable on the LCD screen, my computer, and my calibrated HDTV.

I ordered a Lastolite 18% gray card. Should arrive this week or early next week. I'll try balancing with that, but I'm not expecting it to work at this point.

I really like the idea of this camera, but this is silly.

Rich, these were precisely the kinds of issues I had with the HF10. I could see early on this cam wasn't going to give me the color accuracy I was seeking and I switched to the SR12. I'm really hoping that Canon gets it right with the HF11. Not being able to get accurate color with even the MWB was the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

I have a hard time believing they'd be able to sell a camcorder with such issues without a lot of returns, so it must not be every camera.

When I get the gray card I'll try that and post and update. I also have an SR12 coming for "eval". If I still have trouble, and if the Sony works better, I'll probably switch.

I really wanted the HF100 instead. I'd rather have solid state memory than a hard drive, I liked the idea of manual settings like shutter speed, and I'm afraid manual focus would be very tough for me on an SR12 what with my poor eyes.

Such is life for early adopters. Which we sort of are, for this class of consumer camcorder.

I havent tried Auto white balance on my HF100 but manual works just fine. I didnt notice anything terrible, sometimes color temperature is slightly off, either blue tinge or picture is a little bit too warm, but it's normal, this same thing happened too me on many other cameras I used.
I personally prefer warm colors when shooting outdoor and even bought a warm-up filter for HF100, used it once and realised that there is no need in it - the colors are pretty accurate and well saturated even without it.

Rich, are you aware there is a flash memory version of the SR12 out now? I believe the model is the Sony HDR-CX12. It has no HD, but only flash memory recording. I haven't tried it, but from what I've heard it's the same PQ as the SR11/12.

There's 4 issues at play:

1. WB Accuracy: On a vectorscope -- is white in the Center. If you want to talk about WB errors, post screenshots of your vectorscope. Otherwise, you are bringing your monitor into the equation. You can check this in each Preset and in Manual.

The Sony is definitely not accurate -- especially using the INDOOR setting with typical household lights. It is very warm because low wattage lamps are redder. It's not really a camera error. Likewise outdoors, the cast is a bit blue -- as has historically been true of Sony. (Sony seems to use the Japanese 9300-degree definition of WHITE verses the USA definition of 6500-degrees.) You'll need to CC each clip if you want perfect color.

2. WB Reliability: If you think it is shifting, test it by shooting white over a period of time. Then use your vectorscope. You'll see clearly IF the camera has a problem. The Sony is very reliable.

3. Over saturated colors: this is way to common in consumer cameras. I find the Sony fine. But, it would be nice to have the option to adjust it.

4. Red Push: any color that has the chroma phase that indicates it is "skin" will have its red component increased. Or, overall red is increased. Again, consumer cameras push red so their very pale skin looks healthy. Again, you'll need to CC each clip if you want perfect color.

PS: most NLE's have a vectorscope.

I don't know about you guys, but for a consumer HD camera I use my eyes as the final judge. If I'm comparing two cameras in the same league (say the HF10 & SR12), I shoot a number of scenes with both and compare the results with the actual live scene. Which is closer? If I shoot a brick building, which looks more like the color of the brick? Repeat the process under different light conditions. Shoot a banana. Which cam renders the color of the banana more closely? I display the results on a calibrated 60" plasma.

Pretty easy and works for me every time. Your eyes are ultimately the best judge in terms of telling you 'this looks closer to the way I see the scene'. But I wouldn't try this approach if you need to rely on your memory. If you shoot a scene and display the results a couple of days later, are you really sure what the scene looked like?

I recall one guy on another site that consistently posted his 'color corrected' results from his HF10. Unless he was shooting the blue grass of Kentucky, I'd never seen grass that looked like his 'color corrected' version. Which brings us to the ultimate question. How many that shoot with these consumer HD cams for 'fun' want to go through the laborious job of color correcting...particularly when it comes to the AVCHD format (not a particularly computer-friendly format at this stage). Not me...but that's me.

This is why I put heavy emphasis on color accuracy as my eyes see it (no, not the color I 'like', but color accuracy as described above). I will not spend hours of time at the computer to make my 'fun video' look right, the camera must do it out of the box.

I Agree with Ken: It would be a waste of time to do color correction for each shot in post production. You have to set the camera right while on the field. The only one excuse I see for a color correction on the timeline is when you do a multicam shoot with different models/brands - they are never the same temperature wise.

I trust my eyes too but rather then bricks/grass etc I use skin tone as a reference. We all know how a healthy human face looks like so there should be no mistake in judjing overhaul color temperature by looking at someone's face in the shot.

I also like those cameras displaying white balance numbers in the viewfinder. Unfortunately HF10 is not one of them.

I'm planning to do some color "correction" (read: manipulation) but I will get better results if the image is accurate to start with.

I'd love a 100% accurage image, but with a consumer camcorder I'll settle for close.

Should have a gray card next couple of days, will try HF100 again. SR12 arriving soon also. Ken, I saw Amazon plans to have the CX12 mid August, that's very tempting, the only problem is the cost of the memory cards.

Is there any information with your camcorder about what happens if you need to get the hard drive fixed or replaced?

You need to give up this fantasy with any consumer camcorder. You will NOT get PERFECT skin tone using by "setting the camera right." It makes no difference the mode you use, nor the camcorder. These cameras do NOT get it right.

Moreover, it takes almost no time to CC a clip. Once, you set the correction needed for a situation -- correct BOTH Color Balance and remove Red Push -- you paste this correction on all clips in the same situation. IMHO, one would have to be very lazy to not spend 30-seconds adjusting one of clips shot in a situation. With even consumer NLE's like iMovie offering real-time CC -- I find it hard to think of CC as some exotic task. I'm lazy, but not that lazy. (Once you correct for camera error -- it's optional if you then further correct for shot to shot differences. By keeping the Waveform monitor open you can quickly tweak black/white compress/stretch.)

And, with most NLEs -- CC is real-time. AVCHD has almost nothing to do with CC. In fact, with any Apple NLE or EDIUS -- it has NOTHING to do with CC.

However, you and Ken may be happy with what what you get without CC -- and you guys have every right to accept what you "get" and enjoy it.

PS: "We all know how a healthy human face looks like so there should be no mistake in judjing overhaul color temperature by looking at someone's face in the shot." Maybe you live in an all white world, but I don't. And, if you think the camcorder's LCD offers perfect reproduction -- you have a second fantasy. And, even if you have a calibrated CRT -- just what would you do if you see skin tone is not correct? You've got no camcorder controls.

I agree with you Steve. Consumer cams have problems in getting the right skin tone. Even if you manually white balance there is still a slight difference from the original.

Not that I saw Rich, but from what I've read it's not a difficult job. Some guys have opened up their cams and actually disconnected their HDs successfully. I wouldn't recommend that, but it just shows you that access to the drive is not impossible.

I can tell you haven't done any computer work with AVCHD. :)

It sure is no '30 second job'. First off you must load your clips, color correct and then output back to AVCHD (if your software even allows that!). Yes I know, you don't 'have to' output back to AVCHD, but many of us like to keep the format the same. That process does not take 30 seconds...no way no how.

Further, these are consumer HD cams and for most people a good AWB (not 'perfect') will do the job quite nicely and render itself nearly invisible. The fact is that the range of these consumer cams is such that even when using a vectroscope, there is no way that all colors will be perfect anyway! Many of us want to use these cams as simple point & shoot with no need for computer intervention if we choose not to. More importantly, the tremendous variation in human skin tones from pinkish to deep brownish will more than cover the slight variation in a good AWB in decent light. I've never ever gotten an SR12 flesh tone displayed on my calibrated 60" plasma that would make anyone say "my God, that doesn't look right"...not even close. Flesh tones have always looked extremely believable. Think of it this way, if your fleshtone via AWB is off say 10-15% in any direction, do you 'really' recall your subject under that lighting condition so well that you'd recognize that 10-15% error? I don't think so. The longer the time span between when you did your shoot and when you viewed the results, make your memory's 'accuracy' more and more suspect...especially with skin tones. But such was not the case with my HF10. That cam caused me concern because much of the footage, no matter how I tweaked the cam, would have required computer intervention. No thanks, but that's just MO.

For me, the thought that I'd have to CC my SR12 footage to make flesh tones 'believable' would have been a deal-breaker. Is it perect? Probably not. Would anyone notice a slight error that brings it out of the 'perfect' range? I seriously doubt it. The point is that these are 'fun cams' and not 'broadcast cams'. We are not sending the footage out for broadcast, we're using them (at least I do) to remember and record events. If the footage has color that is entirely beleivable and doesn't call attention to itself (a key), then it's fine for its intended purpose IMO. No matter how I massage the footage, I will never get a $1,000 consumer HD cam to render perfect color. You won't get a $50,000 broadcast cam to do that either for that matter. We can get close, but there is no such thing as 'pefect' with today's technology...and we're not even talking about the display end of this and the errors caused at that end! I could also get in to a whole discussion of our Rec709 HD standard and its accuracy in terms of 'real world' color, but that's another subject! :)

The SR is only a "consumer" camcorder when treated as such by someone who lacks understanding of how to get "prosumer" quality from it. True, the majority of those who buy the Sony are indeed consumers.

However, I really don't -- given the questions being asked here AND the number of folks buying my book -- that those who come to DVINFO are buying $1200 HD camcorders to use only as point-and-shoot camcorders. Most are trying to push the quality envelope to get results one would get from a $2500 camcorder. If you want to shoot your kids and not CC -- fine. And, since that's your only goal -- I'm not sure why you keep jumping into every thread to say "you are happy with the Sony." I think we all knew that months ago.

Moreover, your latest post is nonsense. You will be importing, editing, and exporting -- even if you DON'T CC. So adding all these times to the task of CCing -- is intentionally misleading.

If you can't adjust RGB levels with your NLE's WB joystick until "white" is "centered" and then rotate the chroma phase dial to get skin to be the right phase -- while watching on a vectorscope -- in less than 30S, then it is your problem. Don't blame it on AVCHD. The codec has nothing to with how fast you CC.

And, since the majority of NLE's (iMovie, FCE, FCP, Premiere, Premiere with Cineform, EDIUS, Avid Media Composer) aren't working with AVCHD -- one is CCing an intermediate codec, not AVCHD. So babbling about the time needed to CC AVCHD is simply silly.

That's all well and good, but it ASSUMES I have the intent of editing most/all of my SR12 footage. I don't! I do enough editing in my job and for my fun footage I don't begin to approach this the same way. I want the best picture quality out of the box. I know how to adjust the camera and don't need a 'book' to tell me how. I've been using Sony cams for a long long time and know my way around them...some don't. For me I'm more than satisfied to simply attach the cam to my Pioneer and hit the play button. Frankly I don't have the time to sit down and edit all my material. Perhaps when I'm retired I will, but not now. Too many other things going on in my life.

So your basic assumptions of my shooting/editing requirements are simply wrong. You might also want to tone down your rhetoric Steve, using words like "babbling" and such does nothing to get your point across.

Steve, it's not too much to ask for even a consumer camcorder to get the automatic white balance reasonably correct much of the time, and to get a manual white balance correct all of the time (presuming a good reference).

There are plenty of users who don't mind manipulating their footage for some projects but would still prefer to have the source good enough to use as-is. I want to color-correct because I want to, not because I have to. Mistakes happen, but every time? Come on.

I don't need perfect for $650, but I do need believable. If I have to clean up after every shot then it's not worth it.

You hit the nail on the head Rich! Steve seems to imply that if you don't edit your footage, don't CC your footage or don't manipulate it in some way, you are a rank amateur. He just can't imagine a prosumer who knows how to use the camera, simply sitting down and watching RAW FOOTAGE! My God, that's heresy! He can't imagine a consumer cam whose color is so close out of the box that much of the time there's no need for it to be CC'd. For me watching directly from the cam to the plasma is a way of life with much of my 'fun' footage and I feel no need to apologize for that. As I've said before, I spend a considerable amount of time editing footage in my job and I have no desire or time to do so on weekends. I just want to watch the footage and enjoy! Further, despite some claims, there is little need to do so with the SR11/12. If the color looks natural and doesn't call attention to itself, then that's the way it should be. The footage should not cry out for CC. If it does, you bought the wrong camera. Such was not the case with my HF10. I knew that to be satisfied with that cam, I would NEED to CC frequently and I did not want to be put in that position. So it's not a question of being 'lazy', it's not a question of 'settling', it's a question of a camera being capable enough to produce believable color the vast majority of time. I don't think you and I are in a minority by any stretch of the imagination. There are many prosumers who seek out high quality, great looking footage with a minimum of computer intervention.

Additionally, Steve ignored most of the key points I made in my post. Issues such as the tremendous variation in human skin tones, the inability of the human memory to 'remember' precisely what any given skin tone looked like hours or days later and how all of this ties to an 'error' of a camera's AWB by 10-15% or whatever # you'd like to assign to that error and the fact that even AFTER you CC your footage, a consumer cam will never ever have 'perfect' color (nor will a pro cam...but it will be better). The fact is that many high quality consumer cameras DO get the skin tones right or close to right most of the time. Yes indeedy, there are times you'll need to go further into the cam's WB to pull out the most you can under certain lighting conditions. But as long as the cam is willing to let you do that, there should be minimal need to CC.

By the way, slightly off-topic, the footage posted by Chris (great job Chris & Austin!!!) of the new HF11, looks very promising! I've only looked at a few clips, but I'm encouraged by the 'look' of the high bitrate footage. I had a great test that was the result of me misreading the clips. I mistakenly thought the 17mbps clip was the 24mbps clip and I couldn't understand why it didn't look as sharp and clear during the pan of the sprinkler as the 17mbps clip! To me that was very impressive since the mind can always play tricks on you when you 'know' that a give clip is 'supposed to' look better. You often convince yourself it is even though it may not be so. I'm also encouraged, even though it was a cloudy day, by the color displayed in that footage. It seemed to be more akin to the color balance of the HV20/30. I'm anxious to see this cam when it comes out.

There are a few words being tossed around in this thread that really disturb me:

"nonsense -- babbling -- fantasy -- silly -- intentionally misleading -- your problem"

Please folks, let's keep things elevated, academic, technical, and above all: professional.

If I wanted a soap opera, there's plenty of them on the internet already. We're all better than that.

Let's please treat each other as if we were all in the same room together. Business casual.

I know for a fact that some of the words being used here would not be uttered face to face; at least not without losing all credibility. Mutual respect is the key. And yes, this is how threads get closed around here. Be nice, or be gone, I say. End of discussion.