Hands on the new Canon HF11

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Larry Horwitz

I want to raise a technical point which is worth considering when making these video comparisons:

No doubt the HF11 uses a new and presumably faster encoder to allow 24 MBit/sec video.

Great point! Given the way H.264 work,s it's certainly possible that the "new" encoder -- be it firmware and/or a new chip, uses more of the encoding toolset tools. I also have to wonder about both Panasonic and Canon offering 24Mbps at almost exactly the same time. It seems like both have access to a new chip.

Remember that Canon and Pana use the AVC HIGH profile which offers several encoding options NOT possible in the MAIN profile used by Sony. Which MAY suggest that Pana intends AVC-CAM to compete with both HDV and HDCAM EX -- while Sony plans no such possibility. (Canon, has hinted at a "new" codec as well. Could Canon and Pana both support AVC-CAM???)

Sony may keep AVCHD, HDV, and HDCAM EX as three very separate product lines. And, both Sony and JVC may find a way to market "HDV" on non-tape based camcorders. They really only need a new marketing name given the fact that both already support "HDV" to disk and cards.

[Larry Horwitz]

Thanks Steve. It also will be interesting to see how the recording time compares from the HF11 to the HF10 since the newer encoder also likely draws more current, unless Canon has done some remarkable new LSI design. It may not be a coincidence that the much larger capacity new battery is being released at the same time as these cameras..... (-8

Updated firmware is indeed another possibility, in which case the battery demands are less likely to reflect any differences bwteen the old and new models.

[Chris Harris]

How are people using Mac OS X viewing these files? I downloaded a few and renamed the .m2tx to .m2ts (and later .m2s), and nothing I have on my machine will play it back. VLC crashes almost instantly. Other players refuse to even open them. I'm not sure what to do.

[Chris Hurd]

Chris, your system specs please?

[Chris Harris]

I'm using a Mac Pro, 2x 2.66 Ghz dual-cores, running 10.5.4 with 6 GB of memory.

I also tried my 2.26 Ghz Macbook also on 10.5.4 with 2.5 GB of memory and had the same results.

For what it's worth, Quicktime is up-to-date on both my machines as well.

[Bill Koehler]

If the HV30 is to the XH-A1,

then would part of the significance of this new encoder be that
Canon has all the relevant pieces they need for anytime they
want to do a

HF11 to the all new ??-?? (You pick a name) ?

[Chippe Wallace]

I would like to know if HF11 gives a smoother video than the HF10/100.
I tried a HF100 a minute in a store and my impression is that the video is jerky when you pan or shoot moving objects. Ive seen video samples that are shot outside and some of them look ok but I still sometimes see this jerkiness.

Shot in 50i. 25p gives a really unsmooth look even in the built in LCD screen. Totally useless but that's not my experience with other camcorders in 25p mode.
Was I recording with crazy settings that I don't know about?

Please have a look!
The panning is pretty fast just to show you what Im talking about.

2. Download with FileFactory Basic (Free)
http://www.filefactory.com/file/955e88/n/00003_MTS

This great little player will "de-interlace" the video while playing the clip and you also don't need to install it.
Just put it on your desktop.
http://sourceforge.net/project/showf...roup_id=170561

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Chippe Wallace

25p gives a really unsmooth look even in the built in LCD screen. Totally useless but that's not my experience with other camcorders in 25p mode.

Here is an opinion that the hf11 looks horrible at 25p which matches the posted opinion on the old thread that the hg10 looks horrible.

Of course, this conflicts with the other review site -- the one we told not to trust -- that the hg10 looks horrible but the hf11 looks great. And, conflicts with others that have posted here the hg10 looks fine.

And, there are posted videos that show both the problems and the lack of problems.

This matches my experience with the EX1. I've been sent 24p video by folks saying it looks horrible and it didn't. Others think it looks fine.

[Chippe Wallace]

My clip is interlaced, did you watch it?

Im not one of those who think 24p/25p looks bad. I just think HF100/25p looks worse than other camcorders that I've tested (miniDV) and I even managed to make it look really bad in 50i. Maybe this is an issue for all AVCHD models?

I wan't to hear others opinions after watching the clip I posted. Did I do something wrong, do I have crazy codecs on my computer or does this camcorder have problems?

The real question is if HF11 has improved.

[Bruce Foreman]

Chippe,

The pan was too fast. All HD makes fast and not smooth panning problematic, but notice towards the tail end of the clip where you briefly managed to somewhat follow the guy with the cap.

Your pan slowed down a bit and even though that guy was moving his face and cap/clothing detail came out pretty sharp. My impression is that if there is improvement in the HF11 I can't see it to any significant degree.

With my HF100 I have done tripod mounted pans of cavalry re-enactors at a fast gallop doing charges while firing cap & ball revolvers using cine mode and 30p that I'm not unhappy with. One fact of life with these small cams is that handheld work may have to be done with some kind of stabilizer like a lightweight double grip bracket, "fig rig", or something like that. I've built myself a "poor man's steadicam" out of pipe that seems to help some.

But I'm not looking to jump on the HF11. I have a pair of HF100's I'm getting used to working with, and I believe that is the key (getting used to something and working with it).

[Ken Ross]

There is no cam around (pro or otherwise) that would look sharp with a pan that fast. The fact is that no decoder could possibly keep up with that motion. I don't know why people would pan that fast other than for some kind of 'effect'. The clip proves nothing.

[Dave Blackhurst]

Originally Posted by Bruce Foreman

One fact of life with these small cams is that handheld work may have to be done with some kind of stabilizer like a lightweight double grip bracket, "fig rig", or something like that. I've built myself a "poor man's steadicam" out of pipe that seems to help some.

Amen to this, this is perhaps the most overlooked thing about shooting HD - you cannot pan like a wild man or whip the camera around and expect the footage to look good - it WILL NOT HAPPEN!!!!

I remember all too well the first shoot i did with the old HC1... I was blown away by the footage when the camera was on tripod, and SOME of my handheld work, but much of it looked simply horrid... even with a rig that worked perfectly fine for SD shoots... learned quickly that stability is mandatory with HD. You need to start to think about how to operate your camera like it was mounted on a Hollywood type rig!

ALL camera movement becomes radically accentuated, so keeping the cam steady becomes "job one". To me it's easier to keep the light cameras steady (CX7, and the Canons), but even better is using the SR11 with the VF and a belt pod (3 contact points). I'll shoot "family" and non-critical stuff handheld in a pinch, but I'll use one of several approaches to stabilize if it's a shoot that I want to look good. Monopod is OK for some motion and if you need a "fixed" shot, dual bracket rig is best IMO if there's a lot of movement required, and I also use a monopod with a belt clip arrangement for some situations. I've even got a miniature handheld steadycam that will fly these small cams perfectly, but I don't use it that often, prefering the brackets most times.

Took me a while, but I've found some fairly compact brackets and monopods that don't add a lot of size/weight to the overall package and are quick to set up - still all fits in a small camera pack!

Until processors improve to handle the data/compression at the level our eyes/brains do, these things will remain "issues". Pretty amazing when you think about how OUR image processing works and how difficult it really is to recreate that!

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

To me it's easier to keep the light cameras steady (CX7, and the Canons), but even better is using the SR11 with the VF and a belt pod (3 contact points).

It's funny Dave, that's an often neglected aspect of VF cams vs non-VF cams...steadiness. There's no question that while using the VF, your head/body serve as another point of stabilization. It's also far easier to hold anything steady when it's held close to the body as opposed to further away as a non-VF cam requires...especially if you use reading glasses! :)

[Chippe Wallace]

Bruce: I agree about the HF11 from what I've seen so far.

I wasn't trying to follow the guy with the cap :-)
The HF100 was attached and I had to pull it really hard and shoot above my head.

Ken Ross: your comment is not relevant.
Im not talking about proof and sharpness, it's about the "jerkiness/flicker" and why some people see it, me included.
The panning is fast which I already wrote. It wasn't meant to be a smooth pan just to see this "stuttering" clearly.
All the objects that are unsharp by the fast movement (which they should be) are also flickering/"stuttering" in my eyes and if you don't see it I'll have to find out why I do it.

I just took a look at some scenes in Cloverfield in 1080p. We have the fast movements and the unsharp blurry picture but not the jerkiness.

[Ken Ross]

Originally Posted by Chippe Wallace

Ken Ross: your comment is not relevant.
Im not talking about proof and sharpness, it's about the "jerkiness/flicker" and why some people see it, me included.
The panning is fast which I already wrote. It wasn't meant to be a smooth pan just to see this "stuttering" clearly.
All the objects that are unsharp by the fast movement (which they should be) are also flickering/"stuttering" in my eyes and if you don't see it I'll have to find out why I do it.

I just took a look at some scenes in Cloverfield in 1080p. We have the fast movements and the unsharp blurry picture but not the jerkiness.

OK Chippe, I see what you're saying and agree. I too see the jerkiness, but I've yet to see 24p or 30p for that matter, from any of these consumer HD cams that doesn't have this jerkiness. I tried it on the HF10 and it was bad and it's equally bad on my HV20. This is why I never use these modes.