panasonic TM900 vs Canon HF G10

[Federico Perale]

Originally Posted by Colin Rowe

17 mbps AVCHD, 28 mbps 1080/50p

Originally Posted by Jeff Harper

60p or 50p has the best slow motion. You cannot have it both ways with the XA10. It doesn't have 50p.

You mention poor slow motion in 25p. That, again, is the nature of the frame rate you have chosen. 24p or 25p does not have the greatest slow motion.

If you are running the Panasonic in 50p, or whatever, (I don't remember what mode you are running the Panasonic or if you said) it will have smoother motion, because that is what 50p does, it produces very smooth images.

If you compare the two cameras you must shoot in the same frame rate to get an accurate comparison. If you are shooting at different frame rates it is apple to oranges.

To get the better images + smoothness you want you would have to buy another camera. The logical choice to "have it all" would be the XF100 or the upcoming new Panasonic AG130.

The panasonic has 50p, the Canon has the better sensor. That's is the problem. You want a camera that combines both.

I agree the best of both worlds would have been the XF100, but it's out of my budget, it's bigger than the G10, and does 50p only at 720 and not 1080. I 've made my decision and it's to keep the Canon as it's just a better camcorder. shame for the frame rate.

[Jeff Harper]

Yes, I know. I almost didn't buy it because of the lack of 60p, but am so glad I did anyway. 60i with the camera produces very good images. I'm about to put up a video today with footage from the XA10 and while I haven't see yet how it might be mangled by Vimeo, on my computer the video is very nice.

As I've said before, I have been shooting in 720 60p with the GH2, and it is beautiful. I can't even imagine what 1080 60p with a large sensor would look like.

[Don Palomaki]

A lot of discussion about frame rates, p vs. i, etc.

First and foremost - shoot with the final product and client in mind. We can dream of that illusive "film look" but if that does not matter to the client, is there any point in chasing it if it adds cost you cannot bill (except perhaps for personal gratification)? Why give a Rolex to a pig when it can do equally well with a Timex? (OK, I accept that some lurkers may have fashion pigs.)

What is important? My take on it is: Good audio, good shot composition, tight editing, on time delivery, and video that is acceptably (which does not mean totally) noise free considering the field conditions under which it was shot.

Slow shutter speeds or frame rates maker for stuttery motion and really bad pans/tilts. The early days of TV settled on 60i/50i to deal with issues of power line frequency, available bandwidth and acceptable motion. Film at 24 FPS was the minimal that produce acceptable motion on the big screen, and that requires skilful camera work. Faster frame rates eat film, increase cost.

[Jeff Harper]

Don, no matter how long I live I am astounded at learning how most everything comes down to money.

Your statement is fascinating, is it true? 24fps was selected as a way to save money? That just blows my mind.

I have NEVER understood the fascination with 24p. DOF with great lenses seems to me to be much more critical in achieving a great look much more so than frame rate.

Now I DO get the fascination with progressive at any speed, it is fantastic to me in comparison to interlaced, and I've seen some amazing 24p wedding videos, but it would seem the lenses and the shots, exposure, etc are what take them over the top, not the frame rate.

[Don Palomaki]

48 fields per second (24 Frames Per Second with a 2-blade shutter, or 16 FPS with a 3 blade shutter) was selected as the sweet spot for film projection (by Edison I'm told) where there was little to be gain by increasing beyond it. This is based in large part on how the eye-brain sees motion. 24 FPS was standardized for sound.

Film use is proportional to frame rate. 24 FPS uses 50% more film than 16 FPS, and thus film cost is 50% more. So if 24 FPS gave satisfactory motion an sound, why go to, say, 30 FPS if the cost increases by 25% with no additional benefit at the box office. After all - it is a business. These rates for film were standardized before TV.

Video at 25 or 30 FPS was in part to avoid a beat/interfenence with power line frequencies in the early days.

And of couirse the other part of setting a standard is getting all players (or at least the important ones) to agree to it.

[Jeff Harper]

Thanks for the explanation, really interesting. So to say it was a move to save money, not accurate, but as you say 24fps the best overall value.

[Don Palomaki]

So to say it was a move to save money, not accurate,

That addresses half of the equation. More likely a decision to "make money" and maximize profit. That is, to maximize the difference between the income from sales and the overall cost to produce that income.

[Jeff Harper]

Don, you have a gift for verbalizing concepts and for making clear explanations.

[Buba Kastorski]

Originally Posted by Don Palomaki

Film at 24 FPS was the minimal that produce acceptable motion on the big screen.

sorry Don, not the motion, 24 fps came with the sound, before sound people were watching from 14 to 26fps, sound film made a 24 fps a standard, but yes, with economy in mind :)

[Steve Nunez]

Very interesting thread and comments.
Just to throw a wrench into all the commentary- there are other options that might be considered: there's a Canon HF M41 that I believe uses the same sensor as the G10 and reportedly produces nearly the same video quality, has mic input and shooting modes- might be well worth considering as it costs 1/2 of what the G10 does! There is also the slightly lower cost M40 that is nearly identical to the 41 without the rear viewfinder and less internal memory (but can use SD cards.)

[Jeff Harper]

Steve, a quick look around and I'm reading that the viewfinder is pretty poor on the 40 and 41 and the lens is not the same. Obviously you've got to give up something for the huge price difference. I'd like to see one of the little ones anyway, sounds like a potentially cheap effective extra camera.

[Steve Nunez]

Jeff that's sad to hear about the lens not being the same- do you have a source for that info- I'd like to read about the differences.
As for the viewfinder being poor- I think it would be an acceptable allowance considering the budget pricing- but that's ME!

Thanks for the new info!

[Jeff Harper]

Cnet, I think, but I'm not sure. I googled HF G10 VS whatever the other one is, and wherever I landed said it was a grainy viewfinder, etc. I would definitely look for multiple reviews before buying. The $1400 G10 costs what it does for a reason, and since the lens is most of the cost of these cameras it makes perfect sense.

[Mark Goodsell]

There is 30P which is what I shoot in...

Mark

[Jeff Harper]

On which camera? The XA10 or the G10?