And just as I suspected, I can confirm for you now that yes there is a 2GB limit on file size.

Thanks Chris. The real question now is did Canon append the transfer software to correctly stitch the files back to the orginal, contiguous clip?

The camcorder playback menu shows it as one clip, but my computer's file browser reveals it to be two 2GB .MTS files (this is still on the camera). Then the bundled Pixela software transfers it as one clip, and my computer's file browser sees it now as one very large 4GB clip (now an .M2TS file). Upon watching it I could not discern any jump in the stitch (not to say there isn't one, but I couldn't see it). Sorry, but I'm not going to upload this clip -- you guys will have to take my word for it! I'll try to post screenshots of my file browser window when able.

Wow! The fact that the software transfers the two clips as one file is a very strong indication that Canon has corrected this problem.

Anyone willing to host or upload the Pixela disc image? I'd love to try this software with the HG10...

Sorry, the Pixela software cannot be redistributed without express permission from Canon Inc., which I don't think will happen. Therefore I cannot upload it, and I'll do my best to prevent any links to unauthorized redistributed copies from appearing on this site.

Here's the official site for Pixela: http://www.pixela.co.jp/oem/canon/e/

And the software installation guide: downloads.canon.com/cpr/software/video/ImageMixer_web.pdf

Not sure about the HF10, but just to let you know the low light on the SD9 is absolutely abysmal.

If you have some experience with the SD9, would it be possible to expand a bit on this and give a hint as to the degree of abysmalness. I assume I probably couldn't shoot with the light of a 60W light bulb with an SD9, but what about a relatively well lit room - say typical living room size with 200-300 watts equivalent of light. Would it work in those conditions, or would I need to bring in 3000 watts of studio lighting to get a good picture?

Also, what is the nature of the image degradation - is it a large increase in noise? Is it just too dark? Is it overly aggressive NR?

I found a thread here that had some links to some Japanese and Chinese forums where there were some samples of SD9 footage. Some of the clips (the long one of the woman in particular) had some indoor scenes that didn't seem too bad, and there was an outdoor night scene posted that also didn't seem too terrible, so I'm curious where the threshold is in terms of light level.

I'm looking for an ultra-small and light cam to capture HD footage on backcountry trips, so the choice seems to be between the SD9 and HF10/100, with the HV20 as a possibility if neither of those works out; the SR12 looks interesting, but I haven't been considering cameras with an HDD because of the 10,000 foot altitude limitation.

Both the HF10 and SD9 seem to have good image quality in good light, so the main tradeoff seems to be that the HF10 has better low-light capability, and the SD9 has better image stabilization.

Thanks.

Let me just say that those that saw my SD9's performance in low light agreed that it was the worst of any HD cam they had seen. It is that bad!

To say it gets soft is an understatement and I would not be exaggerating if I told you at times it took on a sub-VHS look. It's not a question of noise and it's apparent that Panasonic's design philosophy was to hide the noise and they did just that...but of course they took all the detail with it.

I returned the cam as quickly as I could once I saw that performance. In good light it was very nice, but it does have a fair amount of edge enhancement. So if you're sensitive to that, you will see some artifacts at times.

I returned the cam as quickly as I could once I saw that performance. In good light it was very nice, but it does have a fair amount of edge enhancement. So if you're sensitive to that, you will see some artifacts at times.
You mean you gave it back to your friend?
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=836371#post836371

You mean you gave it back to your friend?
http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=836371#post836371

Yes indeed. He was going to let me have it for several weeks since he wasn't using it. After I saw the low light performance I couldn't get rid of it quick enough. In my eyes it was that bad and there was no point in wasting more time with it.

Let me just say that those that saw my SD9's performance in low light agreed that it was the worst of any HD cam they had seen. It is that bad!

I returned the cam as quickly as I could once I saw that performance. In good light it was very nice, but it does have a fair amount of edge enhancement. So if you're sensitive to that, you will see some artifacts at times.

OK, thanks. It's a shame the low light performance is so bad, I was hoping it would be a perfect cam for taking climbing and skiing. Most of my shooting with it would be outdoors, so I don't need extreme low light performance, but the question is where is the threshold between good and bad, in terms of light level. For example I would like to be able to film at sunrise and sunset. It sounds like you may not have played with it long enough to get a feeling for that. Maybe I'll have to try to find one to look at in person.

I have noticed in sample clips that there is more edge enhancement than some other cams, but it didn't seem excessive - it would be nice if it had a sharpness adjustment, however. I was really looking forward to the OIS on the SD9, which most reviewers have indicated is the best around, since I hate carrying a tripod on backcountry trips.

Some clips I saw from the HF10 had more purple fringing than I would like, so maybe I'll just get an HV30 and put up with the extra .6 pounds of weight.

Dave, I too noticed the EE with daytime shots. For many people these shots would appear quite sharp. But yes, in terms of noise, I didn't have the cam long enough to see where the threshold occurred. At sunset there's still quite a bit of light and the cam might perform perfectly well there.