Vegas works realtime for any operation/filter too, is bundled with several filters and has multicam support.. In fact, from the Edius feature list I don't see something you can't do with Vegas as well.

Robin, there are more filters within Edius, but if you prefer Vegas that's fine. I'm not here to convince you to use Edius. I thought you had Edius since you mentinoned you used it a few days ago. I've tried all of the programs and for me Edius is what I use professionally and wouldn't switch.

I've tried Vegas and didn't like the interface and did not find it handled AVCHD particularly well on my computer. In fact there was really no difference in how Vegas handled AVCHD as opposed to Edius Pro 4.5. Renders take forever with Vegas and most that have tried it say the same thing. I would probably use Edius and convert to the lossless (at least to the eye) Canopus HQ codec.

The fact is that AVCHD is a bear to edit and taxes even the most powerful computers out there.

Hopefully software and hardware will catch up with the very demanding AVCHD compression.

like ? Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to figure what could miss in Vegas.

Indeed I have, since I said I used it a few days ago.. What's wrong in my sentence ?

That's the point you missed: Vegas has several preview mode that handle any complex operation realtime (while I did not find that in Edius, that's why AVCHD can't be played back realtime and need to be converted in another format).

I'm not here to convince you to use Vegas, that's your right not to like it... But I don't see how Edius would be more professional or more full-featured. Especially when it comes to what matters here, AVCHD.

Robin, it seems you and I just go round and round on every subject. If you have both programs then simply go into both and check out all the filters. That's all. If you like one over the other stick with it, that's fine. I'm not here to jot down each and every filter, effect and transition in each program to compare for you. The major reason aside from features that people choose editing programs is how well they like how it handles. For me nothing handles like Edius....for ME. You may feel differently and that's perfectly fine. There is no right or wrong answer.

I asked you whether you had Edius because in your sentence you could have seen someone else's and played with it, you could have downloaded a trial version etc. It didn't mean you still had it or owned it. Make sense?

Now where did I say that Edius is more 'professional' than Vegas? I DID say that Edius is being used by more and more broadcasters, but that's all I said.

As to previews in Vegas, it's one thing to 'preview' and it's an entirely different thing to render to a final product. It is this rendering that takes forever in Vegas.

Again, choose what you like, I like Edius and have used it for years and have no intention to switch.

Each to his own. I think we've beaten this one to death now and let's remember this is a thread for camcorder discussion not editing programs. So for me this subject is now closed so as not to bore everyone to death and not hijack this thread from its intended purpose.

So, there's no reason you say Edius has more feature than Vegas. That's all I wanted to know.

Make sense.

Agree too, I was just asking on your statements. But this subject is closed for me too. Back to the HF10 vs SR12 fight...

Hey Ken, how are doing today? I don't plan on putting my finished product to tape, but rather to DVD (someday BR). Using one of the cheaper editing programs, like Pinnacle, Ulead, etc., I want to reduce the rendering time, but don't want to lose any of the quality of the original shoot on the final product(or lose as little as possible). About as much as I want to pay for an editing program would be $200.00, so my options are limited.
Gee, Mike, what do you do with your final programs. Well, I put in a few transitions, chapters, titles, and maybe some background music, as well as trimming out the bad spots.

Thanks.

Respectfully,
Mike

IF you don't want to do anything really fancy stay with Sony Motion Browser and it can output to AVCHD or convert to a DVD for you. That is what i do with the family stuff. AVCHD to normal DVD-R, with simple menu like on the camera LCD, that will play on my PS3 ( BluRay player) and a DVD for everyone else. No quality loss as it is really a copy to DVD!!! IF you have a new Sony then the software that comes with it is all you need. Not the fanciest or fastest but able to do trimming and cuts editing etc.
My take on the Edius Vegas comparison. Edius for most DV projects will output realtime to tape and this is true for timelines with HQ tracks. Vegas can be setup to show realtime in the preview monitor just like Premiere Pro CS3 but reliable output to tape should be done through an export to tape which in most cases will render first to temp folder. I have Edius 4.6, Vegas 8 and Premiere Pro CS3. For DV and HDV Edius is the fastest to edit with , has the best multicam and excellent filters. Vegas is better for audio and keyframe control of everything, PPRo CS3 still has the best titler. Vegas is the slowest to render but for me has the better AVCHD at the moment.

Ron Evans

Hi Mike...sounds like a plan. I think that's all you need to do for most of the family stuff. Let us know if you find any good programs for this kind of editing.

Ron, I agree, for really simple stuff the Sony software is probably all you need and as you said, you do maintain all of the PQ of the original.

Just to let you guys with the SR series know, you really need to see the results of using the 'photo' button on top of the camera and the results on a large screen plasma. In a word 'unreal'. I can't believe how good the color and clarity of these shots are! You can even zoom in a fair degree and still maintain clarity.

I'm just more impressed with this cam every day!

Ken, 2 questions:

On the SR12, can the image stabilizer be made to stay active when taking a still?

I'm just curious, with the Canopus HQ codec, if it is lossless, in what ways is it better than other lossless codecs like huffyuv or FFV1? Since Edius is getting a lot of good press, I downloaded a demo version to try it out, but may not get a chance for a while now as my main computer died late last night :(

Dave, although I can't say for sure, it certainly appears to me the image stablilization is working since the results are so razor sharp. Now I suppose it's possible that a high shutter speed could also be contributing to this, but I'm not sure. What I am sure of is that the results are stunning.

Sorry to hear about a death of a loved one. May your old friend RIP. Hey, it's a good excuse for a quad core Dave...sure you didn't KILL it? ;)

Dave, the Canopus HQ codec, isn't lossless, but IMO it is 'visually' lossless. I've seen no difference between original HDV footage and conversion to the HQ codec. I'm sure something is lost, but as long as it's not visual I don't get too concerned.

I'm not sure how it compares with other codecs like huffyuv or FFV1 since I haven't tried them. I just know that Canopus has such an excellent reputation for their codecs.

Ken, you must be a mind reader (about the good excuse for a quad core)! But, alas, I didn't kill it - it died quietly in the middle of the night downloading the Edius demo (I hope that's not an omen). The old machine was a 3GHz P4 with hyperthreading, so it was no slouch, but it couldn't keep up with AVCHD very well, so the quad cores look awfully enticing, and by the time you look at the whole price for the mobo, processor, RAM, and new video card (new mobos don't take AGP), the quad cores don't really add that much to the cost over a dual.

OK. I thought I'd read in one of the posts that it was lossless, but I must have mis-read. If it's lossy and has a good balance between loss, disk space, and speed, that can be hard to find and there could be a lot of value there.

Dave, let us know how a quad core works out if you go that route. It might be a good excuse to upgrade from my Athlon 64 X2 dual core 4600. It's very quick with Edius for my SD material, but AVCHD is a different ballgame...not much fun.

No problem at all. I'll probably order the parts today or tomorrow (I like to build up my own systems) and may have it all working in a couple of weeks, as the next few weekends are fairly busy for me. My initial results will be for Linux, but I always install XP too, so I can do some benchmarking there.

I did some research into the price of Edius, and it's more expensive than I was anticipating. Being mainly a hobbiest who does only a small handful of real gigs, it might be out of my price range, but I will throw the demo up and let you know how it works on the new system. Hopefully the learning curve for just importing a few clips and attaching a few filters isn't too steep.

Thanks Dave. If you run in to questions on Edius, let me know.

Hello everyone,

THis is my first post here, so help a noob out.

I don't know if I should start a new thread or post this here. I am afraid of highjacking this one, but I will post here anyway. Hopefully it is the right thing to do. If not, let me know nd I will start a new thread.

I have been reading reviews on this site for a week now with much interest. This thread in particular is of interest because I need to pick up a cam for my honeymoon trip. Like Ken, my hobbies turn out to be analities of one sort or another! ;-)

I have never owned a cam and am not an expert by any means, but am an avid researcher. Any toy I buy gets about 40-80 hours of research and I am of a discriminating taste. I am an audio engineer and probably will be as critical with video as I am with audio (not that audio is THAT important in choosing a vacation cam.)

Getting to the point I am looking for a cam that gives me the best quality for under $900. Most of the cams discussed here, in fact all, can now be aquired in this price range. While I want something relatively portable, it is not the determining factor. Quality is(of course cost also factors in. For example if I can get 95% of the quality for 70% of the price I will go with the cheaper one, with all things being the same, which they never are). It would be nice to go to flash drives or Hard drives because of the ease of transfer, smaller size and savings in media costs but not to sacrifice quality.

Unfortunately, it seems that canon has not worked out its reported problems in AVCHD even with these new cameras, which is a shame because I like the smaller bodies of the HG10, HF10 and 100 and even HV10. It seems they all suffer from AVCHD problems and I don't know which has overcome them the most, though I assume it is the HF10 and 100. Please correct me if you have a differing opinion.

I have looked into the Sonys (especially the SR11) and will have to do some more research on them, but if they perform as nicely as the HV20/30 with a Hard drive based system, it definately is a contendor. I thought the images and films I have seen from the HV20/30 were wonderful so if a lot of enthusiasts here think that sony produces as nice or nicer videos I may go that route because the sonys seem more ergonomic. (I have no idea why Canon moved the joystick to the LCD on the HF series, it seems really short sided for a prosumer product.)

One worry I have is that, in digital cameras, IMHO, the canons are much better image capturers on average and the sonys have always been a bit too sharp and noisy, with very "digital", as in harsh, results. It surprises me that its cams do better jobs, but apparently, they do.

So here is my question: For a discerning hobbyist, who has used camcorder very sparingly up to now, but will be obsessive on movie quality; who is buying primarily to capture honeymoon videos in Italy and Greece, and plans on not upgrading for at least 3-4 years, which of these cams would you recommend. Please, don't refrain from giving suggestions, like only you can decide. I want your opinions, because you guys use these much more than I and have developed the eye I may have in a few months. Please help me so I don't regret my decision. Is sony that great, do the newer canons still suffer AVCHD problems that degrade their quality below the HV20/30 or even the AVCHD sony? Does the Sony capture as fluid, well balanced, sharp and less noise in low light images than the Canon HV20/30? Are there other contenders that I may be overlooking? Please let me know.

ANY input is GREATLY appreciated.

Regards,
Mario

Hi Mario,
Research is good, it's the only way to minimize mistakes (not eliminate them, but minimize them). I still currently have both the Canon HF10 and the Sony SR12 and find the SR12 to produce the better image.

I thought your comment about Canons being the better digital still cameras was right on the mark! I too came to the conclusion the Sonys were overly-sharp and the Canons produced a more 'photographic' image. That's why I switched to Canons for this purpose. I've also got a Panasonic Lumix, but the Canon is probably still better for overall image quality.

However, what's interesting, is that with the current crop of AVCHD camcorders, this formula has been turned upside down! The Canon now produces the less 'convincing' image and appears to my eyes, more artificial. Colors are certainly not as true to life as the Sony SR12 and the contrast in the Canon is artificially hyped as the result of what appers to be a different gamma in the Canon. As a result of this, highlights are more easily blown out and detail is more easily lost in shadow areas.

For these reasons my HF10 is headed to Ebay and I'm keeping my SR12. In terms of comparing the SR12 to the HV20, it compares extremely well. I own an HV20 and have done quite a bit of A/Bs with those two units. It took me many days before I came to the conclusion I slightly preferred the image from the SR12...but man, they're close in quality.

You can get the same quality as the SR12 in an SR11 and only sacrifice hard drive space (60gig vs 120). Of course you still have the ability to record to a memory stick, so you should never run out of space.

At any rate those are my thoughts. Good luck.

Mario, I'm not sure if this is where you drew that conclusion from, but be very wary of subjective statements you see on review sites. They tend to make big deals out of small differences. You have to just try the cameras out and see which you like the best. The general consensus seems to be that HDV still has a discernible but small lead in certain aspects of video quality, but with this year's crop of AVCHD cameras, they are very close, to the degree that you probably won't notice in most circumstances.

It's to the point where other differences between cameras, such as color balance, handling, AE characteristics, size, weight, media type, manual controls, image stabilization, noise, etc. will probably be more important factors in your decision than AVCHD vs. HDV.

Thanks Ken and Dave,

I am glad I am not coming off left field and have come to feasible conclusions. Ken you seem to suggest (as I read in this thread) that the HV20 or 30 outperforms the HF100/10 very slightly. The funny thing I realize now is that the prices between the HV30 and HF100 is not that great and the SR11 is only about $100-200 more. I may go with the HV20 if I can find a better deal because the only main difference between it and the HV30 is the 30i frame rate.

Speaking of which, it seems that the Sony only records in 60i. I have to research that. I have to say the HF100 would be a bigger contender if not for the stupid joy stick placement, but maybe I am making too big a deal of that. The sonys wheel is an attractive option. I just don't know how often people use manual focus and whether I am letting something small be a determining factor.

Lastly, while I have checked out some clips of both, some of the clips seem jumpy. I don't know if its the source or the download. Please let me know if any of these seem more jumpy than the other.

I am going to see if I can buy both and return one with no restocking, but that is not something I think will happen. I may buy media, pop it in and shoot in the store, but I don't know if I will be able to access the videos for the flash cards without the proprietary software. I know I will have no luck with a DV source because I don't have a player.


I am still stuck, but thank you so much for your input!

Warm Regards,
Mario

Also, I saw a review (I think I saw some clips of it in this thread) where the sony had that twin peaks/x-files green that was more emerald than true green when it was shooting foliage. Is this an accurate representation? I have also seen other review, but don't know if I should post them. I don't want to break the rules.

Mario, motion of both cams is absolutely fluid, as you'd expect with 60i video. However, the 24p and 30p modes of the Canon will result in less smooth motion as opposed to 60i. That's just the nature of those frame rates. There will be some stutter with rapdily moving objects.

The SR series Sonys and HF series Canons are very different cameras no matter what these reviews tell you. They have very different color renditions and very different gammas. They both do different things and have different capabilities. If you feel having a viewfinder is important, than the Sony is the way to go since the Canon doesn't have one. If you like 30p or 24p, the Canon is the way to go. For me the 'p' modes are not important because of the motion issues I perceive.

If you're critical regarding color accuracy, I suggest you look at the Sony. I know a couple of people beside myself that have seen both camera's handling of color and the agreement was the Sony was better in this regard.

Best bet, try shooting with both on memory media and playing it back at home.

Mario. Allow me to offer you some advice. You're showing the symptoms of Analysis Paralysis. The cure: avoid online "reviews." Start shooting video.

You need a camcorder -- buy the one that *feels best in your hands.* Use it. If you don't like it, return it to the store for a refund. If you have to pay a restocking fee, that is a small charge for a temporary rental.

This site is the only one you need. Be sure to tell us how it goes. But by all means, stop reading and start shooting video. You can't go wrong with any of the camcorders that are available today. Get one in your hands and shoot some video -- then tell us about your experience.

There are no "wrong" camcorder choices unless you do too much reading and not enough in-store touch & try. Hope this helps,

"Analysis paralysis"
Hilarious and right on the nose. I guess I will buy some cams and do some testing. For me its between the HV30 and the the SR 11 because the videos I have seen of the HF100 had some of the aberations I have heard about. Plus the manual controls are not very ergonomic. The view finder, though I don't know how much I will use it, is a nice option to have. I will report back with my findings. Thanks for your input.
Before I go, do you any sources for uncompressed clips of video shot with any of these cameras, just in case I can't buy or find all of these in one place?

Let me know.

Kind Regards,
Mario

Mario you are choosing between a tape based camcorder and a HDD camcorder. In one case you will have to carry around tapes and make sure you log and look after them. You won't be able to skip through to any point on a tape to see a particular clip etc BUT it is easier to edit HDV than AVCHD. For AVCHD you will have playback of every clip on the HDD at your finger tips at any time for playback, in the case of the SR11 over 7 hours at 1920x1080 or almost twice that at standard 1440x1080( double these numbers for the SR12). Try finding something to show someone on one of the 7 to 14 tapes you have shot in HDV!!! IF you are shooting an event which will be edited and transfered to DVD then tape is OK. For family video I think HDD cams in AVCHD are much better from a convenience point of view. That is why I have a SR11 for family stuff and a FX1 for my hobby projects. To be honest in good light I can't tell the difference in quality and it might even go to the SR11!!!! IT also takes good stills.

Ron Evans

The quality of the stills Ron is really amazing when shown on a large screen 1080p HDTV. The stills are just razor sharp and actually sharper than any freeze frame from any HD cam I've ever owned, including my old FX1 or FX7. The look and details of those SR12 stills on an HDTV remind me of what our next step up in HD camcorders might look like...they're that good.

But I agree with you regarding the look of the SR11/12 vs the FX1, in good light I might give the edge to the SR12 even though I don't have the FX1 anymore. I think my old FX7 might have appeared a tad sharper, but it also had more noise and I think some of that sharpness was 'apparent' sharpness as the result of greater in-camera sharpening.

Yes I agree about the stills was most impressed the day I got my SR11. This is a post of those stills I took. look great on my Panasonic Plasma 1920x1080p, 42inch.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ight=ron+evans

Ron

Thanks Ron and Ken.

Looks like you guys are really endorsing hard drive or flash based media. What I was planning on doing is to do a transfer every day to my computer. Once downloaded, the video would be just as accesable, no?

I just think tape may be more smooth and the video better. The HV20/30 have had rave reviews in numerous places and they are tried and true.

It seems like there is no competition between the HF100 and these two but I will check it out when I go to the store on thursday (I have a final tomorrow).

Still waiting on those links to uncompressed videos if they exist. I found small videos at http://www.magazinevideo.com/video-d...hp?videoId=306 (for the SR11) and http://www.magazinevideo.com/video-d...hp?videoId=304 for the HV30.

I must say the HV30 seems to produce nicer shots from what I see.

Obvously, theses are not the determining factors as of yet.

Ron, I took a look at your photos. While they are impressive, the reds look way oversaturated. Maybe its me.

Ken, how would you compare the low-light capabilities of FX1 vs SR11 ?
It's hard to find comparisons between theses two online (because of the time between, and different consumers). I have a friend with the FX1, but the time I get a HF100 in the PAL market...

Robin, although the SR11/12 are pretty good in low light for HD cams (all of which are not great when compared to a camera like a VX2100) they're not quite as good as the FX1. That was probably the best HD cam I ever had for low light.

But again, since I own both a VX2000 & VX2100 (both SD cams), by comparison every HD cam I've ever had pales by comparison.

Mario, I think Ron's photos only suggest at the quality of the pictures the SR11 & 12 are capable of. On my computer, when I enlarge them a bit, Ron's photos tend to have some noise in them due to the compression in getting them on to this site. On my 60" plasma screen, when using the highest quality setting, color and clarity are superb with no visible noise.

If I get a chance I'll try to upload sunny day shots, but you can try this one that was shot during my early 'testing phase'. It was about to rain that day, but it gives you an idea of the sharpness of the SR12. Subject content is not interesting. By the way, the clips always look far far more impressive on a large screen 1080p plasma. I never seemed to be wowed by how any clips from any of these cams look on a computer screen.

If you can, burn this native file to a DVD-R and play it on a compatible blu-ray player output to your HDTV. That's what I've always done when first looking at cameras that I don't currently own:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=LV9LFCX4

Thanks Ken, however I go to the link and I don't know what to do. It shows the file name and size but when I put the cursor over it, it does not have an index to download. I don't know where to go to download the file. Please let me know where to do this.
Thanks!
Mario

Tried again and now it says the file is temporarily unavailable.--Ok Figured that one out.

Thanks for the clip but you are right, the subject is not interesting. I was hoping to get a clip with a little movement but beggers can't be choosers. I will check back in case you post some more. Can't wait to try these babies.

Another thing, for a point of inculcation and clarification with my point about HD tape, am I correct that if I do a transfer from the cam to my computer, I will then be able to have non-linear access to the clips? I think I can do that on a nightly basis. Yes it will suck to wait the approximate 1 hour, but is there something I am missing? Is it just a straight transfer and then you can watch the clip on your lap top pc, or do I have to render the content to view it? If so, I assume I would also have to render a AVCHD clip before viewing it or is it somehow different? If I do have to render either one, will the mobile Atholon 2.2 g with 1.5 gb of memory and a 72,000 rpm seagate hard drive on my 2.5 year old lap top be sufficient to render the files relatively quickly?

If all the above (the necessity to do computer intensive and time consuming rendering to view the files on a PC) has to be done, do you view the clips while on holiday by just attaching the camera to a TV or PC and using it for playback? If this is the case, then I could see why having a non-linear (non-tape based) machine is even MORE convenient for play back purposes for, yes, it would suck to do all that rewinding and so forth to find the portion of the clip you want to access. But if they all dump down to a computer in a format that can be immediately viewed on a pc, the only real benefit in stand alone viewing and the quicker transfer rate to the machine, because after the transfer you can jump around as much as you want using your video player. I guess another advantage is that there are no transport motors to break in an hard drive based machine (though now you have to worry about the hard drive in the SR 11/12. I wounder if the hard drive breeaks if you can still record to flash drives when the hard drive eventually, as they all will, breaks). Please let me know what the situation is on transfer: whether it is a file that must be render to view on a computer or whether it can be viewed right away with either a tape based or non-linear cam.

I assume that to just dump data from a hard drive based or flash card based cam is relatively quick and non-linear (unlike a tape based machine) procedure that can be done to work on them or archive them in case something happens.

Wow, I guess I have asked alot of questions. I have exposed my newbie status! Please don't admonish me to harshly. ;-)

Any help with these would be, again, GREATLY appreciated. Thanks again for all your help so far!!! :-)

Kind Regards,
Mario

Mario -

Tape is linear for capture and review, period. If you download with an editor that splits the scenes (most do), then you'd have random access to clips, and probably thumbnails so you can edit/delete/etc. You don't need to final edit and render unless you really want to, and I'd hope you've got better things to do.

The advantage of tapeless is the thumbs are right on the camera, totally random access for review on camera or if you can interface to a TV. Downloading the clips you want after deleting any "junk" footage takes about 1/3 real time, and you can probably review those clips at a lower quality - your laptop is going to be a bit underpowered for "ful resolution" methinks, so regard it as a backup/storage device, use the cam and available TV's for review, and edit when you get home...

Mario, If you capture the tape footage on your laptop PC, then yes you can open it in a media player or NLE and have random access to it. But to me the real draw of AVCHD is that I will be able to easily review and filter clips (i.e., delete bad ones) right on the camera the way I currently do with my digital camera. It would let you do things like check and re-take a clip if you found the exposure was not right or something like that without having to deal with all of the tape re-winding and positioning that people never do because it's so inconvenient.

Also, bringing a laptop on a trip just to be able to review video is getting more and more inconvenient. I used to bring my laptop on trips just to download digital photos, but I'm moving away from that because of all of the airport inconvenience as well as simply not having another big thing to lug around everywhere. Prices for SD and CF cards have gotten so cheap that it's so much easier more convenient to just take a lot of them.

I posted that clip just to show the sharpness of the camera and how it's at least as sharp as any consumer HDV cam out there. If you're worried about motion artifacts, don't. I see absolutely no more artifacts with motion than I do with HDV. AVCHD has this licked.

Still photos with SR12
 

Ken, could you post some SR12 stills on megaupload at max resolution/quality? I'd love to see some samples that don't have any re-compression artifacts from resizing... Ron's samples really got me worried that I'm not going to like the stills very much. They seem blurry, especially the doll picture which is slightly out of focus.

I know I'm not going to get the DSLR quality, but I'd still like to be able to print an occasional shot, and I'd need a lot more sharpness than that!

Thanks Dave and Ken. Your help is trully appreciate. I hope I can contribute something when I test the camera. Its to bad the cx9 is not out, that might of been my choice. Also the incredibly thin TG1 (I believe thats the name) sony is going to put out in May looks really intriguing because of convenience, though I know the image quality with a 1/5 sensor would be not as nice.

Stan,
I shot the doll from about 4 feet on telephoto, and in lower light, to limit the depth of field so the piano in the background would be out of focus. The Welsh doll is about 6 inch's high. This may have been a little too close to really focus properly though the doll looks in focus on my original. The flowers were also shot close up too so some may not be in focus due to depth of field at this range. The SR11 is not a substitute for a real digital camera but is better than the 3Mpixel Sony digital camera that I now have!!!!!

Ron Evans