HV30 or HG20 which one to buy?
 

They are both around the same price now. Let me tell you what my concerns are NOT and maybe you can help me

1) Tape or no tape (NO ISSUES) probably no tape better. I have entire network with serverss and a lot of storage and already backups of everything since 2001. 1TB drives are around $85, so no problems here
2) Editing is not an issues at all. I was ALWAYS going for HDV because of editing. but now I have Premiere Pro CS3 and Cineform Prospect HD. so my HDLink can transform all AVCHD into Cienform HDV true 1920x1080 and I can even remove pulldowns form 60i of 30p and 24p.

But what I care is 24p, 30p and 60i (both have it) and was wondering about 1440x1080 vs 1920x1080. I know that HDV standard does not allow to go above 1440 and that is why it is 1440x1080 1:1.3 pixels instead of 1:1. So is true 1920x1080 on HG20 better?

Which camera is truly sharper in video quality? If the first 2 point are no issues, would there be a point to go to HV30?

thanks

My Canon AVCHD camcorder is slightly sharper than my HV20 and looks better in all levels of lighting. The motion-related artifacts of the HDV camera, however, are slightly superior.

So neither is a "better" quality is all respects.

Sounds to me like you answered your own question. :-)

Yeah

but some people say because the sensor is bigger on HDV30 that picture is better even though it is 1440. SO I am still wondering truly if there is a difference in sharpness, low light etc...

I see, so with HG20 I would have to pay attention how to film, almost like shotting in 24p. Don't do huge movements etc...

BTW I was in BestBuy yesterday and for the firs time had a chance to have HG20 in my hands. What really impressed me was how smooth the picture was, even at the 10x zoom. That image stabilization was incredible (at least compared to my old camera JVC HD1U)

is it like that also on HV30?

One thing I like better with the HV30 is that it has a focus wheel down by the lens. The AVCHD cams use a joystick and it's a lot more awkward. The HV30 also has a viewfinder. Plus it has a bigger chip. Overall it's a slightly better picture and more user-friendly. If I were going with an AVCHD Canon I'd want the HF11, which does AVCHD at the faster data rate, but reviewers are saying there's not a whole lot of difference in perceptable quality except at low light conditions. The HV30 also does 24p, so you'd have tp pay attention on moves with it too, unless shooting in 60i mode. Basically all these single chip cameras crank out a very nice image for the price, so it's more a matter of user friendliness. I don't know that much about the HG models but I think they're the same as the HF but with a hard drive instead of cards. Personally I'd go with cards.

HG20 does 24Mbps like HF11 and it also does 30p and 24p. It can also record to SD card like HF11, the big thing is that it does not have a viewfinder for those sunny days.

the thing is I was logically thinking that since HV30 is 1440 the picture would be worst and I thought that AVCHD at 24Mb is better that MPEG-2 at 25Mb.

HG21, it has a viewfinder.

There is a noticeable difference from the bigger sensor of the HV30. I had both, but still own the HV30.

Also, sharpness seemed the same. I found the overall picture quality from the HV30 a little better.

But I think making a decision here will come to workflow needs.

In a glance HG20 has better resolution, and at 24mbps the compression quality should be better than HDV. But like other canon AVCHD consumer cameras it lacks focus dial and you adjust manual focus with joystick, so manual control is a little more compromised on HG series. But for picture quality there is no reason not to go HG20 I think. (oh besides smaller sensor size maybe, but do 1/2.7 and 1/3.2 make that much difference?)

The joystick on the Canon AVCHD camcorders is indeed a bit awkward. I do not believe, however, that the chip size is any different between the HDV and AVCHD models, and recall reading that they have the same chip.

I have an HV30 and an HV10. I must say that focusing the HV30 is very much easier. I think the focus knob on the HV10 is different than on the HG20 so my experience might not thoroughly translate, but focusing the HV10 is the devil's work. Although nothing can take the place of a good focus ring, the focus roller on the HV30 is not a bad substitute.

You might want to factor in the kind of shooting you'll be doing in making this decision. If you'll have time to niggle the little joystick, then it might work for you. If you need to focus fast, then the HV30 would get the nod in this regard.

Anyone care to elaborate on the motion recorded differences between AVCHD and tape?

Rob,

Since the camcorder is faced with the burden of encoding in real time, and AVCHD requires a far greater processing workload compared to HDV, a useful way to compare the two is with panning and with very busy scenes. The worst stress test is rapid pans, where neither format does particularly well.

The AVCHD camera appears less fluid but not dramatically so. Best practice is to avoid rapid pans altogether unless they are being done to deliberately create a specific sweeping effect. Scenes which inherently contain lots of motion and complexity, such as the surging and churning waterfall of Niagara Falls, which I have used for numerous comparison shots since it is only 15 miles from here, look virtually identical. I believe some of Chris Hurd's samples on this website show water sprinkler footage which is also very useful for seeing how complex motion is handled.

Larry

We'll be doing a fairly comprehensive comparison of the HG21 vs the HV30. Canon Canada was kind enough to fix us up with an HV21 which arrived Friday. Here are my initial thoughts, mostly related to how well this camera fares against the HV20/30 for adapter use.

1. The filter size on the HG20/21 is 37mm, where the HV20/30 is 43mm

2. The HG20/21 chip size is 1/3.2" so smaller than the HV20/30 at 1/2.7". Both have the same pixel count which means that the HG20/21 should be less sensitive. I haven't tested this but one review has, and the pics at 12 lux from the HG20/21 were definitely darker. These pictures came from here: HD/HDV/AVCHD/XDCAM/P2 camcorder tests and comparison of Sony PMW-EX1 (PMW-EX1E/ PMWEX1),Sony PMW-EX3 (PMWEX3) and Canon XH G1 Best values highlighted s choosing HV30 vs HG21 comparisons.

3. 24p Workflow for now on the HG21 is definitely more difficult than the HV20/30. The freeware tools for 3:2 pulldown don't work for the HG21 (yet) so if you plan on working in 24p, the HV20/30 is definitely easier. HG21 AVCHD files were not usable in Premiere CS3, so an update to CS4 is required...or you can purchase Cineform's codec. In our case (no Cineform), this means uncompressed output from AfterEffects CS4 to perform 3:2 pulldown, and then editing uncompressed HD files.

4. The HG21 does not have ND filters...the HV20/30 does have a graduated ND that slides into place as high exposure levels are reached. I have confirmed this is the case visually with the HV30, but not yet for the HG21.

5. For manual controls, I have never liked either cam. That said, the joystick position change on the HG21 makes sense to me. Manual focus control via the joystick is not so different from the HV20/HV30 roller...but the HV20/30 MF roller is faster to engage and adjust.

6. In terms of workflow, being able to record to either an SD card, or internal HD is great. You'll need a card rated at least 4 for speed if you want to record in the highest quality mode on the SD card. If you plan on shooting 60i all the time, then the HG20/21 image acquisition will be far faster than the HV20/30 tape capture.

7. The HG20/21 has no firewire! This is a real stinker if you plan on using Adobe Onlocation for live capture. The HV20/30 does have both firewire and USB.

8. Tape drive noise doesn't exist on the HG21, and the HV20 had unusable audio in my opinion due to tape drive noise. The HG21 is definitely quieter, and I'd assume this would translate to better audio.

9. There are no zebras on the HG20/21! The HV20/30 cams have them.

10. The HG20/21 use a mini HDMI jack, so you'll need to get a special cable to output to your standard HDMI devices. The HV20/30 uses a standard size HDMI.

So there you go. My overall sense of things is that the HG20/21 have lost some very nice HV20/30 features to gain a tapeless workflow. Certainly until computer hardware and NLEs catch up, editing will be a bit simpler using the HV20/30. Once we test the HG21 on the adapter we'll have a good sense if the HG20/21 full 1920x1080 pixel capture is a noticeable improvement over the 1440x1080 of the HV20/30.

Hope that helps :-)

Cheers,
Dennis Wood
www.cinevate.com

Dennis,

Thank you for a lot of very interesting comparisons. This is really interesting, and I had not realized that Canon switched sensors between the prior year AVCHD hard disk HG10, which was 1/2.7" and are now using a smaller 1/3.2" sensor on the new 2008 series HG20/21. My 2007-vintage HV20 and the 2007-vintage HG10 had the same 1/2.7" sensor size.

Also wanted to note that the USB port of the HV20/30 is for still picture use only. Video can only be transfered via Firewire.

Larry

At it's price point you cannot do better than the HV-30. If you can find a better cam for the money, in any brand, I'd like to know what it is! And I'm serious, I'd like to know if there is anything better, as I'll be ordering one at some point in the near future!

There are some people, myself included, who would disagree. Having owned 5 HDV camcorders, including the $3500 Sony FX-1, most recently the Canon HV-20, I would never prefer to use the HDV format or camcorder once I started using the HF100. I keep the HDV camera around here as a playback deck and virtually never use it or HDV any more.

Larry

If you are saying the HF-100 is better because of it's format, than that is a matter of personal preference, and does not, for me make the camera "better".

Image quality-wise I've not seen anyone claim it to be better than the HV-30. At best they say it is "as good".

Since you own the HV-20 and I own neither camera, I cannot debate if you say the HF-100 is better.

I suppose it is possible the smaller sensor of the HF-100 is superior to the 1/2" sensor of the HV-30.

Based strictly on size of the sensor, and the fact I personally prefer tape at this point, I'd still go with the HV-30.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Jeff,

A choice like this is totally a personal matter, and I have no desire to try to dissuade you or to debate. I merely wanted to let you know that someone may have a different point of view, and that my experience has been quite different.

My son bought me the first AVCHD camcorder at a time when I was totally immersed in HDV, and not until I began to use it did I begin to appreciate how well it performed. I had owned 5 HDV camcorders since the 2003 release of the first 1440 by 1080 3-CCD Sony FX-1, and was really quite satisfied with the performance.

I understand the sensor size issue, but my own experience has been that the way the HF100 handles low light is visibly superior to the way the HV20 does. Never having owned an HV30, I can't extrapolate to this comparison for the HV30. I understand that it is counter-intuitive, given the sensor size difference, but the two Canon camcorders I now own and compare here show the difference mostly in (ironically) a lower noise floor on the HF100. The AVCHD 1920 by 1080 detail is visibly superior to the 1440 by 1080 as well.

Regarding the format difference, there are good reasons to NOT want AVCHD, the most obvious being the neccesity to have a much more capable and expensive computer. My free/ gifted HF100 ultimately forced me to replace a perfectly adequate 4 year old Pentium 4 3.0GHz machine which handled HDV very well with a much more expensive new computer, since AVCHD was unusable on my original machine.

I wish you well with whatever you should choose.

Larry

From another forum:

"3. Medium to low light shots are dramatically better on the HF100. With the HV20, I tried to do all kinds of things to compensate any time it was evening in doors (even with a few hundred lux of light) or nearing twilight outdoors. The colors seemed overly reddish on the full auto settings, the image got noisy, etc. I used cineamode to try and offset both to some reasonable effect. By comparison, I have found I never need to take the HF100 out of the "Easy mode" and the quality is far better than what I got with all my fiddling on the HV20. (I should note I do all my filming in 60i - so bear that in mind). This is no small quality difference. It's huge.


HF100 vs HV30 - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking


His experiences are much the same as mine........

Larry

The HV20/30 is a 1/3" CMOS, NOT 1/2"... the size differences are minimal, and probably offset with other optical path differences.

I can concurr with the same observations in the Sony side of the realm - the CX7 was noticeably better than its tape based siblings in low light, and I felt less noisy in overall IQ, the SR11/12 and CX12 are significantly better cameras than their tape based predecessors/siblings in those respects.

One has to consider that AVCHD has been accepted pretty rapidly and at least in terms of lower end camera development, is the reality of the future. Not saying tape is dead, but I'd be surprised to see a lot of R&D going that direction from any of the majors...

Now if they'd just give us something slightly larger with some manual controls...

I think the HV20 & HV30 have a 1/2.7" sensor, so it's a little larger than 1/3".

Dave, the HV30 sensor is 1/2.7" in size according to it's specs.

Larry, as I said, before you launched into your lengthy reply, if you can recommend a better camera for the money I'd like to know what it is.

Your arguments are unnecessary. The HF-100 is different. You like it. Great. I'm happy for you.

This was not intended to be a debate about formats, though I understand your preference. That the HF100 is better than the HV-30 is VERY debateable. Thank you for searching and finding a user who backs up your feelings.

There are plenty of people who feel the HF100 is not as good as the HV30. I'm not going to go find them and quote them here. BTW, you are operating the HV-20 which is not quite as nice as the HV-30. The sensor is the same, but according to most reviewers the LCD is better on the 30 among other improvements. I have seen more than one user who loved the upgrade.

Can I safely assume you understand I know the important differences between the cams and am not interested in the HF-100?

Jeff,

You very explicitly raised this question and I offered my opinion. Sorry if you disagree with both my reply as well as the "lengthy" manner in which I presented it. Don't ask the question if you dont't want to hear other people's answers.

Buy whatever you want. You have obviously already made up your mind.

Larry

Larry, I've very sorry for the disagreeable nature of my reaction.

Sometimes when I should leave something alone I don't.

Well thanks for all the info, but based on all the issues I have decided to go with HG20
Here are the reasons:

1) Cheaper than HG21 and HF11(bigger HDD no need and still can do SDHC) viewfinder would be nice but for $200 I can live without it

2) HV-20 and 30 Looks like quailty is VERY similar and in some cases people say one way or the other so why not go with easier tapeless format

3) it is 1920 and not 1440. So even better for me in Cineform Prospect HD
my workflow: copy mts files to Local HDD and convert them with HDLink to true 1920x1080 AVI editable format, I even have good pulldown 3:2 in it

4) Biggest issues not to go with it would be editing AVCHD but my number 3 takes care of it

5) I saw HG20 at BestBuy and I liked the feel and the weight of it and was very impressed with stabilizer even at full 10x zoom

thanks guys

Larry

one question: You are saying that you feel new Canons HF100,10, 11 HG20,21 are better than SONY FX-1????
wow that is something. I worked with FX-1 for Weddings and there was not much noise in low light. I liked that.
But shootting a wedding with new canon's would look unprofessional :) unless you put brevies35 with all the lights and handles :)

1/2.7 is quite a bit different than 1/2... and pretty close to 1/3... thus my correction - I believe that most of the single CMOS sensors are something in the 1/2.x range, but are typically referred to as "1/3". I know the method of measuring sensor size can be confusing... but 1/2 is quite a bit different than 1/3, 1/2.7 not so much.

Jeff,

Not a problem Jeff, and good luck with whatever you should choose. Both are great camcorders.

Larry

Mario,

The guy who bought my used FX-1, a professional videographer who already owned 2 of them as well as a Canon, made the same comment to me the day he came to pick up the FX-1 (along with an 8 core MacPro and some other stuff.) His words were something to the effect: " I have to use these bigger camcorders or my clients won't take me seriously. I hate carrying around all of this stuff and I have used the HV20 and know how great it looks, but I would not be taken seriously if I showed up only using small consumer camcorders."

As regards the HV20 versus FX-1, the low light performance on the HV20 was not as good as the FX-1, but still useful in most situations. Using additional gain on the FX-1 was also a good way to work in very low light. Unquestionably the detail was superior in the HV20 despite the HV20 having a single CMOS sensor versus the Sony 3 CCD design. In most lighting, particularly outdoors, the clarity and detail improvement of the HV20 was extremely obvious. It is worth noting that my FX-1 was purchased at the very first introduction in 2004, so a lot had improved in the several years before the HV20 was introduced. One other minor point is that Canon's color balance is, to my eyes, more neutral. I tend to prefer it also for this reason.

I never had both the FX-1 and the HF100 here at the same time so I could never directly compare them. I have, however, taken some standardized scenes here so I have a pretty fair idea. The HF100 improves on the HV20 in providing yet another improvement in detail, most likely the result of truly capturing and preserving 1920 rather than 1440 pixels horizontally. In the area of low light, the HF100 just looks better, but by a small margin, and 24p, with its less frequent CMOS refresh / strobe rate, may well be the reason. The HF100 is not so much a more sensitive imager as it is a more refined signal processor, and the low light images take on a less harsh appearance in my opinion. The effect is by no means dramatic. To its discredit, the motion artifacts of the HF100 are more visible, no doubt arising from the highly demanding compression task being performed in real time to make h.264-compliant video. In the final analysis, I have found myself using the HF100 most of the time, and the HV20 has been used so seldom that I should probably put it on craigslist and be done with it. There are other very redeeming features of the HV20/30 related to ergonomics, ease of editing, etc. But for pure image quality, (and Jeff's question specifically) I know which one I would (and already have) voted for.


Larry

I've been thinking on this one some more after trying out the Cineform software. I looked at the current HG21 AVCHD workflow using uncompressed files with pull down removed via After Effects. I compared these huge files to those generated by the Cineform conversion application. The Cineform files were about 1/12 the size even at the "Film Scan 1" setting, and even at 400% magnification I couldn't tell the difference between the uncompressed and the Cineform encoded files.

The Cineform 3:2 pulldown removal workflow was super-simple and very fast, generating fairly compact working files. I'm guessing AVCHD has been very good for their sales :-)

Yet I still have few issues with Cineform. I went to BB and used my own SD cards to record some footage on HG20. I shot at 24p and even with Cineform workflow pulldown I see ghosting. It is not on zooming and panning but on still shot when people go by. Before that I did not have the sound converted. (had to install ac3filter) so I am still waiting on an answer from David why there is so much ghosting on the footage. I assume I use the wrong codec - adobe avc decoder, but isn't this the default when you have PPro CS3 installed anyway?

Mario, I did not attempt a Cineform preset based project, but rather a 1920x1080 24p custom preset using files already converted to the "filmscan 1" preset. In that case, audio was fine and I did not see ghosting.