Anyone Using a Vixia HF series for Professional work?
 

I really like the quality of the Vixia HF S200 and want one but is anyone using that series for professional paid gigs? commercials? music videos? or anything else paid.

if so do clients ever ask about it? since it is so small? I consider my self a professional and not sure if that would hurt showing up to film with one of them cameras

You may want to check out this article regarding "professional" usage of a similar type of camcorder for the movie Crank 2;

Digital Media World - Canon?s HD Camcorders Capture The Action

I've recently bought an HFS11 for use as a B camera alongside my Sony EX1. It's really just for a few drop in shots where I don't want to put a larger camera at risk or a large camera is impractical.

The Vixia/Lergria HFS11 is nothing approaching a professional camera, merely a high end domestic camera, but I have put some thoughts online here:

The Canon Legria HFS11 | Media2u Video Production Blog

I do like the camera and it's doing a super job here, but there is no way on earth I'd want to use it for full shoots. The lack of a proper focus control and that custom wheel make it a fiddly and the lens is what you'd expect of the price point.

Great review Marcus - much more realistic than some over-enthusiastic reports I'd read. I unwittingly acquired one of those grey imports you mention but decided to keep it. I was concerned about performance under 50hz lights but doesn't seem to be an issue. Apart from workflow inconveniences what is your main concern with 60i / 30p incompatibility as a professional these days?

Also - other reviews from respectable sources suggest that low-light image quality is better in 30p mode than in 60i, but if it's not natively progressive as you suggest then how is this possible?

The progressive mode issue is odd. I'm using Final Cut Pro which automatically transcodes footage before you can edit it. Thinking about it I can't be sure if it's not down to the fact the camera might be flagging the video as being interlaced which is then confusing Final Cut Pro during the transcoding process. I believe the ProRes codec needs to know if the source is interlaced or not. If the source is flagged as interlaced when it isn't then that might be causing issues. It needs some investigation.

My main issue with 60i/30p is the fact you are going to have to get it to 50i/25p at somepoint during the edit while retaining not only the timing but the quality of motion. Sods law says you will eventually hit problems with lighting causing flickering as well. I've shot NTSC for American clients in this country. You'll always find yourself fighting against some fluorescents at some stage.

[Just had a look online and have found that the camera does indeed record it's progressive output as interlaced. I'm wondering if this also causes artefacts at the point the camera encodes the footage]

Just loaded up a "progressive shot" of a field of oil seed rape in flower into VLC direct from the memory card rather than looking at it via FCP.

I can confirm there are interlacing artefacts all over the flowers as they move in the wind. However inspecting other footage it's not a uniform effect. But basically the effect is exactly the same as I see in FCP.

My hunch is that the problem is originating from the fact that the cameras output is always encoded as an interlaced image regardless of whatever mode you shoot in. We're not looking at a camera artefact as such, we're looking at at encoding problem. It amounts to the same thing though.

Shame really. Joe Punter won't even notice but for me it will be a problem. However I can always de-interlace in Compressor. As I say in my review, the full 1080 output doesn't quite cut it for me anyway, but at 720p and SD it looks great.

Interesting. Do you not see any obvious low-light performance benefits in "progressive" mode?

I guess some flourescent lights will always be an issue, even recording at 50hz. There was some speculation that changing the shutter speed helps on these occasions. I'm told modern lighting has increased latency (or something) which is much less likely to cause visible flickering effects.

I'm still interested to know why you need to output 50i/25p these days. It is true that LCD/plasma monitors handle both standards isn't it? Web is similarly standards agnostic. My experiments with converting 60i/30p footage to 25p using Adobe Media Encoder look seamless to this - admittedly untrained - eye. I also can't help thinking that those extra 10 fields and 5 frames per second might contain very valuable visual information, and the thought of paying £300+ more for a region-specific unit which is hobbled in that regard was galling. I understand that converting 25p to 30p is technically simpler and more efficient than the other way round however.

Of course using a 720 timeline with 1080 footage also has the advantage of being able to crop into the image which I'm finding very useful for wildlife footage when the lens doesn't naturally have the reach or minimum focusing distance to fill the frame.

There is no improvement in low light performance in the progressive mode. However you can take the shutter speed down to 1/25 without creating the stuttering effect you would get if in 1080i mode. That gives you a brighter image however be aware the image will blur on movement.

As for the need to output 50i/25p, I'm working professionally and therefore adhere to standards. People expect their finished DVD's to work. If I'm producing a sell through DVD that might be duplicated into a few thousand copies, what the client doesn't want is returns from customers because I've inexplicably produced a DVD in NTSC rather than PAL.

Of course you can convert the footage but it is an utter pain in the backside to have to do that. The extra effort of doing a proper conversion would cost far more in my time than the saving on an imported NTSC model.

Also remember I require this footage to drop into an existing edit timeline. I'd have to frame rate convert it before I could drop it into a 25p/50i timeline. Again this just wastes time and by the time you've had to do it a few times the price differential becomes insignificant because time is money.

Yes - understood. As a B camera I see it's a larger issue. But if you followed the workflow convenience argument to its logical conclusion you'd shoot in 720p or SD to begin with wouldn't you? Or do clients explicitly specify "Full HD 1080" for delivery these days?

Transcoding for FCP is another workflow bottleneck by the sound of it - I love being able to import the AVCHD straight into PPCS4. Editing it smoothly on the other hand...

No, I've been shooting HD for SD delivery for a few years now. In fact the EX1 doesn't even offer SD shooting options. I've found not only do I get great results but you can deliver a very good 576p for final delivery. Downconverting HD to SD is fairly trivial, removing 5 frames per second and doing it well isn't.

The transcoding is pretty seamless and makes the actual editing process far more smooth as Prores is a very high quality frame based codec. Yes the file sizes are large but for what I'm doing it's a non issue. But you nailed on the head the whole editing smoothly issue. Prores lets you edit it almost as snappily as DV.

Dave,

I dabble in Wedding Videography and some live club performances by local bands. I use two Sony V1U cameras but use my Canon consumer HV20 as my B roll back up camera locked on a wide shot.

It has saved my butt several times either for the audio I capture with it using a Rode Videomic or for the nice wide shot to cut to if by chance my steadicam / spyder handheld shot and my tripod or crane shot are both bad at the same time. The only thing I have to do is a little color correction as the Canon "look" is a little different from my Sony V1U's. It is amazing how good these consumer Canon cameras pictures are. When I replace my HV20 it will be with the HFS21 or whatever the current model is at that time.

I agree 100% DJ. I do the same thing with a couple of HF10's. They are placed on sticks locked down on wide shots. Using 'em in this manner, they intercut very very well with DSLR's and pro cams.

I am a corporate communicator and I use the HF10 for intranet videos. I think it looks great and is easy to use when the event, story, situation or budget don't allow for a real crew.

I use the HF10, HFS100 and a Sony Z1 for corporate gigs with no problems whatsoever. The weakest link quality-wise is the Z1...

As good as my HFS11 is, it doesn't touch the Z1, especially in low light. A single chip camera is never going to beat a 3 chip camera with larger sensors.

The HFS10/11 is doing an awful lot of image sharpening internally. Don't mistake that for "quality".

I used to do shoots using a Z1 in SD mode and a PDX10. On the surface in good light the PDX-10 looked more pleasing until you did some close analysis and realised just how much sharpening was going on and where detail was being lost. On a broadcast monitor it was quite obvious.

The HFS10/11 is a good camera but the Z1 still gives a far better image containing more detail and with no artificial enhancements.

Well Marcus, we'll have to agree to differ on the Z1's HD quality.
I think that it falls way behind the Canon HFS10, shooting like-for-like at 1440 x 1080.
The Z1 started to look tired when compared with the newer Sonys such as the Z5 or Z7...

My EX1 blows away the Z1, but you can get very acceptable results from the Z1. Having been working in XDCAM the HDV codec looks tired and the Z1 image looks softer and lacks that punch the EX1 has.

However with the HFS10/11 you are looking at a very artificially enhanced picture. While it may look pleasing, there's no extra detail there. It's just like my PDX10 example where that old war horse produces great SD pictures that look sharper than the Z1. But it's just an illusion. And exactly like the PDX10 did the HFS10/11 actually has a high level of picture noise that simply isn't there on the Z1.

The PDX10 had it's place just like the Canon does. I wish I could still find an excuse to use my PDX10 in fact. I'm also itching to get the Canon into my Fig Rig as when I used to use the PDX10 in the rig I used to get fantastic results.

Not to mention the quality of the glass and the lens system in general. Don't get me wrong, I love my HFS11 but I'm not going to try and pretend it is something it isn't. It's a great camera that I am finding lots of uses for but when I needed a B camera for a low light situation a few weeks back it was the Z1 I turned to.

I have the HF-S200, which is based on the original HF-S10/S100 series. I like it, but agree with Marcus that the manual controls are a bit fiddly. I find that some pre-shoot planning is required in order to determine what manual settings will be required. Then I create the settings needed and forget about them.

Image quality is decent, but like a lot of small-sensor camcorders, it performs best in bright daylight or really well-lit indoor areas. Noise can be a problem with this camera when shooting in low light.

I'm by no means a professional, so can't render a professional opinion, but my feeling is that you could use an HF-S series camera for some professional work as long as you are prepared to work within its limitations.

That said, you could definitely use it for corporate or institutional work on a small-scale basis.

Regarding the interlaced issue: I just got a HF21.

I recorded to an SDHC card and used FCP's Log & Transfer function to import the footage into a project. FCP converted the footage to Prores 422 HQ.

I did some pans on hard-edged objects, took a close look at the footage, and confirmed that it's progressive. No interlaced artifacts. No horizontal lines.

Dean, you're right. When the Canon records in p30 mode, it buffers a full progressive frame at a time; but then it records it as two interlaced fields. (I wonder if Canon did this in order to increase compatibility with NLEs.)

I have an HF-S100, and this is one of the things I most like about it: progressive frame capture == no interlace motion artifacts.

Mitch... My footage came across as true 30 progressive. No interlaced fields at all, and FCP also reports it as 30p.

I'm reading it directly off a file on my hard drive after transferring the contents of the card to a folder.

Perhaps interlacing becomes apparent when footage is read off the camera?

Hi Dean,

I also log & transfer from the hard drive, using Final Cut Pro, after copying from the card. The end result is 1920x1080, 29.97fps, ProRes 422.

But that's the result after log and transfer. Movist reports that the original MTS files are AVCHD/MPEG-4, 59.94 FPS. As page 181 of the HF-S10/S100 owner's manual puts it, "recordings made with the [PF24], [PF30] frame rate are converted and recorded on the memory as 60i".

In other words the HF-S10 and HF-S100 (not sure about your HF-S21) capture images at 30 (or 24) frames/second, then split it up into separate fields for recording as 60 fields/second. For PF24 mode, my understanding is that the camcorder also has to do 2:3 pulldown and duplicate some frames to convert to 60i format.

Whatever the recording format details, I think we both are saying the same thing about PF30: the camcorder is capturing 30 full frames per second, so there are no interlacing artifacts.

It is indeed progressive frame capture. However the camera is then encoding the image as an interlaced frame. This introduces scan lines into the final image. This is the example I used in my blog entry. Look at it very closely. It's an image of a train going past the camera:

http://www.media2u.co.uk/blog/wp-con.../05/canon2.jpg

That's a section of an image (not resized) that was shot as progressive and then captured into Final Cut into a 1080p project. If you look closely you can see the scan lines. This is not the same as an interlacing artefact, but what it does mean is you don't get the same kind of clean results you do from a Sony EX1 which outputs its progressive image into a progressive frame.

If it was interlaced capture the train (going at about 70mph) would have far more scan lines visible. Instead what you have is these very minor lines that are evident on the edges.

Why Canon decided to process the image like that is beyond me, but it is really annoying.

Here's what I get off the HF21. This is a complete 1080 p30 frame grab exported from FCP. I'm panning with the dog so take a look at the leaves of the tomato plant nearby. If I blow it up beyond what might be considered reasonable then it's possible (under close inspection) to see something that might look like interlaced lines, but then at that point I'm seeing other artifacts as well.

For normal viewing in HD, it seems very good. Especially considering the cost and size of the camera. If there's anything objectionable it's so miniscule as to be a non-issue. Might be the camera that makes a difference?

Frankly, I'm impressed by this itty bitty camera. It's destined for an Ikelite housing for underwater work. I'll post something as soon as I can find time to actually get into the water. Which better be soon since there are some cool stories coming up.

My company shoots a lot of school concerts lately. We use the HF11, and HFS-10 occasionally on stage as unmanned cams off to the side. It captures some good close-ups of the musicians performing. The little Canons seem to work quite well in that capacity, where you would not dare use a more full-sized cam. And the resulting footage is usually quite acceptable.

I use the HFS200 as a 2nd camera on weddings. Works great coupled with DSLR's. The standard battery you get with the camera is almost useless since it gets you about 30-40 minutes of time so I bought the largest one that canon makes and I get about 2.5 hours out of it.

Yup! All the time
 

We use the Vixia all the time next to our Sony EX1. This show was shot with the EX1 and The HFS100 tough to tell one from the other...Florida Keys Key West Time
All cut away shots was the Vixia.
It will air on Direct TV in November
Best, Craig

Check this out using my HFS11:

SET TO HD via the YOU TUBE setting in the lower right.


YouTube - Smoketown Air show 2010

HF100 on professional gigs.
 

Yes, I certainly have used Canon Vixia HF100s on numerous occassions for paid work. The key is knowing just what it can do and what it can't. Here are a few notes from my experiences with the HF100 filming concerts:

- You must manually control the exposure. Do not expect it (or most cameras, period) to know how to handle stage lights.
- The LCD screen is not totally accurate. The colors and contrast appear washed out compared to what is actually being recorded. This means if you try to manually set the exposure by eye, you may end up under-exposed. Also, the HF100 actually records a little beyond what is displayed on the screen [frame]. I like this, as there have been a few instances where I thought I had just cut something off judging by the LCD, but luckily it was within the recorded frame.
- Don't use it to record audio. But that just goes without saying for all cameras, right?
- The camera is wonderful for "set and forget". Need an unmanned static-shot? The HF100 is perfect because of it's reliability and solid state media. If I'm manning a camera in the balcony, I don't need to worry about the conductor cam running out of tape.
- There may be a corrupted frame at the seam between .MTS files. On my cameras, it's a black and green frame at the end of the initial MTS. If this frame isn't naturally edited out, I replace it with the first frame of the second MTS.
- One in ten clients may be surprised by the small camera. Their skepticism doesn't last long.

If you are serious about making video your livelihood, you will probably want to get the best tools available -- ones that succeed in the most situations. However, having a fancy camera won't give you good video or make you a good videographer. Case in point: I ran sound recently at an a cappella concert while also filming the show with two HF100s. A professional videographer on staff at the college was also present with a Panasonic HMC-150 ($3.5k 3CCD camera). You can see the results side by side below:

HMC-150: YouTube - Papa Was a Rolling Stone - DoubleTake
2 x HF100: YouTube - DoubleTake - Papa Was a Rolling Stone (The Temptations) - 2010 A Cappella Showcase

Enjoy.

HF S20 anyone?

Here is some underwater footage taken with a Canon Vixia HF21.

It's in an Ikelite housing, fitted with a WP80 wide-angle port.

http://hawaiigoesfishing.com/videos/dive.mov

This little camera is truly amazing!

Very good indeed!
I really enjoyed watching that as well - although you'd never get me down there!

I use my HF11 for behind the scene shoots and it makes very nice pictures, I record at 1920x1080i 24mbs and transcode to pro res LT.

Once the final edit is done I export in pro res LT 1920x1080 25p and it always looks very good to me, here is an example of a commercial shoot we did, it was very low light at times but the HF11 was ideal to show the shoot.

YouTube - British Beef Jerky Shoot 7-8-09

Nice quality.

British cowboys. Who would have thought?!

HF S20 anyone?

Interesting touches with the Cactus and the "cattle" skull (isn't that a urdu or something in the gazelle family?)!

Amazing little cameras. I have an HF10 and Ikelite housing that I used in pools over the last year for a contract. The footage was matched to EX1/Nano, F800, and PMW-350. You could not tell.

Bad plug: By the way this whole setup is in the classified for a killer deal.
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/private-...g-6090-wa.html

While not an HF, I use an HG-21 in some projects. The HG performs similarly to the older HF cameras with the Digic II processor but uses an HDD or SD as media rather than just SD or internal memory alone. The latest use involved a presentation in a conference room where I used a Sony HVR-Z5U on the presenter. During the Q&A, I kept the camera locked on the presenter and from behind the Sony, I hand-held my HG-21 on those in the room asking questions. The Sony was picking up the presenter's answers with a wireless mic. The Canon was picking up questions with an affixed Rode VideoMic. In post, it took a little color correction to match the looks but not a big task. The difference in look between the two was not at all dissimilar to the eye especially when seen in a window on a computer screen.

The ability for one operator to use two cameras at once is a great feature of a camera as small as the Canon cameras and the performance of these little AVCHD units is remarkable.

Dave Burckhard

Can owners please share some pics??

Gan this is a short for my family, by no means professional production. But it was all shot with the HF10 in 30p.. I also have some underwater pool clips and some nice offshore sunset clips. Don't forget to check out Dean's underwater clip at the top of this page.

Samba Making Miles By Paul Cronin On ExposureRoom