Posted by PTravel on 12/27/07 17:14

"Bob Noble" <bnoble@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:477309fa$0$84194$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> The HG10 caught my eye and it was due out in a month. What caught my eye
> the most was the anti shake built into the lens and all the other anti
> shake stuff built into the camera.

You're referring to image stabilization. I'm unaware of any consumer
camcorders that don't have some form of image stabilization. As it happens,
the HG10 has the same image stabilization as the HV20. It is, however,
designed to minimize shake from hand-held shooting, not the kind of violent
changes of attitude that occur in kayaking. In fact, probably neither the
HG10 nor the HV20 are good cameras for that kind of video as both use CMOS
sensors and are subject to "rolling shutter" distortion.

> It even has an anti shake thing built into the digital 200x zoom.

First of all, digital zoom is not really zoom -- all the camera does is
enlarge a section of the sensor to occupy the entire frame. This result in
significant (really dramatic) image degradation. Second, no person alive
can hand-hold a camcorder at more than 20x zoom (and most people can't at
10-12x either), so this "uber-zoom" is completely useless.

> Canon says, to do HD well, one needs a very steady camera, so that's why
> they built these features into this camera.

To do any kind of video well, one needs a steady camera. That's why all
camcorder manufacturers include image stabilization (either electronic or
optical).


> I was concerned about the AVCHD part, and did some research and decided
> what the hey. The best way to find out about something is to buy it and
> use it.
> An added plus I hadn't considered is the 200x digital zoom. Yes, I know
> the digital zoom just blows up the digital picture and isn't considered as
> good as a lens zoom.

It's not that it isn't considered as good. It's that it seriously degrades
the image quality.


> Now, as far as HD or AVCHD, I would have just preferred the HD as things
> are confusing enough and it wasn't an option on this camera anyway.
> I do find that the optics and technology built into this cam may help to
> offset the drawbacks of the AVCHD.

Ummm, no, they don't. AVCHD results in three distinct kinds of compression
artifiacts, none of which are effected by the optics or any other
"technology" in the camera. Also, there is nothing wrong with AVCHD per se.
The problem is that Canon, just like the other consumer camcorder
manufacturers of AVCHD machines, have arbitrarily limited the bandwidth of
their AVCHD so that motion and compression artifacts are inevitable.


> I haven't had the camera long enough to get into a lot of editing yet and
> may find more of the AVCHD compression artifacts showing up.

You will. You'll also have trouble finding editing software that supports
AVCHD.

> But so far things look very well with the AVCHD. With the kind of movement
> I can have taking video's, I'm sure I'd find bad stuff while using any
> format.

No, you wouldn't. Some cameras are better suited for some purposes. There
are certainly HDV machines out there that would do an excellent job on your
kayak videos.

[Back to original message]