HD video camera - WTF?

Chianti

Chianti

New member
Apr 24, 2010
622
41
0
I just bought my first video camera - Canon LEGRIA HF R106.

The top setting is 'FXP' which is 15mbps, and the resolution is 1920x1080. I thought 'ok, if I record stuff and play it back on my flatscreen TV it should look good at full screen size'.

So I played some video directly from the camera to the TV using the 'component out' output. It looks like shit. It really looks no better than a fucking webcam, except bigger.

I don't understand:

Is it because I'm outputting from the camera directly?

Is it caused by the price range of the camera? (280€ / 366$). Would it noticeably improve if I spent another 100€?

Is it the specific make/model of the camera? Would the quality noticeably improve if I exchanged it for a similarly priced Samsung or Sony?

Is it possible to make acceptable quality, full screen video with these kinds of cameras at all, or do you need to spend much more money?

What kind of resolution of video are you supposed burn to DVD with these cameras, if not full screen? Why the fuck are they called 'high definition' if you can't make videos suitable to watch on your TV?

Thanks for any advice.
 


Component out being the Yellow/White/Red?

Didn't you get a mini HDMI cable with it?
 
> Component out being the Yellow/White/Red?

Yes, but it isn't a 1/4" jack output - it has a small 'digital-looking' port.
The other end going into the TV is the Y/W/R audio plugs though.

> Didn't you get a mini HDMI cable with it?

It's got a slot, but I don't have a mini HDMI cable in the house.
Why, would that make a big difference?
 
Does it record to tape or HD?

I ask because mine records to HD, and straight off the camera the files are in this jacked up compressed format that have to be converted to playable HD files.
 
Chianti said:
> Component out being the Yellow/White/Red?

Yes.

> Didn't you get a mini HDMI cable with it?

It's got a slot, but I don't have a mini HDMI cable in the house.
Why, would that make a big difference?
Click to expand...

Component outputs high definition, but it's red/blue/green. The yellow/white/red is standard definition composite out, with only one channel being video (yellow), and the other two being left/right audio. Composite will always look like shit. Try a different output if it has one, or export it and play it back some other way.
 
> Component outputs high definition, but it's red/blue/green

lol... sorry, it is red/blue/green. I didn't know the colours signified anything.
The TV also has red/blue/green at the input.

> Does it record to tape or HD? I ask because mine records to HD, and straight
> off the camera the files are in this jacked up compressed format that have to
> be converted to playable HD files.

It's recording to a Class4 SCHC card. The file extension is .mts, whatever that is.
 
red / blue / green is HD

even if it was yellow it would still be good quality if it was a good signal

how are your light levels? double check all your settings..
 
Chianti said:
> Component outputs high definition, but it's red/blue/green

lol... sorry, it is red/blue/green. I didn't know the colours signified anything.
The TV also has red/blue/green at the input.

> Does it record to tape or HD? I ask because mine records to HD, and straight
> off the camera the files are in this jacked up compressed format that have to
> be converted to playable HD files.

It's recording to a Class4 SCHC card. The file extension is .mts, whatever that is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's exactly what I am talking about. Its super compressed HD format. Shit is not going to look FULLY right until you process it. Sounds like you have a cable issue as well.

I had to buy a third party program for my HD cam downloads to get them right, kind of pissed me off, but the end results are quite nice.
 
BigWill said:
red / blue / green is HD

even if it was yellow it would still be good quality if it was a good signal

how are your light levels? double check all your settings..
Click to expand...

^^ This

I bought one of those HD Kodak waterproof cameras that does 720/1080 and if the light levels are shitty the video turns out shit. Try to get some high level lighting if you haven't and try again. The video cam I bought doesn't do well in low level light at all.
 
> how are your light levels?

This was it, I think. The footage I just took outside was fine on the TV.
The footage inside, under what I'd consider normal house lighting, totally stank.

Unfortunately most of the footage I intend to take will be indoors.
Is this general to all cameras in this price range? Or maybe I just picked a bad model for low light?
The CMOS is size 1/5.5
Is that slightly smaller than most other cameras (most seem to use 1/4)?


Thanks for all the replies so far.
 
If you can afford an exchange/upgrade, you would be better off with a DSLR like the Canon 550D which has full 1080p video, can shoot in 24 fps (frames per second, like a movie), and last but not least - where you can interchange and upgrade your own lenses as you please later on.

The biggest problem with light conditions and most camcorders indoors is the lens itself. Chip/CMOS size matters less as long as the lens is crap. With DSLR video you can eliminate this problem by using your own lens.

Now granted, some people don't like the handling and feel of shooting video with what is mostly a camera designed for taking pictures with, but I've heard it just takes getting used to. Also - be prepared to spend some extra money on good lenses if you really want GOOD footage indoors in normal indoor lighting.

I don't own a DSLR with HD recording myself yet, but I really want. I currently still use my Sony AVCHD camera for family videos and it works alright for now.
 
> If you're shooting porn

lol... knew someone would bring that up.
Nope... baby arriving soon.

> you would be better off with a DSLR like the Canon 550D

Yeah, I saw some footage on a laptop shot with a 550D (or 500D maybe) which looked pretty good. However, that DSLR is twice the price of this camcorder; larger; heavier; more fragile; plus I need something that's totally point-and-shoot for my wife, and she wouldn't want to learn to use a DSLR.

If anyone knows offhand of a camcorder that works very well in low light for 360€ / 460$ (bearing in mind I'm not in USA, and this kind of electronic stuff is grossly more expensive where I live)? If not, I guess I'll just have to shine a torch in the young un's face.

Pretty disappointing though. Why can't the boffins just make stuff that works? I mean, cameras and camcorders that don't work indoors?? What's next?? An umbrella that doesn't work in the rain?

Cheers.
 
i would honestly check the aspect ratio on the tv first before you do anything. I suspect if you play the images in one aspect ratio and the tv is in another it would make it look all webcammy
 
Get a mini HDMI-HDMI wire and it should improve the quality. I have canon HG20, which is of super high quality. Nothing wrong with ur cam, its the output which is fucked. just to be 100% sure, you can check quality of the video using imagemixer software (comes with ur cam) on ur PC/ Laptop and check quality of those AVCHD videos. dont run these videos with media player, they will look choppy with no sound etc
 
Yeah, a cable designed for a digital signal vs one designed for analogue will make a difference IMO. It's kind of like people running a DVI out on their PC to a VGA input on their monitor. The image is still 1920 x 1080 but the picture quality isn't nearly as good.

That camera looks to be the lowest end model Canon offers in the UK and the low light performance isn't going to be great. If you look at the specifications the minimum illumination in lx on higher end models is several times better than the one you have. The lenses are bigger, the sensors are bigger, the image stabilization better.

If the lighting is low you will get much more grain and if you go too low then these cameras all drop into low light mode and slower shutter speeds which means more blur and poorer picture quality.

Higher end models have bigger lenses that allow in more light and have bigger sensors which pick up light better with less grain. Better image stabilization means you can shoot at slower shutter speeds without blur.

It's a case of you get what you pay for. You can't get a $300-$400 camera and expect that it's going to take Hollywood feature quality movies indoors in low light conditions. Even most point and shoot cameras still have a hard time producing great shots in low light and inevitably turn out blurry or grainy if the flash isn't used although more and more are being produced with high sensitivity sensors these days.

If you consider exchanging the model get one with a 1/3rd inch sensor instead of the 1/5.5th one, a bigger lens, better low light sensitivity and powered image stabilization (as opposed to dynamic which I think yours might be).

Here's the US Canon model lineup for comparison...

Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : Consumer Camcorders

Here's the UK...

Canon UK - ProductSelector
 
Check monoprice.com for cheap cables. The quality is as good as anywhere else but the price is WAY cheaper - a couple bucks for a cable at monoprice versus $20 or more at Best Buy, etc.

On the SLR for video note - do any of you guys shoot that? Do you like it? I saw one video shot in "HD" on an SLR (real "event" shot by a friend) and it looked like crap when it was done. Pulling focus and stuff is cool and all but not if all the footage looks bad.
 
Get 2Ti instead, it has same video recording quality as Canon EOS 5D Mark, but much cheaper

A lot depends on the light and the lense also

I happen to own one, here is the quality you can expect (don't forget to put it in full HD):

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT6AEb2UK34]YouTube - Japan Travel Lounge Music Video FULL HD[/ame]
 
Chianti said:
I just bought my first video camera - Canon LEGRIA HF R106.

The top setting is 'FXP' which is 15mbps, and the resolution is 1920x1080. I thought 'ok, if I record stuff and play it back on my flatscreen TV it should look good at full screen size'.

So I played some video directly from the camera to the TV using the 'component out' output. It looks like shit. It really looks no better than a fucking webcam, except bigger.

I don't understand:

Is it because I'm outputting from the camera directly?

Is it caused by the price range of the camera? (280€ / 366$). Would it noticeably improve if I spent another 100€?

Is it the specific make/model of the camera? Would the quality noticeably improve if I exchanged it for a similarly priced Samsung or Sony?

Is it possible to make acceptable quality, full screen video with these kinds of cameras at all, or do you need to spend much more money?

What kind of resolution of video are you supposed burn to DVD with these cameras, if not full screen? Why the fuck are they called 'high definition' if you can't make videos suitable to watch on your TV?

Thanks for any advice.
Click to expand...

HD cameras within that price range (from any brand) do not perform well in low light conditions, is this the case in the footage you are trying to watch?

Anyway, a good choice, like somebody mentioned already, are the new DSLR's from Nikon and Canon like the 5D or 7D.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom