EEVblog Electronics Community Forum

General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 10:12:40 am

Title: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 10:12:40 am
I did a quick comparison video. Not a terrific effort, but shows some big differences.
Vimeo for the best quality
Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/103411683)

and Youtube:
Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgHtVKgHfmE#ws)
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: mariush on August 14, 2014, 10:46:31 am
Vimeo for the best quality

Yeah, too bad it's only 720p so what's the point... it would have been better to just upload the 1080p to your server for best details.

closeup ...

1:10 with sony interesting blurring on background, assume it's the macro stuff making. I like the colors of your skin

1:30 moving to canon, the skin really has a tint of green, not really liking it, the sony feels much more natural.  Yes, it's a bit wider frame, sony was a bit closer.

2:00 canon 10 a bit darker but the same more greenish tint on your screen

2:20 i like the sony colors a bit more but I'm not sure it's more natural, seems like more contrast, it's quite noticeable on the orange Help and Print buttons, the plastic of the scope is more cream, not white as with canons., the canon seemed a bit washed out colors... i noticed when moving hand into the frame the "50mv" at the bottom of the scope getting blurry, probably the focus moving to the hand .. the
3:05 that's really dark, same somewhat washed out colors...

canon wins at macro but how much is the lens a factor there... when you played with the lens on the sony it was getting better.

All I can say for sure is that I like the skin better on the Sony, feels more natural to me.

Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: alimirjamali on August 14, 2014, 12:54:19 pm
It is noticeable that @03:30, Sony has shallower dept of field compared to Canon while they are both set to F1/8.0 - I noticed the Casio calculator and the knob.

(http://i.imgur.com/CRsskRS.png)

Judgment is not easy since the lens mounted on Sony is not optimized for video. Both camcorders deliver excellent video quality though. I like both of them. You already outperform most other Youtubers in respect of video/audio quality.

BTW, It is very handy to have two (or in your case, many!) proper camcorders for multicam shots. Now you just require an old fashioned Clapperboard with SMPTE time code LED display!
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 01:44:56 pm
Quote from: alimirjamali on August 14, 2014, 12:54:19 pm
Judgment is not easy since the lens mounted on Sony is not optimized for video.

What would make a lens optimised for video?
Sony seems to think it's usable for video:
http://store.sony.com/e-30mm-f3.5-macro-e-mount-macro-lens-zid27-SEL30M35/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-NEX-Lenses (http://store.sony.com/e-30mm-f3.5-macro-e-mount-macro-lens-zid27-SEL30M35/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-NEX-Lenses)

Quote
Both camcorders deliver excellent video quality though. I like both of them. You already outperform most other Youtubers in respect of video/audio quality.

I try to get at least decent quality, framing, white balance, focus, depth of field etc.
Unlike many other (non electronics) youtube channels, I've never gone for the shallow depth of field thing. Because it's basically opposite of what you want for viewing PCB and products etc. And that also has spread into my talking head shots.
I do love the "stand out" effect of the Sony lens in the talking head shot (also doable on the Canon), but what good is a rack full of gear if it's all blurred out?
What does everyone think?

BTW, I forgot that the Sony was set for auto white balance, and the Canon was set for my usual manual setting optimised for the lab lights.
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 01:47:13 pm
Quote from: mariush on August 14, 2014, 10:46:31 am
Vimeo for the best quality
Yeah, too bad it's only 720p so what's the point... it would have been better to just upload the 1080p to your server for best details.

I thought vimeo was full HD?
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: mariush on August 14, 2014, 02:02:00 pm
Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 01:47:13 pm
Quote from: mariush on August 14, 2014, 10:46:31 am
Vimeo for the best quality
Yeah, too bad it's only 720p so what's the point... it would have been better to just upload the 1080p to your server for best details.

I thought vimeo was full HD?

Maybe if you have a Pro account or if the viewer has a pro account, by default all I get is 720p.

Hit the scaling button on the side and you'll see the original is 720p.

It's a relatively weak compressed 720p also, optimized for low processor usage and low bitrate, but works well for the shots you made.

Quote
Format                         : AVC
Format/Info                    : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                 : High@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC         : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames      : 4 frames
Codec ID                       : avc1
Codec ID/Info                  : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                       : 9mn 35s
Bit rate                       : 1 730 Kbps
Width                          : 1 280 pixels
Height                         : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio           : 16:9
Frame rate mode                : Constant
Frame rate                     : 25.000 fps
Color space                    : YUV
Chroma subsampling             : 4:2:0
Bit depth                      : 8 bits
Scan type                      : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)             : 0.075
Stream size                    : 119 MiB (91%)
Writing library                : x264 core 142 r2453 ea0ca51
Encoding settings              : cabac=1 / ref=3 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x3:0x113 / me=hex / subme=7 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.00:0.00 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=1 / 8x8dct=1 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / fast_pskip=1 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=72 / lookahead_threads=5 / sliced_threads=0 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / interlaced=0 / bluray_compat=0 / stitchable=1 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=3 / b_pyramid=2 / b_adapt=1 / b_bias=0 / direct=1 / weightb=1 / open_gop=0 / weightp=2 / keyint=75 / keyint_min=25 / scenecut=40 / intra_refresh=0 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=20.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=5 / qpmax=69 / qpstep=4 / vbv_maxrate=2750 / vbv_bufsize=7500 / crf_max=0.0 / nal_hrd=none / filler=0 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
Encoded date                   : UTC 2014-08-14 09:53:15
Tagged date                    : UTC 2014-08-14 09:53:15
Color primaries                : BT.709
Transfer characteristics       : BT.709
Matrix coefficients            : BT.709[/size]

Still better than Youtube's 720p

Quote
Format                         : AVC
Format/Info                    : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile                 : High@L3.1
Format settings, CABAC         : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames      : 1 frame
Codec ID                       : avc1
Codec ID/Info                  : Advanced Video Coding
Duration                       : 9mn 35s
Bit rate                       : 1 350 Kbps
Maximum bit rate               : 3 391 Kbps
Width                          : 1 280 pixels
Height                         : 720 pixels
Display aspect ratio           : 16:9
Frame rate mode                : Constant
Frame rate                     : 25.000 fps
Color space                    : YUV
Chroma subsampling             : 4:2:0
Bit depth                      : 8 bits
Scan type                      : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame)             : 0.059
Stream size                    : 92.6 MiB (87%)
Tagged date                    : UTC 2014-08-14 10:01:10
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: mmilejski on August 14, 2014, 02:04:12 pm
Quote from: alimirjamali on August 14, 2014, 12:54:19 pm
It is noticeable that @03:30, Sony has shallower dept of field compared to Canon while they are both set to F1/8.0 - I noticed the Casio calculator and the knob.

Sony has larger sensor, so to get the same framing it needs longer focal length hence it has shallower depth of field.
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 02:13:09 pm
Quote from: mariush on August 14, 2014, 02:02:00 pm
Maybe if you have a Pro account or if the viewer has a pro account, by default all I get is 720p.

I do have a pro account.
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: mariush on August 14, 2014, 02:15:07 pm
Yeah, i saw. I logged in as a regular member and both ways I get the same 130 MB 720p file. If it warms you up, in theory it's a bit better compression compared to Youtube's but not by much.
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: bktemp on August 14, 2014, 02:27:00 pm
Blue colors seem to be a bit off on the HF G30: The hakko soldering station and the VGA connector are almost purple, at the NEX VG30 it matches better the real color.
On the NEX VG30 all colors are a bit oversatured, but on the HF G30 the face looks a bit pale.
Without going into details like dept of field the image from the sony looks better.
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: alimirjamali on August 14, 2014, 03:07:28 pm
Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 01:44:56 pm
What would make a lens optimised for video?
Lenses optimized for Video could perform fast/quiet auto focus. Even in manual focus mode, they have other optimizations such as stabilization and other tweaks. This old press release (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3534808253/sonynexvg10e) is not just marketing crap:
Quote
The NEX-VG10E comes supplied as standard with an image-stabilised E18-200mm F3.5-6.3 OSS lens that offers a powerful 11x optical zoom range. Because of its optimized design for video shooting, this high-quality E-mount lens offers smooth, ultra low noise autofocus and iris control.

Quote from: EEVblog on August 14, 2014, 01:47:13 pm
I thought vimeo was full HD?
As mentioned by marius, we can not watch the Full-HD version online on Vimeo without pro account. Let's compare the formats each platform could serve for your Sydney Maker Faire 2014 Announcement (without pro account):

Code: [Select]
$ youtube-dl -F http://vimeo.com/103411683
[vimeo] 103411683: Downloading webpage
[vimeo] 103411683: Extracting information
[vimeo] 103411683: Downloading webpage
[info] Available formats for 103411683:
format code extension resolution  note 
h264-mobile mp4       480x270     (worst)
h264-sd     mp4       640x360     
h264-hd     mp4       1280x720    (best)

Code: [Select]
$ youtube-dl -F http://youtube.com/watch?v=yGRZmoc02Fs
[youtube] Setting language
[youtube] yGRZmoc02Fs: Downloading webpage
[youtube] yGRZmoc02Fs: Downloading video info webpage
[youtube] yGRZmoc02Fs: Extracting video information
[info] Available formats for yGRZmoc02Fs:
format code extension resolution  note 
140         m4a       audio only  DASH audio , audio@128k (worst)
160         mp4       144p        DASH video , video only
133         mp4       240p        DASH video , video only
134         mp4       360p        DASH video , video only
135         mp4       480p        DASH video , video only
136         mp4       720p        DASH video , video only
137         mp4       1080p       DASH video , video only
17          3gp       176x144     
36          3gp       320x240     
5           flv       400x240     
18          mp4       640x360     
22          mp4       1280x720    (best)

Usually the best quality we can get is 720P on both platforms. The reason Vimeo looks better is because of higher RAW data rate for 720P. Should I post detailed statistics for all formats each platform (Youtube/Vimeo) could serve?

The point is Youtube's 1080P MPEG-DASH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP) implementation is at early stage and not well supported (references available). Conclusion: your high quality 60fps video is down-converted to Youtube/Vimeo internal formats for the viewers (29.97 at max) and your valuable bandwidth is almost wasted (for the time) :(.

edit:
P.S.: Of course it is possible to download original 1GB video from Vimeo for offline watching. However, does anyone actually do that?
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: Lightages on August 14, 2014, 04:21:13 pm
Two things:

The Canon has a problem. When the upper right corner of the shot of the oscilloscope is out of focus and gets better when stopped down to f8, that indicates a misaligned lens, tilted sensor, or both. I would send it back for warranty just on this alone.

The Sony might appear to people to have a better image, and if you were to use the video right from the camera then it might be so. Sony has a love of reds and they look a bit artificial. The Canon shoots "flatter" and allows more latitude in adjusting colours and contrast. Both can be adjusted for better colours so this is not a big concern.

The interchangeable lens on the Sony is a plus, only if you want to spend money on lenses but at least you have choices. The Canon definitely has a misalignment problem and should be returned.
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: Yago on August 14, 2014, 04:33:08 pm
"What would make a lens optimised for video?"

IDK either, I know some Canon vid cameras use EF mount, the same lenses as the DSLR line up.

A shame the Sony was oversaturated, it gave the impression of a noisy image (to me).
Title: Re: Canon HF G30 vs Sony NEX VG30 for blog stuff
Post by: EEVblog on August 15, 2014, 02:28:43 am
Quote from: Lightages on August 14, 2014, 04:21:13 pm
The Canon has a problem. When the upper right corner of the shot of the oscilloscope is out of focus and gets better when stopped down to f8, that indicates a misaligned lens, tilted sensor, or both. I would send it back for warranty just on this alone.

Yes, I'm a bit concerned about this.

Quote
The Sony might appear to people to have a better image, and if you were to use the video right from the camera then it might be so. Sony has a love of reds and they look a bit artificial. The Canon shoots "flatter" and allows more latitude in adjusting colours and contrast. Both can be adjusted for better colours so this is not a big concern.

Of course. But I don't apply any correction to my video images in editing, whatever gets captured on the camera goes into the final video.