As for interlacing, it’s stupid, but they do it. Many AVCHD cameras still record interlaced.

In regards to FAT limitations, FAT32 limits file size to 4GB, not 2GB, I don’t see why Canon limited high-def files to 2GB, that is about 15-17 minutes, while JVC uses 4GB files for standard-def, which yields to one hour of video in one file. Anyway, isn’t FAT32 accepted by SD/SDHC standard as a filesystem of choice? In this case I don’t see how the filesize issue could be resolved unless yet another revision of SD card standard is developed.

Writing interlaced video into a file when shooting in 25p/30p and especially in 24p is utter idiocy. They are just files, there are no devices that these files have to be compatible with, like HDV decks or something.

That’s true, but the problem is that I really do want high end video. There have been small cams for a long time, but I’ve been waiting for high end consumer cams to get into this size range. I have some ideas I would like to develop that involve mixing some backcountry footage with other footage, but I would like to keep the quality consistently high. It would probably be pretty noticeable if I mixed footage from a cam like the Kodak with an HV20.

Actually, the HV20 is borderline workable for me. It is a lot smaller and lighter than the high end cams of just a few years ago and that’s why I had decided to get one, but the HF10/100 is yet another step in that direction, plus the added benefit of flash media. There would be some sacrifices, however, like the lack of a viewfinder.

I think that statement is valid under most circumstances - in most cases there’s no reason to choose an HF10 over the HV20. The reason I’m considering the HF10 stems from the fact that I do a lot of backcountry travel (backpacking and skiing) and I would like a camcorder that is well suited well for that use. High end camcorders are finally achieving sizes, weights, and media types that make this practical without carrying 5-6 pounds of bulky equipment.

The HF10 has some characteristics that are better suited for this use. In addition to being smaller and lighter, there are some definite advantages of Flash over tape for extended outdoor use. For example several years ago, one of the times that I took my current DV cam on a hiking trip, a wind gust that carried some dust occurred while I was changing a tape. I had made sure I was in a relatively protected area and I stopped and ran a cleaning tape after the gust, my drop-out rate went up considerably for a while (it did return to almost zero after a half-hour or so of shooting).

Of course, the HV20 has some advantages too. A viewfinder can be really nice in some outdoor shooting conditions, and the HV20 has more features in other areas. Plus the HV20 does still have a slight edge in video quality. Still not 100% sure which way I will go.

It is still PNG pictures from the owner’s FCP.

>Darn, I’m a bit torn now.

If you need a camera NOW, get the HV20. It still has an edge. If you need a camera in 1-2 years, get a Canon AVCHD one.

An HF10 review is here btw.

From the small clip you posted, it looks like the differences, although detectable, have really gotten quite small.

Darn, I’m a bit torn now. I was all ready to get an HV20, but with the video quality gap narrowing so much, it’s a tougher decision. Now I have to weigh some of the other relative advantages and disadvantages, and there are some things that go in favor of the HF10/100 for some of the things I want to do (as well as the other way around too).

BTW, in a year or two when we’re all burning Blu-ray discs, do you know if the blu-ray spec allows for full 1920×1080 video, or will we all have to downsample to 1440 anamorphic anyway?

1080i means 60 interlaced fields (1440×540) per second (or sometimes called 30p).

1080 is the vertical resolution, while 1440 is the horizontal resolution. The HV20 does 1440 horizontally, what it does not is 1080 vertically for each interlaced field.