The $6.99 HD Quick Look plugin by shedworx.com allows a thumbnail preview of the first frame of .MTS AVCHD files in the OS X Finder.
They also offer VoltaicHD which allows conversion of standalone .MTS files to other QuickTime video formats without the need for the entire AVCHD file structure.
Copy and paste the green text below into a plain text editor
scriptid "Red Sawtooth Fix" //DO NOT LOCALIZE
filter "Red Sawtooth Fix";
group "HF100 Fixes";
// Blurs the V channel in YUV a little bit
InformationFlag("YUVaware")
code
float colorSpace;
colorSpace = kFormatYUV219;
BlurChannel(src1, dest, 0/renderres, 1, 0, 0, 0, aspectof(dest));
BlurChannel(src1, dest, 0/renderres, 0, 1, 0, 0, aspectof(dest));
BlurChannel(src1, dest, 0/renderres, 0, 0, 1, 0, aspectof(dest));
BlurChannel(src1, dest, 1/renderres, 0, 0, 0, 1, aspectof(dest));
Save the text file as Red Sawtooth Fix.txt in
/Library/Application Support/Final Cut Support/Plugins if you use Final Cut Express or
/Library/Application Support/Final Cut Pro System Support/Plugins if you use Final Cut Pro
Restart Final Cut Pro or Express and look for the filter in the "HF100 Fixes" folder under the Video Filters menu
Apply the filter to any HF100 clip with red color in it and enjoy smoother reds.
I think I got it. There's no need to switch to interlaced recording for better image quality. I somehow understood Adam Wilts review (see previous post) as if the HF11 records better images in interlaced mode. But that was a misinterpretation. What Adam Wilt says is: if you compare progressive recordings of the HF11 to real progressive recordings of a professional camcorder the HF11/10/100 looks less good because of the sawtooth artefacts shown above. A real progressive recording camcorder will not show these artefacts. If he compares interlaced recordings of both camcorders the difference is very small though.
The 1:1 details shown above come from a slowly moving HF100. The progressive recording shows these red sawtooth artefacts because of the interlaced color coding. But the interlaced recording also shows these artefacts plus the typical interlace combs. So if you need progressive frames shoot in PF25 mode and live with the artefacts. I'm glad I don't have to deal with all this annoying deinterlacing stuff.
I don't understand how this interlaced 4:2:0 color coding stuff works but at least now I see the disadvantage of progressive frames recorded in an interlaced format .
Here's an Wikipedia article on chroma subsampling
The HF11 has a bit rate of 24 mbits/s, otherwise it's identical to the HF10 and if you forget the internal storage its also identical to the HF100. I just found this review of the HF11 "NTSC" model by Adam Wilt. Its a very interesting read and it becomes quickly clear that this man is a professional who uncovers details I haven't found anywhere else.
One interesting thing is that Mr. Wilt prefers the interlaced recording quality over the progressive one because of the interlaced 4:2:0 color encoding. Take a look at the hummingbird’s head shot on page two of the review. I've seen those red sawthooths in my progressive recordings but couldn't explain why they are there. Now I know.
I think I'm going to take a second look at recording interlaced with my HF100. I knew it doesn't record real progressive frames but I was not aware of the interlaced color encoding.
Update: There's no need to record interlaced if you don't want to. See my next post.