22 Replies Latest reply on Aug 4, 2009 10:00 AM by the_wine_snob

    Canon HF 100

    Hal B.

      I use Pinnacle Studio 12 Ultimate and Prem. Elements 7. Much prefer using Adobe. Video is downloaded from the flash card or it can be downloaded from the camera. Same difference. The finished DVD is sharp in appearance when using Pinnacle. It is quite blurry when using Adobe. The preview screen presents a very clear image but the finished DVD is blurry. I have tried 2 different computers and several burners.My main PC uses INTEl Pentium 4 @3.4 GHz. There is 4 GB of RAM and my video card is NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT. Adobe claims it is a camera problem. Can't be. I have tried different capture settings to no avail. Help!

        • 1. Re: Canon HF 100
          Kodebuster Level 3

          Does this Canon output to .mts ???


          If it does, I don't think PE handles this format very well (or at all)...

          • 2. Re: Canon HF 100
            Steve Grisetti Adobe Community Professional

            I believe that's AVCHD footage, so you'll need to download into a Premiere Elements project that is set up with that project preset?


            Is that what you're doing? Are you using Premiere Elements to get the video into your computer?


            Though, as Kodebuster says, this is one of those camcorder models that's known to produce challenging files.

            • 3. Re: Canon HF 100
              Hal B. Level 1

              Yes it does. That seems to be the case.


              Hal B

              • 4. Re: Canon HF 100
                Hal B. Level 1

                I have tried all the presets including AVCHD. I am using PE to get the files from the camera and they are .mts What is surprising is that the preview screen is very clear so I would expect the rendered video to be clear as well. Could it be a codec issue? And thanks for your response.

                Hal Bedhtel

                • 5. Re: Canon HF 100
                  Kodebuster Level 3

                  Not to depress you (more than you are) I think this thread sums it up.




                  If the CS Series from Adobe has issues with .mts, there's probably little hope for PE.


                  Good Luck...

                  • 6. Re: Canon HF 100
                    Paul_LS Level 4

                    I have used HF100 footage without issue... what exactly is your workflow.

                    • 7. Re: Canon HF 100
                      Hal B. Level 1

                      I download the video from the card to a file I labeled .mts. I then use the downloader function in PE to get the file. I then edit, render and burn using a standard DVD. I have used the SP, XP+ and FXP on the camera when recording. I have tried everything from Full HD 1080i 30 to  HD 1080i 30 5.1 channel. What settings do you use on your camera and presets in PE? If you are getting good DVDs then I must assume I am in error some where. But not sure where. THe finished product just comes out blurry. Looking closely it seems like the scanner lines are quite far apart. I have tried it on 2 different tvs with the same result. Thank you for your response.

                      Hal Bechtel

                      • 8. Re: Canon HF 100
                        Paul_LS Level 4

                        Hi Hal,

                        I am in the UK so work with PAL. I have used the Full HD 1080i 25 and HD 1080i 25 project presets to match the video clip properties. I generally use a high definition work flow from import to export so have not burnt a standard definition DVD. However I have exported to standard definition MPEG2, (same format as when burning to DVD) and have seen no blurryness. That said, obviously when compared to the original high definition video it does look a little burry and not so sharp but this is to be expected. For standard definition video it looks good.

                        The blurryness you see, is it just a general blurry video or does it happen when there is movement in the scene or when the camera pans?

                        • 9. Re: Canon HF 100
                          Hal B. Level 1

                          The video is generally blurry. What is puzzling is that it works ok with Pinnacle. I can use Pinnacle but much prefer Adobe. I have used Adobe for several years with a mini dv camcorder with good results. But tape recorders wear out in time. THat's why I bought a camea using a flash card.

                          Thanks for replying.

                          Hal Bechtel

                          • 10. Re: Canon HF 100
                            Paul_LS Level 4

                            By the way how long is your project. For best quality you need to keep the project to around an hour for best quality when burnt to DVD.

                            • 11. Re: Canon HF 100
                              Hal B. Level 1

                              I record the Pastor's message at church each week, then edit and burn a DVD.

                              The  time is about 20-25 minutes. He's a methodist preacher. If he were

                              Baptist, an hour wouldn't be long enough! Hope you're not a Baptist preacher


                              • 12. Re: Canon HF 100
                                Paul_LS Level 4


                                • 13. Re: Canon HF 100
                                  paulgoelz Level 1

                                  Hi, I'd like to join this thread if I may.  I too have an HF100 and am trying to burn a standard DVD from the HD camera assets.  And I too am not happy with the results.  Like the OP, I judge the resulting 640 X 480 DVD files to be much softer than they should be for 640X480.  I am using PE7 and have not tried Pinnacle.  


                                  For comparison, I have footage shot with my Canon S5-IS.  Its native resolution in video is 640 X 480 and it looks very sharp and clear even when viewed fullscreen on my 1440 X 900 monitor.  By contrast, while the HF100 camera originals look very good, the VOB files from a DVD render look VERY soft.  Viewed on a widescreen TV they look a lot worse than I think they should.


                                  I have tried both HDV and AVCHD presets for the project and I have rendered to NTSC and NTSC widescreen.  They all look about the same.


                                  I have uploaded two short examples to my web site.


                                  Go here:




                                  The m2t file is a render to a 1920 X 1080 mpeg and looks very similar to the h.264 camera original.  The mpeg file is not strictly speaking a DVD render but it was rendered using the DVD preset and its appearance is very similar to what I see on a rendered DVD.


                                  Am I being too picky?  I don't think so.  True unadulterated 640 X 480 camera original footage from my S5 looks WAY better than the mpeg.



                                  • 14. Re: Canon HF 100
                                    Paul_LS Level 4

                                    And NTSC widescreen is no better?

                                    • 15. Re: Canon HF 100
                                      paulgoelz Level 1

                                      'Fraid not.  The first time I rendered the project it was as NTSC widescreen.  There were some pretty obvious compression artifacts when viewed on a TV or on a PC so I then tried rendering as NTSC 4:3.  It looked smoother and most if not all of the compression artifacts were gone but it was still very soft. I then switched to using the AVCHD preset instead of HDV and that made no difference whatsoever.  Note that there is a slide show in this project composed of hundreds of non-resized 8 and 10 MP images (ie., the assets are the camera originals and were not not resized prior to bring them in) and THEY look terrific in the same render.


                                      This morning I downloaded Sony Vegas and gave it a try.  The rendered DVD result was noticeably better than anything I have seen from Premiere but still not what I would call equivalent to a native 640 X 480 camera original.  And no, I don't think I am subconsciously expecting the same level of sharpness that I get on the HD originals.  When I view a 640 X 480 shot from my Canon S5 full screen in Media Player compared to a DVD render from PE7 at the same display size, it is like cleaning the window after a year's worth of grime.


                                      If you look at my samples you'll see what I mean.  They look to me like the program used a very low bitrate for encoding in spite of the fact that it SAID it was using 8Mb/S.  I have not yet looked at the file with something like G-Spot to see if I can determine the bitrate it REALLY used.  It is either that, or the deinterlace algorithm is really awful.


                                      To the original poster..... did you ever resolve your issue and get acceptable renders from PE7?


                                      I think I'll call Adobe tonight and see if I am missing anything.  And then I'll play with Vegas and see if it does what I want it to do.  I would really love to stick with Adobe but I have to say that my experience so far with PE3 and PE7 is "it's always something".  Switching to Vista 64 bit has solved all of the quirkyness, but in the final analysis if the DVD output looks like cr@p, what's the point?



                                      • 16. Re: Canon HF 100
                                        Hal B. Level 1

                                        No. I have not had any success with Elements 7 using the HF 100. I am going to use Pinnicle 12 Iltra since the picture quality is much better. It does not have the softness you described. Pinnicle does not have the features that Elements 7 has and it is slower in rendering but it works.


                                        • 17. Re: Canon HF 100
                                          Hal B. Level 1


                                          • 18. Re: Canon HF 100
                                            paulgoelz Level 1

                                            I tried calling Adobe this AM but they refused to help me without a serial number.  Since I was at work, I could not provide it.  So I'll have another go this evening when I can read it off to them and see if they can shed any light on the issue.  If not, I think that's it for Adobe, sad to say.  All my former frustrations were resolved by switching to a 64 bit OS.  But in the final result, if the product can't render decent video it is of no use at all. At least not now in this transitionary period where we shoot in HD but need to render a version to SD until there are more HD players around.


                                            I HAVE to think we're missing something here.  Especially since the slide show rendered to DVD perfectly with no quality issues at all.  But then again, I suspect the "power users" here are not yet using HD assets and have yet to run into quality issues rendering HD originals to SD DVD.

                                            • 19. Re: Canon HF 100
                                              paulgoelz Level 1

                                              Well, I called Adobe again with my serial number when I got home this evening.  Spent an hour and a half on hold (thank goodness for my speakerphone) and finally gave up and hung up.


                                              While on hold, I rebuilt the project in Vegas as an experiment.  The resulting render to NTSC DVD from HD originals looks WAY better than the same in PE7.  I'd just bag it and switch to Vegas at this point but the DVD authoring side apparently cannot do Bluray menus and is a trip and a half to learn.  But once learned, it seems VERY powerful.


                                              Since there have not been any answers here, I have to assume it is what it is and I am not missing anything.  Renders from HD material to DVD standard just look..... bad.  Soft.  Like 320 X 240 upsampled to 640 X 480.  In fact, I can come close to duplicating the look in Vegas by selecting the 320 X 240 preview mode (which changes the resolution without changing the actual display size).


                                              I have a hunch it has something to do with deinterlacing, but that is just a hunch.  Since I have no control over anything when I render to DVD, I can't troubleshoot it.



                                              • 20. Re: Canon HF 100
                                                the_wine_snob Level 9



                                                Many have complained about Pr's down-rezing from HD to SD, mainly in the PrPro fora. If Vegas does a good job for you, then it is probably the tool to use. As for the authoring phase, you might want to look into Sony's DVD Architect. It get's really high marks, and Steve Grisetti has even written a book on it. Note: while I edit in PrPro, all of my authoring is done in Adobe Encore for the power and control. As it's no longer available as a stand-alone program, I would go with the Sony product for that phase of production.


                                                For a workflow to get you the ultimate HD to SD output, Dan Isaac's ARTICLE is probably the best. He lists the tools required (all freeware, IIRC), and the exact steps. He even furnishes scripts to automate much of the process. It is not the most simple way to go, but hey, if you want the best method, this is definitely it. Ultimate quality is seldom just a click away.


                                                Good luck,



                                                • 21. Re: Canon HF 100
                                                  paulgoelz Level 1

                                                  Thanks, that simplifies things for me.  I've been struggling to get to someone at Adobe to double check my workflow (a pretty simple one, actually) but if this is a confirmed issue maybe I'll just give up for now.  I am really bummed though.  After all the struggles and frustrations with PE3 and now PE7 on XP, I have it humming perfectly on Vista 64 bit.  Only to find that the end result looks like I shot it on my cellphone.  I have always preferred PE over the competition from a UI standpoint but if it won't produce decent results........


                                                  I found Vegas to be fairly simple to use and it can do what I need it to do.  Took me about four hours to completely rebuild my project, including learning the software.  It gives me much more control over the rendering process than PE7 too.  Architect was another matter.  It is so powerful that I am finding it a bit of a learning curve.  But I appreciate the potential once I learn it, and the PQ rendered to DVD from 1080i is an order of magnitude better than I get from PE7 so I will probably stay with it.  I just wish it did BD menus.



                                                  • 22. Re: Canon HF 100
                                                    the_wine_snob Level 9



                                                    Many like the editing experience in PrE more than some other NLE's. What I'd look into doing is Exporting in HD from PrE after you have done the editing, in a format/CODEC that Vegas can use, and doing the down-rez there. It would be like Dan Isaacs' workflow, except that you'd substitute Vegas, for his steps with AVISynth, et al. I do similar, though at the front-end of some Projects. I'll use other NLE's to initially handle some problem Assets and then do the real editing in PrPro.


                                                    One of the main reasons that I got PrE was to do a better job with some Assets. Though I convert almost everything to DV-AVI Type II files, before Import, there can still be some issues (correct Duration is one that I have encountered). PrE gets that Duration correct, and I just Export that DV-AVI Type II out, and Import it into PrPro. Same format, same CODEC, and everything else looks exactly the same, except that now, PrPro gets it right. PrE does something to "fix" those problem files! Remember, I'm working with SD material only, so I do not have to deal with some of the issues of HD - yet.


                                                    Personally, I like the editing experience in PrPro so much, that while I could use any number of other NLE's on my system, I'd rather not, except as is needed. As I said in another thread, there is no "shame" in using the proper tool for the job at hand.


                                                    Also, good to know that Vegas does a better job at down-rezing. That is one NLE that I do not have, and have never used. Still, I have now tucked that info away, for when I do go to HD. Thanks.


                                                    Good luck,




                                                    PS I do not know why PrE and PrPro do not do a better job of the down-rezing, but many have confirmed just what you observed - it ain't as good as it can be. Maybe in PrE8 and PrPro CS5, things will get better?