Canon XL H1

[Jim Martin]

In case anyone wants to see the new camera, go to Canon's web site and get all the specs...like built in HD SDI !!!!

[skettalee]

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=165&modelid=12152

Looks pretty nice!

[AshG]

I still dont think the current batch of 1/3"CCD HD cams are anything but bridge tech. Unless P2 cards get huge and cheap there is no really easy field solution. HD SDI is fine if you can dump it to a deck or right into you computer. Looks nice, they jury will be waiting to judge the 24F mode....




ash =o)

[avery]

why the hell didnt they just make the 20x HD lens for the XL2, i just frickin bought an xl2 and now they come out with this, can you buy the lens seperately?????? you better be able to. would you rather get a micro35 or an 20x HD lens?

[avery]

why the hell didnt they just make the 20x HD lens for the XL2, i just frickin bought an xl2 and now they come out with this, can you buy the lens seperately?????? you better be able to. would you rather get a micro35 or an 20x HD lens?

[AshG]

I am not sure what your point is... attaching this lens to an XL2 wouldnt gain much, if any, benefit. Let's see how the specs pan out...


ash =o)

[mmm]

The 20x HD lens is probably a big chunk in making this camera $9K. It would be a waste of money to put it on an XL2.

[avery]

so then how is the XL H1 better than the XL2?

[avery]

its exactly the same, same frame rates, 20x lens, i dont know what the HD does to improve anything so...i dont know....

[Shane Realm]

why the hell didnt they just make the 20x HD lens for the XL2, i just frickin bought an xl2 and now they come out with this, can you buy the lens seperately?????? you better be able to. would you rather get a micro35 or an 20x HD lens?

AVERY, relax and go film. xl2 is a great camera, if your asking those questions, micro35 vs 20x hd lens my feeling is your letting technology get ahead of you. you can make a beautiful award winning film on any camera.

[mmm]

Avery, the XLH1 is a whole new camera, it just looks similar.

It records in High Definition, the XL2 does not, that is the main difference. It is also twice the price of the XL2!! The CCD's are new, the lens is new, in fact all the internals are new, only the general XL shape is the same.

Don't worry, this announcement doesn't make your camera any less capable, and the XL2 is still going to continue as a current SD model.

Like Shane says, you've got a camera easily capable of making a damn good film.

[avery]

k well i just wanna know what is the difference between these two cameras, does the XL H1 have a better picture than the XL2? im not getting paranoid about getting the new camera, i just want to know whats going on with this new one, i am fine with my XL2

[avery]

you say it "Records in High Definition" but what the hell is that?

[bikefilms]

On why an HD lens matters:

The crew on the motion picture "28 Days Later" used HD lenses on the XL1, for greater clarity.

This new Canon seems to be a useable HDV option due to the new, sharper lens. But then again, we'll have to see how bad the contrast range is. All the HDV cams I have tested have had really, really bad contrast ranges. Like 400$ miniDV cam "bad".

-a

[Sean Michael]

This camera looks impressive. It's an interesting choice vis-a-vis the HVX.

It looks like Canon is still eschewing an LCD screen (advantage HVX).

But it supports HDV (advantage XLH1 . . . IMHO :)).

[Digigenic]

The crew on the motion picture "28 Days Later" used HD lenses on the XL1, for greater clarity
I don't think they used any lenses that originated in the digital context; last I recall reading from Anthony Dod Mantle who DP'd the film, they used an XL to 35mm Lens adapter (not mini35, just a direct adapter mount/adapter/lens) and strickly stuck to 35mm motion picture lenses throughout the entire shoot.

[Shaw]

They used 35mm lenses for the "look and feel" that high end glass gives (it varies depending on who makes the lens etc).

There was no resolution gain though almost certainly better contrast.

[Haakon]

AVERY, relax and go film. xl2 is a great camera, if your asking those questions, micro35 vs 20x hd lens my feeling is your letting technology get ahead of you. you can make a beautiful award winning film on any camera.
Actually, Shane, that's not exactly true. According to the FX-1 manual, page 91...

http://www.showchoir.com/haakon/cannot.jpg

[philnerd]

Actually, Shane, that's not exactly true. According to the FX-1 manual, page 91...


Ok, I don't post too often, but I gotta tell ya its been a rough week and that had me laughing out loud. Thanks.

[J.R. Hudson]

What the hell is 24F ?

[Digigenic]

Actually, Shane, that's not exactly true. According to the FX-1 manual, page 91...

http://www.showchoir.com/haakon/cannot.jpg
LOL!
Sony's actually giving it to us straight!?

[Jack_Felis]

Uummm.... I don't know either John, maybe "24 Frames"? "Only 24 of these F**k ups sold"? " Just 24 Fields of resolution due to HDV"? "24 thingies For those Filmmaker guys"? I don't know...:thumbdown








To all, I'm just kidding. This camera looks pretty nice:thumbsup: (as long as it kills the Sony and beats the JVC with initial sales), but as a filmmaker, I'm still going for the HVX just for the whole uncompressed thing and because it's cheaper, somewhat. I'm going laptop and external laptop HDD's route, so $0 for the laptop I've already got + $6k for the camera itself + $400 for two 100gb drives + $40 for external enclosures + either $2500 for AVID HD or $1300 for FCP Studio and that comes around to about $9k for everything including hidden costs. This is all for next year during June, my birthday, so I've got a wait and prices for the things listed should fall by then.:grin:

[mmm]

John,

They claim 24f will look just like 24p... Thinking about it, 24p isn't the original goal anyway, 24fps film is, so they are both imitations, hopefully of equal quality.

My guess is that they could be sampling both fields at once to produce the look from an interlaced CCD... anyone know if that is possible.

[Walter_Graff]

This camera does REAL 24P. It's called 24F because it captures 24 Frames in the CCD. THIS IS NOT HOW THE SONY CAMERA DOES ITS CINEFRAME. When you switch you actually switch how the CCD captures. And it's 1440x1080 and not 960x1080. With an uncompressed 4:2:2 1.485gbps HD-SDI output, and SD capture and SD-SDI output, along with internal recorder this camera offers the best of both worlds. And it also does component output and firewire. The options are great because you don't need additional equipment to capture the signals. In my book this camera just knocked the HVX off it's pedestal. I will seriously consider this camera as my next purchase.

[David Jimerson]

What pedestal was the HVX *on* for you, Walter?

[Walter_Graff]

Since they introduced the HVX everyone has been talking about it as if it's the next coming. I never thought it was. It's an expensive camera head with a format that is iffy at best. The Canon camera offers the best of both worlds, both output and record ability in both HD and SD without anything more and on formats that make it VERY cheap to record. It offers many forms of output that allow one endless options. The fact that it has genlock and TC is huge for folks like me. The changeable lens option makes a 1/3" chip so much more. If it's a matter of what is more professional in terms of how both work and how they communicate with the world, this camera is the winner.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Masked-Engineer/f_Orazio-06.22.05.shtml

[David Jimerson]

OK. I guess, then, everything about delivery format, HD vs. SD, etc., is out the window now?

[Walter_Graff]

"OK. I guess, then, everything about delivery format, HD vs. SD, etc., is out the window now?"

We always try to use the best formats we can for acquisition. But we can't always so whatever we use we do the best we can. If you are making movies for yourself, while you might feel more pro using HD, the reality is it is not necessarily for many prosumers. this camera offers both SD and HD and that is a nice feature. Basically it makes the XL2 obsolete.

[David Jimerson]

The XL2? Sure. Looks that way.

But dude, there's not much in the HVX-slagging you've been doing which can't also be applied to this new guy. I mean, have you had your hands on one? Isn't this "blind faith" on your part?

[Walter_Graff]

that's what I wanted you to say, hence why the link. First off, I am never gung ho about a 1/3" camera. In my world 2/3 is the norm. BUt since I destroyed my DVX I have been looking for something to replace it as I occasionally am asked to do things with 1/3 inch cameras. The DVX never impressed me with P2. Nice head but I want tape not chip. The Canon did that for me. I have always said that any camera in the same price range will give you the same quality picture and after that it's about features. Hence why all DV cameras in the same range are really the same camera give or take a squint of a picture difference. That said I have to look at features. The Canon has pro outputs and connects to other cameras easily. The Canon has replaceable lenses. The canon has the ability to record tape in more than SD mode. ANd since I always thought the XL1 was more pro and looked a bit better picture wise than all the others in it's class, it seems to me from the specs that this camera will give me the same feeling. Blind faith is ordering a camera before it is invented. I'm simply going to give it a test drive based on it's specs and on Canons reputation. That's not blind faith, but simply excitement that it has so many features a pro like me looks for in a camera. THe P2 is nice but it never gave me that feeling.

[coolguy007]

So does anyone know when this camera is going to be released and what it is going to be priced?

[Spiff_2]

November 2005, and MSRP is $8999.

-Spiff

[Shane Realm]

Actually, Shane, that's not exactly true. According to the FX-1 manual, page 91...

http://www.showchoir.com/haakon/cannot.jpg


hahah..

[J.R. Hudson]

Walter

You've been hard trolling the HVX lately. :lipsrseal :undecided

I find it strange considering no one has seen it. Who cares if its being touted as the second coming of DV GOD. The DVX100 blew the lid off DV (Forget about cameras in a certain price point being relatively equal).

There are some huge expectations with the HVX and if they don't live up to it you can be damn sure the very same people that are pimping it today are going slam it tomorrow; and that includes me and Barry and David and Jarred leading the charge with our DVX Flag :laugh:

My experience with Canon (Reputation) is that they pulled-up short and did the lay-up when they should have slammed it home with the XL2. They easily could have went for the birdie on this one but instead took par (Okay enough sports analogies)

Maybe we are in two different worlds? I am thinking purely for indiependent filmmaking and not corporate or broadcast work. :undecided

I don't know anything about 24F but 24CF blows and I sure hope it isn't anything like that. :shocked:

[Walter_Graff]

"You've been hard trolling the HVX lately"

John I have made it clear form day one that I think the HVx will be a failure, no latley there.

"I find it strange considering no one has seen it. Who cares if its being touted as the second coming of DV GOD. The DVX100 blew the lid off DV (Forget about cameras in a certain price point being relatively equal)."

Depends on who you ask. DVX's sell but so do Sony's and Canons. Blew the lid? It offered 24p which paid off but I don't think it was a grand slam home run as I speak to some of the largest distributers of these cameras who tell me what the sell.

"My experience with Canon (Reputation) is that they pulled-up short and did the lay-up when they should have slammed it home with the XL2. They easily could have went for the birdie on this one but instead took par"

I think it falls in line with Canon who has always gone for par.

"Maybe we are in two different worlds? I am thinking purely for indiependent filmmaking and not corporate or broadcast work."

Just saw an article in local NY paper today about a new film source being offered for poor kids. On the cover are seven kids with XL2s. Canon has not lost its reputation as the premier independent camera. There is room for everyone but there is more than Panasonic selling out there. That includes Sony too. It's one thing to offer a board for Canon in a Panasonic centric website, and another to let folks freely discuss the good and bad of it.


"I don't know anything about 24F but 24CF blows"

24Cf is a joke but then again what can one expect in a prosumer camera. Sony made a mistake with it. 24f is the same as progressive so you will not see any difference.


PS Your disk went out Tuesday. You should get it today.

[Mediacre]

Blind faith is ordering a camera before it is invented.


So true. I'm sure there are people who already pre-ordered the HVX200, even before it existed. The first working camera was only shown a couple of days ago, and you could not even touch it..
At least the Canon HDV was already real the day it was introduced, and ships 2 months after that. That doesn't seem like blind faith to me.

Now the Canon looks fine, but I think it's a little too expensive for a 1/3" camera. It looks better than the HVX200, besides the variable frame rates. The SDI feature is really something.

[J.R. Hudson]

---- Great ON Disc; waiting eagerly! :beer:

I suppose it depends on what market niche is being reported? I can readily admit that most videographers, weddingographers and similialr fileds are not using the 24p DVX100. I still have to stand firm in regards to the indiependent film market (Indie DV Film anyway) that the DVX is the leading contender.... :huh: :happy:

Regarding those children with XL2's... Damn, that's like teaching a kid to hit with an aluminum bat. (See how my sports analogies keep coming? :grin: )

Discuss whatever you wan't by all means! I personally think (hope) the HVX wil be the mother queen bee. Time will tell.....

[David Jimerson]

So true. I'm sure there are people who already pre-ordered the HVX200, even before it existed. The first working camera was only shown a couple of days ago, and you could not even touch it..
At least the Canon HDV was already real the day it was introduced, and ships 2 months after that. That doesn't seem like blind faith to me.

Now the Canon looks fine, but I think it's a little too expensive for a 1/3" camera. It looks better than the HVX200, besides the variable frame rates. The SDI feature is really something.

It would have been blind faith if Panasonic had never offered a camera with any of those features before. But they have; they got it right with the Varicam, and they got it SO right with the DVX. The HVX is a marriage between the two. Optimism is warranted.

You can make the same assumptions of the Canon, but they are only that -- assumptions. Walter is speaking like an authority on 24F, proclaiming that it's exactly the same as 24p, without having seen it. This isn't blind faith? Maybe it is the same. Maybe it's better. We don't know -- but if you want to look at Canon's track record, well, they didn't get 24p quite right with PROGRESSIVE chips, so doing it with interlaced chips? Yeah, that requires a leap of faith.

The point is, it's perfectly fine to say that pimping the HVX before it's released is foolhardy. Would not SLAGGING it, then, be just as foolhardy?

Would not pimping the XL H1 ALSO be foolhardy before hands-on experience?

Those who would have such a double-standard might do well to re-examine their motives.

I have no intention to buy an HD cam until next spring. I will be trying out all of them as they become available. I'm excited about the HVX because it shows the promise of being an HD DVX and much more. If it doesn't pan out, it's not going to be a blow to my personal identity.

[MattC]

but if you want to look at Canon's track record, well, they didn't get 24p quite right with PROGRESSIVE chips, so doing it with interlaced chips? Yeah, that requires a leap of faith.

David, you have me at a loss here? What do you mean by this?

[David Jimerson]

Meaning that to me (and I'm not alone in thinking this), the XL2's 24p always looked more video-ish than the DVX's.

[MattC]

There it is - the BS answer I knew you were going to give. Well at least you never fail to disappoint Dave...

How you can say this in good faith however is beyond me... Even Barry Green says it's identical. I mean there are a ton of real differences between the cameras you could critisize, why make stuff up??? If Barry ran the tests and said, "Hey, it's different, here's why, deal with it" I would just say ok, it's not the same and move on. Either keep working that way or get a different camera. But to constantly beat a dead horse over something that is provably wrong, is beyond me. This is what folks mean when they call you a "fanboy".... LOL!

:)

[Tibby]

Ugh...this is such a beaten horse already. XL2's 24p does look like film It just looks like badly exposed film, well what I mean is that it is kind of washed out and flat. You can get the same effect from shooting on film. Yes, the DVX has the gamma curves, looks great, I know, but throw some film in a camera and go shoot something it will probably look closer to what the XL2 produces. I've seen plenty of flat looking film footage, thats what CC is for. It only looks "video-ish" to some because most are spoiled by the DVX.

You're not gonna get that contrast and saturation that the DVX has out of the box from film without some tweaks.

[J.R. Hudson]

Correct me if I'm wrong (Jeez this topic keeps coming backl to haunt us!)

I believe David specifically ment the mysterious MOJO of the DVX 24p / Canon 24p comparison. It must be in the Gamma Curve; I do not and never will know.

I have always said (based on fact fiction or fun) that something is amiss with the cadence and I dont know what it is.

IMHO .02

(One day Matt and I'll throw some darts and pints back and wax poetic the DVX/XL2 comparison) :beer: :cheesy: :grin:

[David Jimerson]

There it is - the BS answer I knew you were going to give. Well at least you never fail to disappoint Dave...

How you can say this in good faith however is beyond me... Even Barry Green says it's identical. I mean there are a ton of real differences between the cameras you could critisize, why make stuff up??? If Barry ran the tests and said, "Hey, it's different, here's why, deal with it" I would just say ok, it's not the same and move on. Either keep working that way or get a different camera. But to constantly beat a dead horse over something that is provably wrong, is beyond me. This is what folks mean when they call you a "fanboy".... LOL!

:)

I think that's a little uncalled for, Matt. I stated my opinion of how the video looks -- I couched it in TERMS of an opinion -- and to me, it looks more video-ish than the DVX.

I see no reason to make appeals to Barry as "proof" of anything, but Barry and Jarred did indeed conclude that the DVX produced a more filmic look than the XL2. But even never having read that, I'm allowed to come to my own conclusion on it, am I not? I am, and I did.

Whether it's gamma curves, matrix, or whatever, in my opinion, the DVX's 24p looks more filmic. If the XL2 looked more filmic, I'd have one by now. That's my #1, by far, interest in any camera. You give me a better look, and I'll buy the camera. If I were so wrapped up in being a "fanboy," I wouldn't even be considering leaving the DVX at all, would I? I'm sure you'll also say I'm a Vegas "fanboy," but even with that, if I decide to go with the HVX and Vegas can't handle DVCPRO-HD, well, then, Vegas will be left behind in favor of something that can. I buy and use what I have because for me, it's the best choice for doing what I want, and for no other reason.

Besides, that wasn't even my point in this thread. :beer: My point was about hyping -- or slagging -- a camera based on nothing more than a spec sheet, and why it's OK to do it (either) for one and not another. I certainly have no intentions of conducting or prolonging a DVX/XL2 debate, because it's not even remotely relevant anymore.

[J.R. Hudson]

I certainly have no intentions of conducting or prolonging a DVX/XL2 debate, because it's not even remotely relevant anymore.

That's because the DVX won along time ago.





:cheesy: :cheesy: :beer: :grin: :grin: Muahahhahhahaahahahah! (Dr Evil Laugh)

[Jeremy Ordan]

Last night before I got into bed I told my girlfriend that Canon had announced a new HDV camera and that there is going to be this massive camera war that hasn't been seen since the XL2 was announced. She yawned and rolled over to go to sleep, clearly either uninterested in what I was saying or lacking the faith that I could see the future...

[J.R. Hudson]

Lmao!!!

[mmm]

Last night before I got into bed I told my girlfriend that Canon had announced a new HDV camera and that there is going to be this massive camera war that hasn't been seen since the XL2 was announced. She yawned and rolled over to go to sleep, clearly either uninterested in what I was saying or lacking the faith that I could see the future...

Women...they just don't get our shit do they!

Panasonic should clone that part of Jan's brain for implanting into girlfriend's heads...

...actually maybe delete some of the data, it would be horrible if they knew more than you!

[Jeremy Ordan]

I just can't believe that she didn't find it to be the least bit interesting...

In case anyone else wants to test my psychic skills I am willing to sell my vision for tomorrow's lotto picks... any takers?

[MattC]

David,

Excuse, me but I do get a bit tired of seeing the same tired unsubstantiated arguments from the same folks, just because they like their tool of choice. I don't bash anyones choice of tool, because it is, after all, only a tool. I bring up Barry because he also has his preferences, we all do, however he's also intellectually honest about his arguments. You made a statement that amounted to Canon being unable to deliver true 24fps with progressive chips. This is untrue - period. You call folks on it when they make a bogus claim regarding the DVX or Vegas and I'm calling you on this. I don't really care which camera you like better or which camera you think delivers a more filmic look. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't think EITHER camera really gives a great film look. I have repeatedly recommended folks to purchase a DVX. I have repeatedly stated that if it weren't for my particular needs of large lenses, I might choose a different camera, might not, who knows. But I certainly address the strengths and weaknesses of both platforms. Something I can't recall you ever doing - for anything!

You don't want to continue a tired debate, great, neither do I. But then you might want to watch what you say. I'm sure if I had thrown an off-handed comment out there about Panasonic's build quality resembling that of Fisher Price, you would have said something to me.

Any case, come out East - the beer is on me.

Matt

[Tibby]

MattC,

Come out west, the beer is on me. Any man who will doggedly defend the XL2 on a site called dvxuser.com gets my complete respect.

I honestly like the XL2 alot, I don't need the so called "filmic" look out of the box. I actually prefer to adjust in image post. The XL2 gives you the best image to do so. I find DVX footage a bit harder to color correct than XL2 footage, because of the gamma settings.

[MattC]

Hey, I love it here!! This is my favorite place to hang out on the web and I've made some really good friends here. No biggie.

But, I'll still let you buy the beer...

:beer:

[David Jimerson]

I *am* East. And at what point did I make this about *you* and what you do or don't say about this or that? Not sure why you need to take it so personally.

And when was the last time I said a WORD about the XL2? I think I've made MAYBE five to ten entire posts on the thing, quite some time ago, as in 2004, at which point I lost interest in the subject entirely. I'm pretty sure you're confusing me with someone else.

I never said it wasn't true 24p; I said that in my opinion, it's not quite what I'm looking for. What "substantiation" do you need? I know bloody well that the chips are progressive (lo and behold, it's right my "offending" post!) and that they're sampled 24 times per second, so that's true 24p. But, REGARDLESS, I think it looks more video-ish than the DVX's 24p. You can show that I don't really think that? Good luck.

And in fact, I've said many complimentary things about the XL2, including that it's tres, tres sexy -- and the XL-H1, even sexier, moreso than the DVX, or the kinda stupid-looking HVX. I appreciate the longer zoom and many of the external controls, like the framerate dial, not to mention the multiple audio inputs. All of this, I have said.

But what I don't back down on is that the XL2's implementation of 24p is not to my taste, nor that others agree with me on that. You don't. That's fine. I love the DVX's 24p look, and am not unreasonable for hoping that the HVX has the same look, but in HD. I'm not as fond of the XL2's look, so it might be as reasonable for me to think that I wouldn't like an HD version of it as much as I would a potential HVX.

But guess what? It might not play that way. The XL H1 might just blow the socks off everything else, and if it does, bully for it. But somewhere back at the point at which you took my offhand comment as deeply personal, you lost track of my point for even posting it. It was in the context of a hypothetical, meant to illustrate something else entirely.

And I'm sorry; I have MANY times discussed both the strengths and weaknesses of things being discussed, and I *never* initiate the slagfests. Before you start calling me dishonest, you better have more than a mere statement of OPINION, in the context of OPINION, to "substantiate" it.

[MattC]

Dave, I hope it does play that way, I love the idea of P2 media and would love to have/use an HVX.

When you wrote: "well, they didn't get 24p quite right with PROGRESSIVE chips, so doing it with interlaced chips?" I took that to mean that Canon did not deliver true 24p. Frankly, I can't see any other way to read that. But if you mean "filmlook" fine, that's what you meant and you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I have read many, many posts by you and am often left with the same impression. But you know what, that's the problem with the net, how things get read are not necessarily how they're meant. No worries.

And, to a YANKEE, you are not East - you are South.

LOL!

[Loki]

I can't believe Walter thinks the HVX is toast.... where did that come from.. have I been asleep on the forums lately??

my first thoughts... YAWN... wow.. I couldn't care less about an XL2 that shoots HDV.. oops.. sorry I mean an XL H1....

Canon obviously cares about 24p... if so why not add TRUE 24p... really.. the only thing that is really driving the price up on this camera is the optics... it wouldn't have been rocket science to add in true progressive recording.(And as far as I know, the CCD's have very little to do with the final interlaced format) Doesn't anyone else think "interlaced CCD" is a bit of an oxymoron? Unless these chips are radically different from the information I have read on DSP and CCD's... but anywho.

But I will wait to see some 24F before truly barfing or closing my mouth..

Really.. the only thing I have against the camera is HDV... I hate that codec.... I am sorry.. but people must be insane if they think that a codec like HDV will look the same as a codec that supplies more information. DVCPRO-HD may initially look very similar to HDV in raw format.. but do any sort of image manipulation to it and the codec with more chroma info will hold up far better...

I just hate the interframe compression of the format.. affecting just one frame effects the entire GOP.. and I have seen several stills from HDV where you can easily see where the codec strips it of Information.

Ok I won't rant anymore.. but this isn't too much of an exciting thing... If Canon and panasonic worked together and made a XL line of HD cameras that used P2 Media that would totally rock the world. owell.

back to my hole.

(As a side note my excitment in the HVX has waned significantly since last april.)

as another aside... my first HD production won't be on a crummy HVX... XL H1.. or any other prosumer HD cam... I plan to use an FW900 or Varicam.. budget permitting.. so I don't really think any of these cameras are that great.

[Aaron Koolen]

I don't think HDV would matter to broadcasters would it? I mean, they're a business who always want to save $$, and HDV is cheap entry into HighDef. And now you have 2 options that have a 'pro' ish form factor. With the XLH1 it will have some extra broadcast fancy bits, so they'll be even happier.

I think the days of the XL line being for indie filmmakers is going, if not gone.

If we all had HDSDI captur capability then sure, this would be awesome, but I don't think most of us here have that capability. We are the low budget, all in one filmmaking cam wanting types

[MattC]

Originally posted by Thomas Smet:

People keep talking about how useless the SDI port is because uncompressed HD takes up too much space and bandwidth. Why would you need uncompressed when you could capture to a codec and still have higher than HDV quality?

Take the Decklink products on a Final Cut Pro system. $600.00 for the SDI card.

1. You can capture to DVCPRO HD at only 14 MB/S which any off the shelf hard drive could handle.

2. You could get the bitjazz codec which you can capture to in realtime and the uncompressed file size gets cut roughly in half. In my case it may be even better for bluescreen work where most of the screen stays the same color. This is the only option to get any level of compression but still keep 10bit video on the mac. While you will still need a raid for this you may be able to get by with just a 2 disk raid 0 setup inside of your mac.

3. PhotoJpg can be even higher quality than DVCPROHD and it is full 1920x1080 resolution. The only problem is currently I think you can only capture in realtime at 25% quality which isn't the best. With faster systems however hopefully that will be back up to 75% like it is with SD.

4. Lacie is coming out with an external SATA 2 tower for only $2000.00 that could allow you to capture uncompressed HD. While still not dirt cheap it is a lot cheaper than other HD uncompressed storage.

5. You could always build a raid array with the cheapest smallest hard drives for $50.00 a piece or less to just make a capture drive. 4X 80GB SATA 2 drives = 320 GB for $200.00 It wouldn't fit a lot of video (20-30 minutes) but once you have your FX shots captured you convert them to photojpg at 75%.

I think many users at first would be happy with capturing to DVCPROHD for FX work until they could invest in some large storage system. I personally do not like DVCPROHD for 720p but it's 1080 format is much better. You get almost the same resolution as HDV but 4:2:2 color and much less compression.

On the PC side you could get a Cineform Prospect system although those are not cheap. Once you have it though almost any hard drive would work to capture 1920x1080 at 4:2:2 in 10bits in the Cineform format for I think around 24 MB/S. Or you could do the small cheap capture raid thing listed above and convert to the Cineform codec to make the files smaller and easier to edit.

For those who do want a higher quality capturing method for live FX work remember that even though the XLH1 costs about 3-4 grand more than other current HDV cameras you save 1.5-2.5 grand by not needing an analog to SDI HD converter.

[MattC]

Of course all this said, the HVX looks awfully compelling....

[Sean Michael]

Of I'm sure if I had thrown an off-handed comment out there about Panasonic's build quality resembling that of Fisher Price, you would have said something to me.

The HVX casing is actually being supplied by Tonka. :grin:

[AshG]

I think we should stop fighting about cameras nobody has messed with much less developed a workflow for. Just like the DVX and XL2, each ON PAPER has an advantage in some area.


ash =o)

[Mortimer]

I wonder if carpenters go around arguing about who's hammer builds the better house? If that were the scenario most of us would be homeless...

[Digigenic]

:grin:

[mmm]

I wonder if carpenters go around arguing about who's hammer builds the better house? If that were the scenario most of us would be homeless...

You still use hammers! Get with the times! Power hammers are the in thing!

However, the power cartridges cost around $2000 for 8 minutes of hammering.

[Mortimer]

You still use hammers! Get with the times! Power hammers are the in thing!

However, the power cartridges cost around $2000 for 8 minutes of hammering.

LOL - I am guess I am a little old fashion!!

[MattC]

I use a Porter Cable Air compressor and nail gun. The whole bit of kit with three guns cost $350.

I've been putting in lots of nails....

[mmm]

When did you become a mod MattC?

[Josh_Boelter]

I wonder if carpenters go around arguing about who's hammer builds the better house? If that were the scenario most of us would be homeless...

I've heard carpenters argue about whether to buy Porter Cable or DeWalt. Not nearly to the extent people argue about tools on this board though.

[mikkowilson]

DeWalt.. hands down, any day.

- Mikko

[Zig_Zigman]

I'm holding out for HD hammers, myself...

[Mortimer]

This is getting out of control!! I am going back to my sony digi8 -

[blazingoat]

Lemme get this straight.

1. 24F is the same as 24P? Then why don't they call it 24p? I remember when the sony HDV was announced everyone said "It does 24p" then it turned out be cineframe which is utter crap.

2. This thing is HDV. The only way to record "Un compressed" HD from this camera is to hook it up to a computer with an HD-SDI card? - Can you even do it with a laptop?

3. Everyone agress that HDV is a crap codec compared to DVCPRO HD. I think the HVX + FIRESTORE option is going to blow the pants off a XL H1 that has to be hooked up to a computer. - in terms of image quality AND ease of use.

Also, I don't get what the big fuss about interchangeable lenses for these 1/3 inch cams is. It's just not worth it for the cost, you hardly get any benefit.

But footage is footage. Can't wait to see it from both cams.

just my 2cents

[MattC]

LOL, yes another debate. After many years I've reached the following compromise and think it gives me the best of both worlds. If it spins (router, sander) or uses air, I go Porter Cable. For everything else I go DeWalt.

[Tibby]

My understanding is this: The reason the don't call it 24p is because the chip themselves are interlaced.

On another note... Everyone seems to want to bag on HDV. Yes I know it isn't 100mbps pro hd, but at the end of the day you still have decent HD on a tape. The minute you dump your footage from a Hard Drive or a P2 card to another drive, you are completely at the mercy of that drive. If it fails say good bye to your footage. How much do you really want to spend on hard drives to safely back up that footage?

The Canon XL-H1 is 24p for all intents and purposes. With 24p at a resolution of 1440x1080 and Canon optics, I think the footage will look pretty damn good.

Tape may be dying but until they can get a tapeless storage medium at a reasonable price HDV is gonna be there until tapes last dying breath.

I can't wait to see a film out form footage shot with this or the JVC HD100. I think I will be pleasantly surprised.

[Jim Martin]

Since Canon kinda dropped a bomb....the bomb ... on Wednsday, I have been looking for a quick name to refer to it......XL H1...new XL HD.......H1.....the H bomb....ah! The Hummer....yeah! it's the Hummer.....The Hummer of camcorders.......Whadya all think?????

[b boy]

does anyone know how much it would cost

[glassblowerscat]

Everyone agress that HDV is a crap codec compared to DVCPRO HD.

It's the "compared to" that makes that analysis next door to meaningless.

DV25 is a crap codec "compared to" DigiBeta, but I never saw any of you complaining about the DVX because of that. It does what it's supposed to.

The HVX records in a "crap codec" compared to HDCAM-SR, but that doesn't stop half the people on this board from thinking it will end every production problem they have.

[mmm]

The XL-H1? $9000.

Apparently street prices will stay like that for a while too!!

[Walter_Graff]

The Canon camera is not designed to be a competition to the HVX200. It is designed for a different crowd.

[Barry_Green]

Interesting post, glassblowerscat. And I agree 100%.

Same with Walter: I agree that the XL H1 isn't designed to compete with the HVX -- they're so different in so many ways, each will appeal to a different crowd.

[ggoerl]

I talked about this months ago hoping that canon would make and xl hd. and now boom pow suprise.

[glassblowerscat]

Interesting post, glassblowerscat. And I agree 100%.

Same with Walter: I agree that the XL H1 isn't designed to compete with the HVX -- they're so different in so many ways, each will appeal to a different crowd.

First of all, I must have arrived. Barry Green agrees with me. ;-)

But seriously, I'm right there with Walter: it's all about the target market. It almost seems in some ways that these new HD prosumer cams are not even competing with each other; they're all so different.

Unfortunately for me, not a single one of them meets all of my needs. :( But that's what I get for working in non-profit; my stuff has to be everything for every application.

[mmm]

Unfortunately for me, not a single one of them meets all of my needs. :( But that's what I get for working in non-profit; my stuff has to be everything for every application.

I feel that to, however, none of them fits ANY of my needs, let alone all of them.

It feels like they tried to ram in a P2 drive here, an HD-SDI output there, and never actually had time to make what we wanted.

Although it is not what I need, I think it is Sony who have released the best targeted camera with the Z1. That camera does actually tick a lot of boxes at a good price.

[glassblowerscat]

Some of us may just have to deal with the fact that what we want isn't there . . . yet. HD is still relatively new in the prosumer world, so people like me may just have to wait until the market expands beyond four cameras.

[David Jimerson]

I feel that to, however, none of them fits ANY of my needs, let alone all of them.

It feels like they tried to ram in a P2 drive here, an HD-SDI output there, and never actually had time to make what we wanted.

Although it is not what I need, I think it is Sony who have released the best targeted camera with the Z1. That camera does actually tick a lot of boxes at a good price.

Really? None of them fits ANY of your needs?

What are your needs?

[mmm]

Really? None of them fits ANY of your needs?

What are your needs?

I have special needs... :laugh:

No, but seriously...

There are lots of separate issues with the cameras, battery life and lack of wide angle on the JVC unless you spend loadsa mone; untethered HD record time on the HVX, price with the Canon... and lenses if it is servo; no 25p on the Sony...etc...

Overall, there is no codec that really suits these cameras, that is the main thing. DVCPROHD, in 1080 anyway, causes lots of capture, archive and storage problems for this price point, whereas HDV is lovely and cheap, but won't stand up to multiple generation work in post. I would like to see the $3K - $10K cameras use their own codec... a nice 40, 45 Mbps or so. Give me a little slot on the camera for 2.5" or 1.5" hard drives and a shell for them to sit in for £20 and I can shoot away all day.

The problem to my mind is that market gets hand-me-downs from the 2/3" cameras and components from the consumer cams, and the two don't gel to make the middle ground. I admire what Pany has done with the HVX, as it seems to be built aimed at the market, but the solid state prices aren't ready for P2 yet. I know the Firestore has now been announced, and I am leaning towards that being my solution... but first I feel the solution should be built into the camera, not an addition, and secondly, that means I have to wait until March.... :cry:

[Spiff_2]

mmm...

I'm personally hoping for the opposite of built-in solutions. What I would like to see, at least in the prosumer market, is a revolution towards the notion of camera heads all with Dual-Link HD-SDI out going to solid-state, hard disk, holographic, or WHATEVER, several TB storage drives the size of an iPod clipped to my belt, compressing to my codec of choice.

Because of the data rate limitations of current portable media, we are being limited to cameras with built in solutions that are only approximations to what we want. Remove that limitation so that the cameras can grow up - and let a competition based market bloom to make portable video storage a reality.

-Spiff

[Walter_Graff]

Like the increasingly popular Sony entry, the H1 camera captures images at 1080/60i resolution at 25 Mbps, although it can also record DV images as well as high-quality (1920 x 1080) stills at up to five frames per second. Camcorder settings can be stored on the memory card and transferred to another camcorder so setup can be replicated.

Unlike the Z1, the H1 comes with a removable 20x lens and Canon's XL mount. Joseph Bogacz, director of product development and support for Canon's video division, said other lenses, including a wide-angle lens, would be available in the future.

With three 1/3-inch interlaced native 16:9 CCD chips producing 1440 x 1080 output, the XL H1 can be operated at a number of frame rates: 60i, 30i and 24i frames per second. It records video and still images to an HDV tape drive or an SD memory card (a 16 GB card is provided with the camera). The H1 camcorder is the first model to include Canon's proprietary DIGIC DV II image processor, which can process HD and SD video signals as well as still photos, while maintaining the correct color space for each mode.

The HDV camera's interlaced 24-frame mode is processed using proprietary algorithms that make the output (via Firewire) look like 24 progressive frames to editors working with Apple's Final Cut Pro or any Avid NLE. The camera also features a stereo microphone with a selectable mono mode and an isolator mount to reduce vibration; four channels of MPEG-1 compressed audio; two professional XLR connectors; phantom power; and mic/line inputs.

A "professional jackpack" at the back of the camcorder provides an uncompressed digital HD-SDI data transfer output (at 1.5 Gbps), SD-SDI output, genlock capability to link and match multiple cameras through a production switcher for a consistent look, and the all-important SMPTE time code in and out. The HD-SDI output allows professionals to plug the H1 into any system with an HD-SDI input and work with live, unfiltered HD content. With JVC's and Sony's HDV cameras, users must feed the HD signal into an A/D signal converter box, adding an extra step in their workflow and extra cost.

That's in addition to 23 preset or user-selectable features on the H1, such as Gamma controls, image stabilization, and white-balance parameters that offer a range of outdoor, indoor and studio settings to help shooters get the warmth and depth they seek when trying to replicate the look of film. The H1 also offers three color matrices for color-correction and two cine gammas for adjustment of dynamic range, customizable knee, black stretch, horizontal detail, coring, sharpness, noise reduction, color gain, hue and master color adjustments. Each setting can be modified independently.

Available at the end of this year, according to Canon, the H1 will be sold in either 60i (for U.S.) or 50i (for Europeans) versions, although customers can buy a 601 version and, for a $500 factory upgrade, add 50i capability. This allows the camera to work anywhere in the world with a flip of a switch.

In addition, the H1 can serve as a high-quality still camera, capturing the exact image the operator is seeing in the viewfinder. It provides 1920x1080 pictures for reference or location scouting. It has two on-board processors (one for the solid-state memory card and the other for the tape drive) so the stills can be grabbed while the camera is recording video. These full-color pictures can include (or not) all of the user-defined camera settings printed on the photo for reference and camera matching. The camera also features a powerful flash borrowed from Canon's EOS line of digital still cameras.

The camera includes a new color electronic viewfinder and 2.4-inch 16:9 LCD monitor with safe-area marking built-in; a black-and-white mode; zebra pattern (70-100 IRE); horizontal and vertical flip and a distance readout, leveraging the 20X lens. This distance-to-subject feature can reduce the need for talent markings and saves time when setting up shots.

Addressing a variety of applications, the H1 seems to be well suited to sports and newsgathering (30 fps), independent filmmaking (24i fps) and even reality TV shoots (60i). Canon's Bogacz said Canon feels it is not late to the HDV party, as the market for HD content has matured since the first HDV cameras were released.

Canon also introduced new PC software ($500) called Console, which externally controls the H1's features, either manually or automatically, via remote control. It includes waveform and vectorscope readouts for camera setup and diagnosis. A Mac version is in development.

Check out how cool this is:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=165&modelid=12155

[ChuckS]

Canon also introduced new PC software ($500) called Console, which externally controls the H1's features, either manually or automatically, via remote control. It includes waveform and vectorscope readouts for camera setup and diagnosis. A Mac version is in development.

Check out how cool this is:
That is cool! However, for $9k it should be included. It would also be cool if this were integrated into DVRack.