no one will buy this camera at 9k

[brianluce]

won't this camera have to position its price point in hvx- hd100 territory? if it's gonna have a chance? 9k seems waaaaaaay too much.

[glassblowerscat]

Why does every American think he knows better than all the marketing people big corporations hire to tell them what things should cost?

Clearly what you mean is that you won't buy this camera at $9000. Neither would I. But clearly that is just because it does not meet our needs well enough to justify that cost.

For someone whose needs are different, $9000 may well be a bargain, a price they would gladly pay to have the features they require.

[stephenlnoe]

Brian,

The capabilities of this camera @ 9K now were closer to 30K just 2-3 years ago. All these cams that have been introduced since NAB push the gamut to the pro level, not prosumer. The HD-100 particularly is a pro camera as it doesn't have an auto mode or point and shoot characteristics. The Z1 and (I guess) the HVX will be point and shooters, a la handycam. It won't just be prosumers looking at these cameras but studio folk and high end users alike. Camera's will not get cheaper for a few years I'd be willing to bet because the technology is brand new and people are willing to pay. I know I am on the cusp of switching completely over to HD(V) and selling off the DV25 cameras.

A big part of the H1 price is the lens they say. Resfest will be here in Chicago in a couple of weeks and I'll see the HVX and H1 then. I've worked with the Z1/FX1 all year and I've worked with the HD-100's clips here for 2 or 3 weeks and finally got the dealer to give me the HD-100 for a day. As of right now, to me, the JVC HD-100 is the best of the bunch. It is priced at $5500 with $3400 for a deck.

What set's the Canon apart is genlock and HD-SDI and of course interchangeable lenses. I personally do not need genlock or HD-SDI but if I did the Canon is the only choice.

HVX ideology is nice. Form factor is interesting for being really mobile and getting some really intersting angles merely because of its shape. P2 is the only option though and I think an achillies heel for the camera except in one arena and that's news gathering. We'll see. I really think the HVX is being created to fill a void in Panasonics line because if there was no HVX there would be no competition for all the HDV offerings and Panasonic would be completely left out of the game. The smartest aspect of the design is adding the miniDV capability. I'm sure it's a hedge until more affordable P2 solutions are available.

Sony is due to revamp their Z1 and I can see them coming out with something like a DSR model that has the guts of the Z1. That probably will happen.

Anyway, the price I think is in line with the type of people there aiming these cameras at, a step above the needs of the DV25 group.

[braw]

The Z1 and (I guess) the HVX will be point and shooters, a la handycam.

So...if a camera has any auto modes, and a non removeable lens, it's not pro?

Thanks, I was wondering where the line was drawn.

[mmm]

I would like to see a model without the studio functions for $6-7K. I think that would be very popular and would outsell the camera with the jackpack, or whatever they call it.

[Barry_Green]

The XL H1 will probably sell very well -- there's an excellent market for it, sports coverage for one. I could see NBC and CBS buying several hundred of these to use just for that purpose. Local broadcasters who want to go HD in a few years would probably also be a good target for XL H1's.

Nobody would buy this camera who doesn't intend to make money from it. But for those who do, it definitely looks like it has a unique niche carved out for it.

[Antoine_Fabi]

Yes,
I really like the features on the XLH1.
No doubt Canon makes good pieces of glass.

AND
...i am very curious about the new DSP inside the XLH1.
...maybe the "secret" is there.
The XL2 has already a very low level of noise and great black definition.
...the XLH1 might surprise us !

these R&D guys are fast !

[videoteque73]

Why does every American think he knows better than all the marketing people big corporations hire to tell them what things should cost?

What make you thing that this marketing people know better than you??

When I see the big errors a lot companies do, I ask myself who is in charge...

[glassblowerscat]

What make you thing that this marketing people know better than you??

When I see the big errors a lot companies do, I ask myself who is in charge...

Nothing in particular makes me think the people Canon has hired know better than I. I was simply pointing our tendency (especially on this forum) is to jump to the conclusion that the company is making a stupid decision when the more probable thing is really that they are making a decision that does not appeal to us.

Marketing people can be morons. But in Canon's case (as in the case of Panasonic with their P2), it is simply way too early to tell. When they fail to meet their sales goals, call them idiots.

[Nathyn]

won't this camera have to position its price point in hvx- hd100 territory? if it's gonna have a chance? 9k seems waaaaaaay too much.

Frankly, if this camera does all it says and if it can handle motion well, give me $5000 to spare and watch me buy this cam.

-Nate

[kyle_doris]

The XL H1 will probably sell very well -- there's an excellent market for it, sports coverage for one. I could see NBC and CBS buying several hundred of these to use just for that purpose. Local broadcasters who want to go HD in a few years would probably also be a good target for XL H1's.

Nobody would buy this camera who doesn't intend to make money from it. But for those who do, it definitely looks like it has a unique niche carved out for it.

took the words right out of my mouth Barry, i work for a local company here in NYC that does football related coverage for WCBS... the HVX and/or DVX100 really is completely useless to them as they need something cheap and reliable that they can do sports coverage with.

once the technology forces them to go to HD, you can be damn well sure this camera will be the one they buy. i just know it.

[robroysyd]

There's two ways to sell anything, try to grab market share or go after a new market, Canon have chosen the later. Their offering is still I think around half the price of the next step up to say Sonys XDCAM. It has all the features that you could ask for without pushing the price through the roof. Basically they've added all the widgets that one could ask for, the only other thing one would like is bigger CCDs but that immediately pushes the price / performance way, way up.
It made no sense for them to try to compete with the Z1 at that price point, it just can't be done and Sony could I'm certain still drop the price of the Z1 in response. JVCs offering is just sad and by the time you put useable glass on it you might as well buy the Canon. Panasonic I think are trying to please too many people that are actually only a very small part of the market, I wonder if they realise just how few people bought the DVX100 for it's progressive scan capabilities. I've met many DVX owners and lovers, a few tried shooting 25p and gave it away as a bad idea. I'm not saying it's a bad idea just that you really need to know what you're doing to get that 'look', sure for some it's do or die stuff but not for the vast majority of the market. What was the DVXs big selling point was it was a real camera, for once users weren't treated like idiots, that's what sold the thing over the 150.
Canon have taken the same tack, give the user full control and complete access to the signal chain.

[David Jimerson]

I wonder if they realise just how few people bought the DVX100 for it's progressive scan capabilities. I've met many DVX owners and lovers, a few tried shooting 25p and gave it away as a bad idea. I'm not saying it's a bad idea just that you really need to know what you're doing to get that 'look', sure for some it's do or die stuff but not for the vast majority of the market. What was the DVXs big selling point was it was a real camera, for once users weren't treated like idiots, that's what sold the thing over the 150.

:huh:

I'd be quite surprised to find that the people who bought the DVX for its progressive capabilities are in the minority of purchasers.

[dvpixl]

I love the DVX and i respect canon Xl-2. but I have to admit there are so many videographers who dont know what 24p is.

[dvpixl]

but then again, they probably dont give a damn as long as the camera makes them money.

[kyle_doris]

that's the major point. when i started working at this place, i mentioned the possibility of using DVX's for various things... because they key a lot of footage to NFL Films tapes... and matching the 24p to the 24 fps of the super16 NFL Films uses would look great.

the first thing they said to me was, what the hell is that? why do we need to change something that works? and lastly, can you put a 20x lens on that camera?

simply put, every camera has its purpose. the one thing i do feel the HVX has over the competition is a much broader level of versatility. the JVC and Canon cameras offer you the interchangeable lenses, but i think the fact that the HVX does so many different formats makes it more attractive.

[jrv3034]

HVX ideology is nice. Form factor is interesting for being really mobile and getting some really intersting angles merely because of its shape. P2 is the only option though and I think an achillies heel for the camera except in one arena and that's news gathering. We'll see...

We need to stop spreading the idea that the ONLY way to record DVCProHD on an HVX200 is with P2 cards. It is NOT the only way. You can attach a 100GB Firestore drive for less than $2000, making the grand total $8000. Or, you can plug the HVX into a laptop and record directly into your NLE, or DV Rack.

P2 is the easiest, most hassle free way of recording HD on the HVX, but not the only way, by any means.

[Sean Michael]

It's too bad the Firestore (or similar device) can't be integrated into the HVX design. I'm trying to figure out how practical a Firestore would be for "on the go" documentary-style shooting.

Will the XL H1 cost $9k on the street, or is that MSRP? It might actually retail for less.

[Barry_Green]

$9k is retail. Street price will be set by demand; it might stay at $9000 for a while until initial demand is filled.

By asking whether the Firestore can't be integrated into the HVX design -- do you mean a physical integration? 'Cause that would be the bomb -- a 100gb hard disk that could slide into a slot like a P2 card. Or did you mean "integrating the Firestore into the workflow with a camera of the HVX's design" -- because of course you can do that. It can be mounted on the shoe of the camera, or worn on a belt pack; for documentary shooting (especially in 720/24p mode) you'd get a lot of footage on it...

[jrv3034]

...By asking whether the Firestore can't be integrated into the HVX design -- do you mean a physical integration? 'Cause that would be the bomb -- a 100gb hard disk that could slide into a slot like a P2 card...

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a DTE box that attaches to the bottom or side of the HVX and allows for true hard-disk swapping.

[Zig_Zigman]

Once the BBC "chooses" an official cam, whether it's the Canon or the Panny ( I can't imagine they will run with Sony..) that will drive sales of a few thousand right there....if Canon sells 10k of these babies in a 3 year run that's 90 million gross...

[brianluce]

i'm sticking to my guns. 9k is way too much in view of its rivals. canon will drop the price. if they don't i will personally reimburse every dvxuser who buys the canon the difference in price between the hvx and the canon. that's a promise.

[WestEnd]

let's not forget that the Panasonic will likely require many to spend money on new computers and storage. That will put the overall expense higher than the Canon.

Comparing the extra cost to the JVC is justified by the 1080 resolution compared to the 720 of the JVC, and I'm sure the canon stock lens will be much better than the JVC stock lens.

[mezelf27]

:huh:

I'd be quite surprised to find that the people who bought the DVX for its progressive capabilities are in the minority of purchasers.

It is true (defenately over here. You can buy the DVX now for around $2500. How many people with a $2500 cam blow up to film? or do filmlike projects? Next to none. DVX is the cam used for newsgathering and weddings. That's all interlaced - just as the cliensts want...

[mezelf27]

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone comes up with a DTE box that attaches to the bottom or side of the HVX and allows for true hard-disk swapping.

What? making it even heavier and bulkier then it already is? :shocked:

[mezelf27]

Once the BBC "chooses" an official cam, whether it's the Canon or the Panny ( I can't imagine they will run with Sony..) that will drive sales of a few thousand right there....if Canon sells 10k of these babies in a 3 year run that's 90 million gross...

Didn't they test with the JVC already? And as a 'successor' to the DV700 it might be an obvious choice? Besides, wasn't it agreed to commit to 720p in the EU?

[Luis Caffesse]

i'm sticking to my guns. 9k is way too much in view of its rivals.


Which rivals?

JVC only shoots 720 and comes with what is apparently a pretty crappy lens (or so people say). So, I don't think it's unreasonable to charge $2-3000 more for 1080 footage, a good lens, and an HDSDI output.

The HVX is roughly the same price.... let's not pretend that it's only 6K.
On the cheaper end you could buy the firestore drive for 2K (bringing your total to 8K).
Or, you could buy the P2 card package from Panasonic for a total of 10K.

Either way, the cost of the HVX is hovering right around 9K (give or take a thousand).

Personally I'd rather shoot DVCProHD than HDV, but there are actually people who prefer HDV apparently. Plus, the Canon will have removable lens options, and the uncompressed HDSDI output. So, in the end I could see it evening out pricewise.

Point is, the Canon may seem a bit overpriced....but I don't see them dropping it much at all. Given the competition it seems to be just about the right price for this market.

[kyle_doris]

canon is better for event coverage, with the nice ability to shoot whatever this 24f stuff is...

that's why a professional would be interested in this type of system (if they needed HD in the first place)

as for shooting a feature, i'd go with the HVX.

that brings me to my question (maybe barry or someone could answer this). Would the Canon be better for gaming event coverage (commonly known as LAN parties) then the HVX because of run times. the reason is ask is; will the 4:2:0 destroy any ability to shoot good low-light.

i might come into some decent event coverage work in the next year, while i'm also shooting a feature. i'm wondering if i should lean towards getting this or the HVX. i want the HVX because i just think, as a creative person it gives me a lot more versatility to create things i'd care about (frame rate matters more to me then lenses). on the other hand, producing features doesn't make me money.

i guess i could just rent an HDH1... then i'd need an HDV deck.. ugh.

oh well. any information on the 4:2:0 for lowlight would be great...

[J.R. Hudson]

:huh:

I'd be quite surprised to find that the people who bought the DVX for its progressive capabilities are in the minority of purchasers.

I agree David. In fact; I find roboysyd's statement to be rather absurd.

[Barry_Green]

I don't think that 4:2:0 would necessarily "destroy" any ability to shoot in low-light conditions; the entirety of the PAL DV world is 4:2:0.

If low-light performance is your main criteria, I'd be more concerned about the tiny pixels of the 1440x1080 chips hampering the low light capability. The Z1 is already two stops slower than the PD170, and that's with 960x1080 chips. If the XL H1 is truly using 1440x1080, it'll likely be at least another stop slower still. A little testing will verify; we should be able to answer these questions in November/December.

[MattC]

Do you have an XL camera now? I have the XL2 and while I love the camera it uses light like Kate Moss uses cocaine. I would not consider it a "low light" camera.

[Antoine_Fabi]

OK but keep in mind that the XL2 produces images free of noise, probably because it doesn't use "pre" gain at 0db.

The DVX is a couple of f/stops faster, but it produces noise at 0 db.

[MattC]

This is true, the XL2 is incredibly clean.

[Walter_Graff]

This camera is not in the same league as the Panasonic. It is for an entirely different crowd so its price compared to Panasonic means little.

[Ralph Oshiro]

I don't buy it either. No one's gonna pay $9K for a 1/3" camera.

[myfriendimage]

yeah I cant see myself buying this and being satisfied with my 9k purchase.

[Luis Caffesse]

This camera is not in the same league as the Panasonic. It is for an entirely different crowd so its price compared to Panasonic means little.

Just out of curiousity Walter, what groups do you see each of these cameras being targeted at?

[Walter_Graff]

The JVC is a lost cause as already too many folks are having too many troubles. I had a post about JVC and how they would not deliver some time ago- the lowest end home user. The HVX is next up. I don't see P2 making it but if it did, then maybe videographers who do weddings, news, etc and some DVX users who look at it as a next step and who might be able to afford it. I don't think you could use it for legal stuff because of the nature of P2. And the Canon is for independent filmmakers and lower budget television and live events as it has the connections pros need for TV and it's internal controls (gamma, matrix, etc) are really designed for true filmmakers.

[Luis Caffesse]

Makes sense. I'd never considered the ramifications of P2 recording in legal work, interesting notion.

Not sure I agree about the HVX being used by wedding videographers given the short recording times. Generally event videographers are going to want at least an hour of continuous shooting time, without having to wait to dump footage to continue shooting.

In fact, the more I think about it... I'm not exactly sure who the HVX is aimed at.
But I suppose whatever that group is, I'm in it...because I'm definitely interested so far.

Have you seen the footage from the HVX and/or the Canon?
I only ask because I've always found your feedback to be pretty insightful

[Walter_Graff]

"Not sure I agree about the HVX being used by wedding videographers given the short recording times. Generally event videographers are going to want at least an hour of continuous shooting time, without having to wait to dump footage to continue shooting."

I thought that as I was typing but didn't bother to stop. You are correct. And while folks seem to think P2 prices are going to drop dramatically, they will be in for a surprise. not only that but larger P2s are a pipe dream right now. It's called making an idea and hoping someone comes through with a solution for you. Let alone the additional $4k you need to make a system to use it properly.

"In fact, the more I think about it... I'm not exactly sure who the HVX is aimed at.
But I suppose whatever that group is, I'm in it...because I'm definitely interested so far."

I think Panasonic is counting on a lot of faith and I think they will not hit pay dirt with this camera. They were lucky with the DVX but good gamblers know when to quit. It has been a struggle for them to get saturation professionally with P2 and consumers can't afford the price tag. Nice idea, just to far ahead of its time and without direction, support, or saturation.

One thing I like about Canon is they don't lie. They list the HD1 under consumer products instead of using nifty marketing terms like pro etc. Canon started the whole indie revolution very quietly and they have never seemed to me to need to play games. The announcement of the HD1 was not huge but the chatter on the web is big. It's an exciting step up from the XL2 which is my favorite camera in its price range.

"Have you seen the footage from the HVX and/or the Canon?"

They showed some in NY recently at a Canon expo. Those that saw it said it was awesome. I will test the camera out when I can get one. It's now been pushed back to December but I am thinking even later. Here is a thread about how it looks:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51340

I have not seen the HVX footage but then again I am not interested in this camera so don't care to. Eventually I will play with it and do some tests because I always do.

[stephenlnoe]

They showed some in NY recently at a Canon expo. Those that saw it said it was awesome. I will test the camera out when I can get one. It's now been pushed back to December but I am thinking even later. Here is a thread about how it looks:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51340

The thread you pointed to was about HD-SDI out of the Canon. Of couse that's going to look spectacular. What's more important is what the m2t's look like off the tape. Canon's uses a GOP of 15 like Sony so it will be interesting to see how Canon's HDV codec handles the motion. JVC on the other hand uses a GOP of 6. I've been editing HDV for almost a year and I can say that the JVC implementation of HDV is terrific in every aspect. Sony's HDV codec has many flaws.

I wouldn't write JVC's effort off. Their HDV is the best I've seen for editing, screen caps, compositing, downsampling to SD, and DVD creation. I'm excited to see what Canon has to offer, and I hope they can match JVC's HDV methods.

@Graff-You may not like it but the JVC is the real deal. I'm waiting for some posted m2t's from the Canon. I don't care who makes the cam, give me the m2t's and I'll tell you how good it is...

[Walter_Graff]

Have to agree. On a network level its not just about equipment but promises. Sony made many promises some years ago if NBC would wait and go with them. They did. Same thing at CBS. It's about back scratching, package deals, and making long-term deals to get your equipment in the door at this level. Now a company like MTV might go for it cause they buy a million bucks a year of these types of things. XDCAM is the next thing in on the network level. My friend who does all the buying at CNN just went XDCAM too. It will be the predominate news format.

[Walter_Graff]

Sony's does have many flaws but that was first generation. JVC second and Canon third. I write JVC off because they could market there way out of a box. Never were a contender in the real world, and this camera will not make them one either as far as I can see. What I am mad at is folks who write off HDV who have never used it.

[stephenlnoe]

@Graff- As I wrote above, the cam doesn't matter, the m2t's do. JVC has put together terrific motion characteristics with their implementation. The m2t's speak and people will make quality content with it. Of that there is no doubt.

I agree with you that HDV is a real force and I don't think some know that XDCam-HD is really HDV's big brother and the next step from HDV. We've been edting HDV and are prepaired for XDCam-HD ingest now.

We'll see....

[mmm]

I agree with you that HDV is a real force and I don't think some know that XDCam-HD is really HDV's big brother and the next step from HDV. We've been edting HDV and are prepaired for XDCam-HD ingest now.


I am very interested in XDCam-HD, I wish something similar was being used in the XLH1 and HVX200.

I think it will outsell P2 by a long way.

[stephenlnoe]

I wish something similar was being used in the XLH1...

XDCam-HD is LongGOP Mpeg2 so the XL-H1 is already doing something similar, it is the same thing. The only difference is the datarate.

[Luis Caffesse]

The thread you pointed to was about HD-SDI out of the Canon. Of couse that's going to look spectacular. What's more important is what the m2t's look like off the tape.


Couldn't agree more.
I was a little disappointed that Canon chose to only show off the HDSDI output of the camera. I can understand highlighting that as a major feature, but it would have been nice for them to show off some HDV side by side with the HDSDI.

At least it won't be long before we get some real world feedback on the image.
I haven't written off HDV, but I am a little skeptical as I would be from any new format.
Just not looking forward to having to get a new deck. But, I suppose a new deck or P2 cards.... either way I'm having to buy some expensive additional gear.

It is kind of funny that apparently the footage Canon showed off was recorded on a DVCProHD deck :) I know that doesn't really mean anything, but on a base level of irony I found it slightly amusing.

[mmm]

XDCam-HD is LongGOP Mpeg2 so the XL-H1 is already doing something similar, it is the same thing. The only difference is the datarate.

Sorry, by similar, I meant use a higher bitrate and recorded to disk or hard drive. I think interframe is a good idea for low end HD work, but would like a little more than 25Mbps personally. Most of the time HDV appears to work fine, but it certainly has some weaknesses that would be reduced with a higher bitrate.

[Antoine_Fabi]

I think that with the Firestore solution, we'll have a @#@# of a battle between Canon, Panasonic and JVC.

Think about it...!!!!

You will never be limited with a specific format.

For me, each manufacturer has a different vision.

Lightweight=Panasonic
ENG=JVC
Versatility=Canon

Now, let's see what each camera section (CCDs and DSPs) can output...

[mmm]

Can I buy shares in Firestore? I think that they have a bright future!

[stephenlnoe]

Sorry, by similar, I meant use a higher bitrate and recorded to disk or hard drive. I think interframe is a good idea for low end HD work, but would like a little more than 25Mbps personally. Most of the time HDV appears to work fine, but it certainly has some weaknesses that would be reduced with a higher bitrate.

25Mb is not a low datarate for Mpeg2, it is a low datarate for DVCProHD which is a different format. I wish people would quit confusing the formats. The need for a higher datarate on XDCam-HD is to support 422 color sampling and 4 streams of audio, otherwise it is LongGOP.

The weaknesses you refer to have 100% to do with the hardcoded codec the manufacturer chooses to put on the camera's circuit board. Sony's has problems with motion estimation. JVC's has no problem with motion estimation. We don't know what algorithms Canon has used on their camera.

HDV is the standard set between manufacturers to carry the data but how to calculate motion estimation, perspective, positioning, scaling and rotation of the image is all dictated by the manufacturers engineering R & D and hardcoded into their onboard codec.

JVC's method is great. Sony needs to rethink their method for their next cam (to handle motion better), and we'll see how well Canon has done their math soon...

[Antoine_Fabi]

"Can I buy shares in Firestore? I think that they have a bright future! "
dixit mmm
==========================================

Agree !

[SergejIvanovits]

"Can I buy shares in Firestore? I think that they have a bright future! "
dixit mmm
==========================================

Agree !

NASDAQ - FCSE ... it goes for 1.000 just right now. You can buy it for 1.0300 but no one wants to buy it for higher than 0,9800

they are loosing 0,28/share

[ChuckS]

:huh:

I'd be quite surprised to find that the people who bought the DVX for its progressive capabilities are in the minority of purchasers.
I certainly didn't purchase the DVX100 becuase of 24P. To tell you the truth I don't really care about 24P, it's nice to have and play with but certainly not the reason I purchased the camera.

I purchased it because of the control that cinegamma provides over the look of the image - it much more film like than any other camera in this price range. I know this is a religious debate on this forum but that look has nothing to do with frame rate.

I can soft clip the highs and pump up the volume a little in the blacks and get just as good an interlaced picture.

I don't believe most of the people who purchased this camera did so becuase it was 24P. That's great for going out to film but I bet the number of people on this forum who have actually ever filmed out something from the DVX is less than 2%.

After re-reading your original comment I stand corrected a bit - you didn't specify 24P, I jumped to that conclusion. I do however stand by my original thought. I actually didn't appreciate some of the benefits of a progressive image until I had a chance to work with the camera a while. Was just very impressed with how this camera handled light.

[Nathyn]

I definitely bought it for 24p and cinegamma.

-Nate

[Haakon]

I don't believe most of the people who purchased this camera did so becuase it was 24P. That's great for going out to film but I bet the number of people on this forum who have actually ever filmed out something from the DVX is less than 2%.
I think it looks fantastic even if you aren't going out to film. Most of the things I've been working on lately have not been features, they've been more "commercial" in nature (music videos, promotional work, documentaries), and they are all catered to the small screen. None of that gets blown up, but still I shoot a great majority of the work I do in 24p because, frankly, I just like the look of it a lot better than 60i. The cadence has a look that's associated with film and more professional work, and that helps keep it in a class above "home movie" looking 60i. I also do short films with the DVX, and it's doubtful that many of those will get blown up, either, but even watching an SD presentation on DVD in 24p has quite a more cinematic feel than 60i does. Of course the cinegamma features and other technical implementations only further the cause, but the framerate is undoubtedly a large part of it. It's pretty much the reason I had no interest in the Z1 whatsoever. I actually agree with Nathyn for once. ;-)

[stephenlnoe]

I shoot a great majority of the work I do in 24p because, frankly, I just like the look of it a lot better than 60i.

Why would you shoot 24P if you going to TV???? Makes no sense not to shoot 30P or 60i when going to TV in NTSC land or 25P and 50i in PAL land.

[Barry_Green]

Because 24p looks like film and 30p doesn't.

[mmm]

Why would you shoot 24P if you going to TV???? Makes no sense not to shoot 30P or 60i when going to TV in NTSC land or 25P and 50i in PAL land.

If you are going to TV in PAL land, shoot 25p. 25p and 24p look the same, 24p is just a pain in the arse ( in PAL land). Chances are if you are in PAL land you won't have the 24p option anyway, so...

[pmark23]

Everything I shoot (docs) is 25P. After shooting a first "25P" project with it this spring, I've been swamped with work -- and it's all due to the slick and professional "look" of "film", rather than "video".

I even treat the camera as if it's a 16mm film camera, by preparing each shot so no "film" is wasted. I also confess to imagining hearing "click - whir-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r..." when I push the red button. :)

[mmm]

25Mb is not a low datarate for Mpeg2, it is a low datarate for DVCProHD which is a different format. I wish people would quit confusing the formats. The need for a higher datarate on XDCam-HD is to support 422 color sampling and 4 streams of audio, otherwise it is LongGOP.


I am not confusing them at all...? I just want higher bitrate MPEG2 exactly for the reasons you mention, particularly 4:2:2, but also less artifacting. MPEG4 woud be better, but is too processor intensive still at present.

Basically, I think XDCAM-HD should be available at sub $10k... obviously in 1/3" cameras, and for now hard drives seem the best compromise for storage instead of XDCAM system.

[stephenlnoe]

Because 24p looks like film and 30p doesn't.

Not quite. His delivery method was DVD not film. There is no good reason to shoot 24P when the deliverey method is NTSC/DVD. It just adds steps to the process of editing and delivery.

[Barry_Green]

That is just completely not true. There are at least four most excellent reasons to shoot 24P (and not 30P) when your delivery medium is DVD:

1) 24P looks like film, 30P doesn't

2) 24P can be encoded as a 24P DVD, which can be played back as progressive-scan on a progressive-scan DVD player. 30P can't. 30P is always stored and played as interlaced. 24P is stored as progressive-scan. Put a 24P DVD into a progressive-scan DVD player, play it on a progressive-scan display, and the results are the best you'll ever get out of the DVD format.

3) a 24P DVD can take up 20% less space on the DVD, allowing you to fit more content.

4) alternately, a 24P DVD can employ lower compression for the same running time, making for better-looking video.

So, on the contrary: there is basically "no good reason" ever to *not* shoot 24P when delivering NTSC DVD. 24P is the OPTIMAL shooting method for NTSC DVDs. (unless you need the "reality"/"60i" look). 24P support is built into DVD players -- Hollywood insisted upon it. 24P delivers the ultimate DVD experience.

[NoahK]

Not quite. His delivery method was DVD not film. There is no good reason to shoot 24P when the deliverey method is NTSC/DVD. It just adds steps to the process of editing and delivery.


I can think of one main reason for most folks shooting 24p: aesthetics. DVD delivery of 24p looks like film originated material while DVD delivery of 60i looks like home video. And with automated 24pA supporting NLEs like FCP and Avid there are little to no added steps, in fact everything runs a little faster because you have 20% less frames to render out to MPEG2 for the DVD. If you think the primary reason we shoot 24p is to go out to film you should see some comparison demos- like this one:

http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_dvx_pd150.html

Noah

[stephenlnoe]

1: Opinion

2: 24P DVD will not play on grandpa's DVD player (pre-progressive)

3: True, less frames

4: Somewhat true, less frames gives more datarate room.

Least path of resistence is 30P/60i for DVD. They put 30P and 60i on these cameras for good reason. We fell in with the 24P stuff when it first came out and then when we had to convert the 24P to 30P a few times we gave up on 24P unless the intention was to go to film. Your points are well thought out, I'll give you that. When time is wasted converting 24P to something compatible with NTSC you soon learn the virtues of 30P.

[stephenlnoe]

If you think the primary reason we shoot 24p is to go out to film you should see some comparison demos- like this one:
http://www.lafcpug.org/reviews/review_dvx_pd150.html
Noah

Thanks for posting the link. I know well the virtues of cinegamma and 24P and I like it for myself. When projects need to get out though, the path of least resistance rules, 30P/60i.

BTW: To me, the real difference is the gamma curve, not the frame rate.

[Ralph Oshiro]

?????

[Ralph Oshiro]

.

[Ralph Oshiro]

[ ]

[disjecta]

[ ]

I second that.

[Barry_Green]

1: Opinion
Not opinion, unquestionable fact. Films are displayed at 24 frames per second, not 30. 24P looks more like film than 30p does.

2: 24P DVD will not play on grandpa's DVD player (pre-progressive)
Actually, 24P has been in the spec since day 1. There is not a DVD player made that doesn't support 24P DVDs.

Least path of resistence is 30P/60i for DVD.
Not really. 30P is an unsupported DVD format; in fact it causes problems (it cannot be transferred to film and it cannot be transferred to PAL.) Either 24P or 60i are native DVD formats, 30P isn't.

We fell in with the 24P stuff when it first came out and then when we had to convert the 24P to 30P a few times we gave up on 24P unless the intention was to go to film.
Okay, here appears to be where the misunderstanding is. You don't have to convert 24P to 30P. It's totally not necessary -- you can author directly to 24p.

Every DVD player ever made supports two MPEG-2 encoding modes, either 24P or 60i. If the DVD player is not progressive-scan, or is hooked up to an interlaced display, the DVD player will automatically insert 2:3 pulldown to make the file compatible with interlaced televisions. Which means every 24P DVD will automatically play on every DVD player out there.

If the DVD player *is* progressive, and hooked up to a progressive display, it will play back the 24P file as progressive. Which delivers a darn-near high-def-looking experience.

30P is not a directly-supported format. 30P encoded on a DVD will be played back as a 60i data stream.

If you've been converting your 24P to 30P, you've been expending unnecessary effort and lost the pure-progressive output option. If I'm not mistaken, you edit using Liquid, which as far as I know doesn't support 24P timelines, right? Perhaps that's why you didn't know about this. Using an editor that supports 24P timelines will let you output your MPEG-2's as 24p, and they *will* work on DVD players.

When time is wasted converting 24P to something compatible with NTSC you soon learn the virtues of 30P.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I'm afraid the situation is exactly the opposite. 30P gives no advantages, whereas there are significant advantages with going with 24P. It's how all Hollywood DVDs out there that are authored.

[stephenlnoe]

Excuse me, I disagree. The way it's done here works as well as the way you're describing. 30P is not put on the DVD, 29.97 is. Obviously our workflows do not match.

let's leave it at that, shall we?

[Barry_Green]

Sorry, I tried to get back in there and re-edit it before you saw it -- I realized that it came off way too harsh. I'm normally more measured than that. I apologize for the tone, it was uncharacteristic and unnecessary.

You're entitled to use whatever workflow you desire, of course. It seems to me that you were unaware that 24p can be directly encoded on a DVD, and thought that NTSC DVDs required a 60i encoding. I should have simply said that "if you like the look of 24P, you can directly encode that -- it's not necessary to convert to 30P or 60i, all DVD players support 24P files directly." Again, sorry for coming off as a horse's patoot!

[MovieSwede]

There is one more aspect of shooting 24p worth considering.

If you make something for the international market. a 24p master will be alot better then a 30p master.

[stephenlnoe]

@Barry Green,

In all fairness Barry, there is no such thing as 24p end to end in Liquid Broadcast. There is 30p end to end. With 30p (same as 24p) you get much better screen captures compaired to interlaced video. This is why we choose 30p (to feed the art department).

So, as I wrote above, the workflow calls for 30p. I was not clear on the workflow so there was misunderstanding. That's the funny thing about forums and writing people whom you have no personal contact. If you and I were sitting across the table from each other, I could explain the reasoning is 2 or 3 sentences and you'd be on the same page.

It's all good, no harm.

[Barry_Green]

Got it.

Thanks for conducting yourself with such class -- I very much appreciate the example you've set, and will redouble my efforts to live up to it.

[mezelf27]

Well, stephenlnoe has a very good point. Most clients are more likely to see a film-like gamma as film, rather then notice it is 24p.

24p isn't supported in most cheap DVD-players (over here in Europe, although they all (or virtually all) support PAL AND NTSC ...) which is a problem indeed...

[Haakon]

Well, stephenlnoe has a very good point. Most clients are more likely to see a film-like gamma as film, rather then notice it is 24p.

24p isn't supported in most cheap DVD-players (over here in Europe, although they all (or virtually all) support PAL AND NTSC ...) which is a problem indeed...
I don't really agree with that. Film-like gamma at 60i still looks like video... just more filmish in its color. I think what it seems that people are getting confused with is that even though the DVX shoots progressively, it's still laying down 60i to tape. You don't have to render a 24p DVD to see the film-like motion right out of the camera. The cadence of 24 frames just looks totally different. Because stephenlnoe was saying "if his final output is to DVD, why not just shoot 60i" and "The way it's done here works as well as the way you're describing. 30P is not put on the DVD, 29.97 is," it makes me think that because NTSC is 60i no matter what, people are getting the impression that you can't see the effects of 24p through NSTC broadcast or DVD playback. But it's already there in the footage, all you have to do is use the camera to see the difference. Go out and shoot a scene at 24p and then shoot one at 60i... plug the camera into the TV and watch the tape. You'll spot the difference right away.

[David Jimerson]

24p isn't supported in most cheap DVD-players (over here in Europe, although they all (or virtually all) support PAL AND NTSC ...) which is a problem indeed...

That may be true in Europe (don't know), but every DVD player sold here will support it, from the very beginning through today.

[David Jimerson]

there is no such thing as 24p end to end in Liquid Broadcast. There is 30p end to end.

This is why I left Liquid and went to Vegas. There are no extra steps. Editing 24p and burning a 24p DVD is exactly the same as working entirely in 60i; the only difference is in which settings you choose for your timeline and for your render.

Perhaps with Avid's acquisition of Pinnacle, a real 24p workflow will be integrated into a later version.

[Haakon]

This is why I left Liquid and went to Vegas. There are no extra steps. Editing 24p and burning a 24p DVD is exactly the same as working entirely in 60i; the only difference is in which settings you choose for your timeline and for your render.
Now we just need Vegas to be compatible with DVCPROHD. :-\

[David Jimerson]

It *is* compatible; Vegas will read/write any codec you have installed on your system, and you can download DVCPRO. But native support would be nice, yes.

[goldyprog]

We need to stop spreading the idea that the ONLY way to record DVCProHD on an HVX200 is with P2 cards. It is NOT the only way. You can attach a 100GB Firestore drive for less than $2000, making the grand total $8000. Or, you can plug the HVX into a laptop and record directly into your NLE, or DV Rack.

P2 is the easiest, most hassle free way of recording HD on the HVX, but not the only way, by any means.

That's great! I didn't know that firestore makes a product that supports native DVCProHD. I would really apprciate it if you could point that out to me, because I can't find a firestore drive that does support the HVX200. The only firestore market I have seen is various SD support and the upcoming Focus Enhancements firestore for the new JVC. Thanks!

[Barry_Green]

Focus issues a press release at IBC describing the new product -- they even issued its name, but I don't remember what it was. In any case, yes, a completely HVX-compatible FireStore is on its way, with an anticipated release date of sometime around March 2006.

[ChuckS]

Wow, I hope it was not my reference to 24P that cuased the debate. :undecided My only point is that when I purchased my DVX I wasn't even aware of the debate. I just thought it was great that I could apply the Cinegamma in 24 and 30P and 60i. I try to use the one I think will work best for what I'm producing. Everyone should keep in mind that any advice I might render is from my own perspective. I'm mostly retired and I do this for fun. :happy: If you are just starting in this industry listen to Barry, Jarred and the other moderators who can offer a more current perspective.

My focus now is HD and to "KILL TAPE - TAPE IS DEAD!" and figure out a workflow that makes this type of production feasable. Keep in mind that each of the vendors have only their self interest in mind, camera manufacturers want to sell cameras and media, drive manufacturers want to sell bigger and faster drives and NLE developers want to add more functionality to get you to buy their products. But if we are going to ever get to a tapeless production workflow, this is a systemic problem that we will have to figure out for ourselves. Panasonic will not be able to do that for us. That is where a forum like this can be valuable, all of us shareing our experience in what we have tried that works :thumbup: and what didn't work. :thumbdown Not debating the virtues of 24P versus 30P.

[ktrainyo]

Frankly, if this camera does all it says and if it can handle motion well, give me $9000 to spare and watch me buy this cam.

-Nate

It does, and I bought it...

[Nathyn]

Why does every American think he knows better than all the marketing people big corporations hire to tell them what things should cost?

Clearly what you mean is that you won't buy this camera at $9000. Neither would I. But clearly that is just because it does not meet our needs well enough to justify that cost.

For someone whose needs are different, $9000 may well be a bargain, a price they would gladly pay to have the features they require.

I agree with you but marketing folks have been wrong before (remember "New Coke").

-Nate

[Nathyn]

let's not forget that the Panasonic will likely require many to spend money on new computers and storage. That will put the overall expense higher than the Canon.

Comparing the extra cost to the JVC is justified by the 1080 resolution compared to the 720 of the JVC, and I'm sure the canon stock lens will be much better than the JVC stock lens.

Thank you. This is all a lot of people have been saying. I would have to purchase more HD space, P2 or a Firestore just to be ready for Pana's Codec. I don't have to do that with any other camera. And since more people are reporting drop outs about the same rate a DV I'm confident with tape. Looking at it like that drop the four grand for the Canon without the studio stuff and and buy a $25 pack of tapes and I'm ready to go. I will need FCP 6 but I plan to get that and a MacBook anyway.

-Nate

[Zim]

Thank you. This is all a lot of people have been saying. I would have to purchase more HD space, P2 or a Firestore just to be ready for Pana's Codec. I don't have to do that with any other camera. And since more people are reporting drop outs about the same rate a DV I'm confident with tape. Looking at it like that drop the four grand for the Canon without the studio stuff and and buy a $25 pack of tapes and I'm ready to go. I will need FCP 6 but I plan to get that and a MacBook anyway.

-Nate


You could try FCE HD. I'm going to try that one first since I have FCE and I can upgrade for $99.00. They are not bad programs and are a lot cheaper.