Canon XL-H2!

[tpulling83]

It only makes sense that history repeats itself. Will Canon go ahead and improve on the already talked about XL-H1 by making the XL-H2 and when will it be made? How will it compare? I'm open to all sorts of interpretations.

[FilmMagic]

24p!!!!!!! Ta Da!

[MovieSwede]

The next gen XL will come when the other companys have released succesful next gen cams.

Canon is rarely first.

[MrG]

And if history repeats itself - 1080p :)

[Anhar Miah]

Scrub that, make it 2/3"

Anhar

[Antoine_Fabi]

yep !

2/3" !!!

[Aculag]

But if history repeats itself, in Canon's case, it'll be pretty much the same as the H1.

[Daniel Skubal]

1" variable framerates with interchangable options between progressive and interlaced at 1024res... omfg

[mmm]

I would guess that the next change in chip set would use CMOS sensors rather than CCD. Seems to be the direction we are heading.

[coolguy007]

Variable Frame Rates!

[AuditoryVisuals]

Full 1920x1080 native progressive sensor.

[razamalik]

The next gen XL will come when the other companys have released succesful next gen cams.

Canon is rarely first.

i have to agree with this... in the video market they are rarely first but in the photo market things are totally different for Canon, i dont think Canon even takes its Video market half as serious as its Photo market i.e DSLRs

[Bogdan]

Canon take their time in video market, but once they release something, it's impressive and best in the class. I like their philosophy because it fits better the real and working solutions available in the market. XL-H1 is very good example as first 1/3" camcorder which does not cheat 1080i HDV standard and also produces the best looking progressive images in the class.

Canon takes video market seriously. They've been here successfully for more than 20 years, starting with their first Video 8 camcorders.

I don't think they will be releasing new XL camcorder soon. XL-H1 is here to stay a while because in majority of aspects it's still the best piece of equipment one can buy for less than $20k. If they release XL-H1s, most likely it will just embed audio in HD SDI output with no other major changes.

[PANA-MAN]

24p!!!!!!! Ta Da!


It already has 24fps capability. It's called 24f.

[RWSwanson]

I would guess that the next change in chip set would use CMOS sensors rather than CCD. Seems to be the direction we are heading.

With the XL H1, they are using CMOS technology.

[Barry_Green]

? The XLH1 is CCD, not CMOS.

[John_Moore]

It already has 24fps capability. It's called 24f.

Mr. Green, is this accurate?

I've heard a bit of debate on both sides of the line about whether it's really 24p, or just a cheap deinterlacing trick. Frankly, I'm very confused and not exactly sure what to make of the arguments.

~ John.

[Jason Ramsey]

I think he was saying that it was 24 fps not necessarily true 24 progressive frames

[Barry_Green]

It's not generated by progressive scanning. We don't know exactly what it is, because Canon won't say. All we know is that it causes a loss in overall resolution (dropping from 700+ lines in 60i mode down to around 540 in 24F mode, according to Adam Wilt). But once there, the motion cadence does look like 24P.

Canon says it delivers the same results as 24p, but by different means. Adam thinks it could be simple field doubling. I think it looks like they're using one valid field and one interpolated field.

In any case, it ends up looking pretty good. I don't have many complaints about 24F, other than that it's difficult to edit.

[MovieSwede]

Didnt they use some sort of pixelshift for the XL1 frame movie mode wich resultet in 360 lines of resolution.

[AuditoryVisuals]

The XL H1 uses native interlaced CCDs. For 24f and 30f it simply deinterlaces it. But it is native 24fps, unlike the HVX200 which chops 36 frames out of 60.

I want the XL H2 to not use HDV and use AVCHD, CMOS sensors, and progressive scan. Oh, and none of that 1440x1080. I want 1920x1080.

[Elton]

The XL H1 uses native interlaced CCDs. For 24f and 30f it simply deinterlaces it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "simply deinterlaces it". If it was simple deinterlacing the drop in res would be painfully obvious and there would be noticeable temporal artifacts when you carefully look at if frame-by-frame--unless all it's doing is simple field doubling, which I doubt for a number of reasons.

Out of curiosity I've taken 60i material and used Graeme Nattress' excellent Map Frames tool and converted single 1080i fields into full 1080 frames (field doubling) and compared to 30F footage.; 30F appears to have higher resolution. Why? It's either doing some sophisticated interpolation in the DIGIC processing (motion compensation) or there is some unique kind of CCD scanning going on that is making it easier to synthesize a progressive frame from an interlace sensor.

I tend to doubt that motion compensated deinterlacing could be achieved in RT without added circuitry and expense. Maybe the DIGIC DV II is able to do this just like a Realta/Teranex chip but it's questionable.

[ShannonRawls]

So basically, for all "Intents" and "Purposes". I repeat, for all "INTENTS" and "PURPOSES" ...... 24f is 24p.

[MovieSwede]

The XL H1 uses native interlaced CCDs. For 24f and 30f it simply deinterlaces it. But it is native 24fps, unlike the HVX200 which chops 36 frames out of 60.

I want the XL H2 to not use HDV and use AVCHD, CMOS sensors, and progressive scan. Oh, and none of that 1440x1080. I want 1920x1080.

The HVX doesnt chops 36 frames.

The CCDs can read a number of different framerates but the internal processing is done in 60fps 1080P. But it isnt chopped 36 frames, That would have looked ugly.

The Z1 on the other hand shoots 60i and thendeinterlace and blend frames to get 24CF.

Well and about the XLH2, we all want that, its just if we want the price. ;)

[Elton]

So basically, for all "Intents" and "Purposes". I repeat, for all "INTENTS" and "PURPOSES" ...... 24f is 24p.

Amen and amen!

[DavidBeier]

So basically, for all "Intents" and "Purposes". I repeat, for all "INTENTS" and "PURPOSES" ...... 24f is 24p.

I think that's an over simplification however. First off, if Barry's Adam Wilt quote is accurate, then that's kind of a big deal. Easily the most highly touted aspect of the XLH1 over the other under 10k HD cameras is its higher resolved detail. If 24f actually knocks this down so much (I'd love to see some side by side comparisons to see how accurate this is) then that's a pretty big deal (since the camera is already so much more expensive than the others). 24f also isn't the same for all intents and purposes since it isn't compatible with other HDV 24p systems. Other HDV decks don't understand it and won't accept it. Many NLEs also don't support it or need new codecs in order to do so.

[Barry_Green]

Let's clarify Adam's comment. Here's the exact quote from his article in DV magazine:
In 60i, vertical resolution was a solid 700+ lines; in 24f mode, we thought it looked like half-resolution material on the monitors, consistent with what you'd get with field-doubling. Looking at the captured clips, especially the Combi-2.3's bullseyes, I'd have to say that it certainly looks like field-doubled vertical sampling, with about 540 TV lines usable, although certain aspects of the image "feel" sharper. I'm not sure how to describe it, but perhaps Canon's secret sauce for creating 24f results in a perceptually sharper picture than plain field-doubling, even if the clues I can glean from the interference patterns on the bullseyes would indicate otherwise.

[ShannonRawls]

wow....it's September 25th and we're still talking about this? LOL

Ok, guys...without any political spin, commercial gain, threat of persecution, backlash from people who follow me or beleive in me, hypothetics, or tricky wording, allow me to be crystal clear (same as I was back in January).....

"24f on the XL-H1 nets higher then 540 lines of verticle resolution, period!
Moreover, in every mode this camera can shoot (24f (which is 24p), 30f (which is 30p) and 60i) this camera undeniably yields more verticle and horizontal resolution then any other 1/3" CCD camcorder currently available on the planet. This includes 1-chip, 3-chip, & even CMOS camcorders"

I made this statement 10 months ago, and it still holds true today. I don't know how else to say it. Maybe if I knew spanish or french, I would say it in those languages, but I currently only know english and I don't know how to write it in plain english any clearer then that.

Now because the resolution is higher, don't mean it's the BEST. (i personally happen to think it is the best, but thats just me). *shrugs* what's the rocket science? It didn't stop Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson from buying HVX200's. It didn't stop Michael Pappas from selling his XL-H1 and buying an HD100 instead. Why? because so much more rides on the looks of a photo then the sharpness of it. You have things like dynamic range, color control, rolloff, latitude, chromatic abberation, barrel distortion, banding, the list goes on and on and on. YES, ofcourse in HIGH DEFINTION you want the most DEFINITION you can get, but there's more to it.

and the camera costs 9 thousand bucks too! So it's no big surprise that it has the highest definition. it damn well better have!

Now....can we lay this to rest already?

24f also isn't the same for all intents and purposes since it isn't compatible with other HDV 24p systems. Other HDV decks don't understand it and won't accept it. Many NLEs also don't support it or need new codecs in order to do so. Other HDV 24p systems?? LOL...(barry, barlow, do you see what I have to go through? *smile*) Ummmmm David, WHAT "other" HDV 24p systems would that be? There's only ONE other 'standard' and that's 720p from JVC. But you and I both should know that this is 1080p we're talking about, so i'm not entirely understanding you're point. Espeically since 24F from the XL-H1 is the ONE AND ONLY HDV 1080p24 recording system that creates .M2T files in the world.

I hope that helps,

[Barry_Green]

Other HDV 24p systems?? LOL...(barry, barlow, do you see what I have to go through? *smile*) Ummmmm David, WHAT "other" HDV 24p systems would that be?
JVC 24p, and Sony HDV 24p. So there are at least three methods out there; all fairly mutually incompatible with each other.

As a recording standard I suspect that Canon's will prove to be the most efficient, as Sony's uses 3:2 pulldown to record within a 60i stream.

Espeically since 24F from the XL-H1 is the ONE AND ONLY HDV 1080p24 recording system that creates .M2T files in the world.
Sony HVR-V1U. 24p recorded within 60i to .m2t files. Of course, it's not on the market yet, and won't be for about three more months, so you do still have a point...

[ShannonRawls]

Sony isn't 'out there'. I never EVER talk about "future" stuff. I never mix that into my equations or arguments. So as far as I'm concerned there is no Sony HDV 24p and there is no other camera that records HDV 1080p24 besides Canon. Heck, if I did that, then I might as well talk about the RED, BLUE and BLACK camera coming in 2010, with its portable HD-SDI recorder the size of a cell phone.

The HVX is still the only 720p60 camcorder with 1/3" CCD's too. yea, i know about the HD200/250 and all...but it AINT HERE. So the HVX is the ONE and ONLY, know what I mean?

Sorta Off Topic Question:
As a recording standard I suspect that Canon's will prove to be the most efficient, as Sony's uses 3:2 pulldown to record within a 60i stream.
But that's how I thought it was supposed to be?? I thought Canon 'dropped the ball' when they didn't emply that method. Do you really think Canon's interlaced scaning but 24p recording system will be better then Sony progressive scanning but 60i recording system? I was thinking the 24p in a 60i stream would be more efficient and all, reminescent of the DVX/XL2. Especially after the beat down that the XL-H1 got for not having so-called "true" 24p with progressive scanning. I mean, to finally end this debacle with the Canon's interlaced CCDs out-performing the highly coveted "PROGRESSIVE SCAN" of its competitor simply means allot of good people wasted allot of good time bickering about progressive vs. interlaced scanning.

[David Jimerson]

But it is native 24fps, unlike the HVX200 which chops 36 frames out of 60..

I'm guessing you say this out of a misunderstanding.

DVCPRO HD recorded to tape is always recorded as 60 fps, it is true. However, it isn't acquired that way -- it's 24p acquisition, and then frames are repeated in order to pull 24 up to 60.

Then, those frames -- which were created for the purpose of recording only -- are then discarded. To say this is "fake" 24p is simply not accurate.

The HVX can also record only 24 fps to the card, in its 24pN mode, with no need for a 60p stream.

[AshG]

If the XLH2 comes... maybe they will use progressive CMOS chips? And audio embedded HD-SDI? I passed on the XLH as far as buying because I feel it was priced too high, IMHO it should have been no more than $6999 with a $6K street.


ash =o)

[Barry_Green]

Do you really think Canon's interlaced scaning but 24p recording system will be better then Sony progressive scanning but 60i recording system? I was thinking the 24p in a 60i stream is the best, reminescent of the DVX/XL2.
But you're mixing technologies, and that's the problem.

DVX/XL2 used progressive SCAN, and interlaced recording. Canon uses INTERLACE scan, and progressive recording. Not the same thing.

Not that far different though, in terms of measured results; 24F is the best interlace-sourced 24P simulation out there and infinitely better than any other interlace->progressive system being offered (such as CineFrame 24, etc).

Canon's recording technique is, like I said before, probably the better of the two. Recording in a 2-3 pulldown system is not as convenient to work with, and especially when dealing with a long-GOP system, you'd really rather not have frames split up and interlaced throughout. XL2/DVX used 24pA which was the best compromise; 24 frames recorded as 24 frames, with six disposable frames thrown in to round out the sequence. Canon's system is sort of the same but they discard the six disposable frames right off the bat and only store the valid frames, that's the best way to record (but, unfortunately, the side effect is that it's incompatible with other HDV equipment). Sony's system is really about the only one they could choose: they went with a 60i 2-3 system because their decks could play it. They couldn't go with a true 24p canon-style recording because it'd be incompatible with their gear. So if you're content to edit 60i, Sony probably made the right choice within their sphere of equipment and workflow. If you want to do a true 24p edit (and let's face it, who among us, shooting 24p, don't want to do a true 24p edit? Of course we do!) then Sony's implementation is lacking and Canon's is better.

Had Sony gone with a 24pA system that would have been better, I believe. They could get active progressive encoding on the four frames, and who cares about the fifth/interlaced frame because we're just going to discard it anyway. But they didn't, so we have to work with what we've got.

JVC's is a clever middle-of-the-road system, they actually use frame-based 3:2 pulldown but they don't record it, they just use repeat flags. So on tape it's actually 24 recorded frames, but as a data stream it's technically 60 frames because once you add in the repeat frame flags the sequence comes out as 60.

As it stands now, there's always a compromise somewhere. Canon scans interlaced and takes a resolution hit, but records what it gets as progressive with no wasted bandwidth. Which is good, but not ideal, it'd be just that much cleaner if they'd have done a true progressive scan, but I believe they did the best with the recording system that could be expected.

Sony V1U scans progressively and takes no resolution hit at all. That part's great. But then they record it within 2-3 pulldown and that introduces complications, as Thomas Smet on DVInfo is talking about, we may run into chroma issues. Remains to be seen.

Scan progressively, record progressively, then you're talking. That's what JVC and Panasonic do. But JVC has its share of issues, and Panasonic only delivers about the same vertical res as 24F anyway.

[ShannonRawls]

ohmy, the dreaded GOP. I forgot about that.

24 progressively scanned images recorded @ 15-GOP with a 2:3 pulldown laid as 60i to tape .... whew!! It seems the camera would need a super computer to accurately process that with little error or artifacts.

Oh well, I guess it remains to be seen.

1920x1080p High Resolution + Progressive Chips + Progressive Recording for Progressive Editing = $90,0000 still!

[Barry_Green]

Yes, that it does. Soon it'll be $17,500 but until then, we pays our money and we makes our choices.

[DavidBeier]

"24f on the XL-H1 nets higher then 540 lines of verticle resolution, period!
Moreover, in every mode this camera can shoot (24f (which is 24p), 30f (which is 30p) and 60i) this camera undeniably yields more verticle and horizontal resolution then any other 1/3" CCD camcorder currently available on the planet.

I don't think I'm arguing with this, just simply talking about weighing the benafits and gains. For instance, for those of use who want to do commercials, narrative films, or other stuff that requires the typical "film look," then interlaced really isn't an option. We want a progressive image plain and simple and there really isn't a substitute for it when you're going for that kind of look. Now, 24f's motion does look pretty much indistinguishible from real 24 frames a second (even though it's not). In respect to motion, that's all that matters. My point about the resolution however is that there is a big difference bewteen 700 lines and around 550 and, as you already said, resolution isn't everything. At 700+ lines, perhaps the extra 3k and lack of color resolution that the HVX200 has would be worth it for some. Given the loss of resolution in 24f, it may not be. I know the XLH1 is still going to be sharper in 24f than the others but not nearly to as great as an extent as the interlaced numbers would. That's why I made the distinction. Not trying to knock the camera but just to be clear. I hear things like, "The XLH1 has almost as much resolution as a CineAlta and 24f is, for all intent's an purposes, the same as 24p!" These two statments are true but misleading since it doesn't have that kind of resolution in 24f, which is I think what most of these people are going to want to use. It still is sharper but not to the same extent and that can be a big deal for some. I considered the XLH1 for quite a while and still think it's a great camera and sharper than the others but, in 24f, I don't think it's worth quite so much more over its competition; not for what I want to do which is shoot something with the typical film look that I could possibly do a film out for or burn to an SD DVD. Of course, if I wanted to shoot a documentary or event in 60i that would be broadcast on a 1080i system, then I may very well think it was worth the extra cash.

[ShannonRawls]

in 24f, I don't think it's worth quite so much more over its competition Gotcha Dave...and I feel you 100% on your points.

Now, on what you said in quotes above.....Ya see, that's where the internet reports and discussion forum politics vs. real life testing & seeing with your own eys comes into play.

I'm guessing here (hands up), and I could be 100% wrong, but I don't think you, Mr. David Beier, has stood in a room and compared the 24f of a XL-H1 to any other 1/3" CCD camera's 24f/p on a HD monitor flipping back and forth comparing the difference in color, resolution, dynamic feel, motion cadence, rendition and overall image quality...have you?

Forget a web report
Forget what you've 'heard'
Forget what people like "SHANNON" says on the internet

But have you seen it with your own two eyeballs? because I have.....4 different times! And each time, I never had to sell 24F to the audience....I let 24F sell itself. Now, if you have seen this, then you wouldn't say "I don't think". Instead I guarantee you Big Dave (assuming you're not color blind, have 20/20 vision and completely unbiased), that you would be ROCK SOLID with your assertion and instead say "I know". Because at that very moment you would become about as rock solid as I currently am.

So at this point....I encourage you to strike everything I have ever said about the XL-H1 and it's phenomenal image quality, superb color capabilites & outstanding resolution in 24F mode. *smile* (you like how i threw all the extras in there?) And instead go compare them yourself. I have a feeling you will see that 24F will exceed your previous expecations.

*smile*

[Noel Evans]

I'm guessing here (hands up), and I could be 100% wrong, but I don't think you, Mr. David Beier, has stood in a room and compared the 24f of a XL-H1 to any other 1/3" CCD camera's 24f/p on a HD monitor flipping back and forth comparing the difference in color, resolution, dynamic feel, motion cadence, rendition and overall image quality...have you?


*smile*

I HAVE. And am suitably happy thus going with the new canon cameras. I do like the HVX I work with, it has nice look to it overall, but Im just not in a position to go entirely tapeless myself for HD aquisition.

[Nik Manning]

Canon XL-H2 all it needs is audio added to the uncompressed HD-SDI and 2/3 ccds. Thats it! They should charge a even 10k and they will hit a market sweet spot. Remember Canon makes lenses so offering a new 2/3 cam would help their lense market. Also the film and ENG market will eat up any 2/3 chip camera under 20k. Also they are introducing cheaper Sony HDcam decks so effects work is getting cheaper also.

Basically Canon canon make these simple changes and sales will be up 300% for pro camera sales and lense sales will increase 75%. Bosses get bonuses,consumers get happy.
Prosumer cam sales will go up also because of the need for B and C cameras. Basically buy a XL-H1/2 and a XH G1 and XH A1.
Somebody from Canon forward this to the right people! :)

[DCCowan]

Or better yet, they should hire you Nik! I think you're right on the money. :)

[meta4]

"24f on the XL-H1 nets higher then 540 lines of verticle resolution, period!"

Listen I'm a canon fan, and I too would like to put this to rest, but without a visual demonstration, or scientific proof. This hasn't been put to rest. You can say what you want, but it's merely conjecture until you provide unequivocable proof.

Camcorderinfo.com speaks of using Imatest imaging software to definitively find the resolution. Let's do this and truly end this debate...scientifically.

[ShannonRawls]

*sigh*. (slaming my beer down) *smile*

C'mon meta my man! You say that like I am the only one who is making an 'unproven' statement. Neither is it proven that IT IS actually 540.

I mean gee wiz...there's no PROOF that the Earths core is hot. There's no PROOF that Prot really isn't from the planet K-Pax. There's no PROOF that ones mother is really their mother (I doubt most people have taken a DNA test).

Instead...........We just...uhhhh, kinda beleive it when we're told. Especially if enough people tells us.

Well I'm telling you....

"24f on the XL-H1 nets higher then 540 lines of verticle resolution, period!" Now you can take my word for it, or not. But lemme tell you, I don't know ONE XL-H1 owner (unbiased people with no commercial interests/quotas to fill/or people to please other then themselves & their work) that will agree with saying the camera doesn't . I shot the thing to a chart 4 different times. The 1st time I did it was next to a F900 with an F900 D.I.T., and it caused the guy to go out and buy one the next day!
http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1&f900/ (posted back in 2005)

Now I know people are gonna say "Shannon your word ain't sh!t compared to Adam Wilts" well, *shrugs* ok...whatever. beleive who you wanna beleive. Sir Isaac Newton was a genius but he still got relativity & the calculated velocity speed of a falling apple wrong. And even Adam wasn't 'sure' how to describe it.

*smile*

[DavidBeier]

Gotcha Dave...and I feel you 100% on your points.

Now, on what you said in quotes above.....Ya see, that's where the internet reports and discussion forum politics vs. real life testing & seeing with your own eys comes into play.

I'm guessing here (hands up), and I could be 100% wrong, but I don't think you, Mr. David Beier, has stood in a room and compared the 24f of a XL-H1 to any other 1/3" CCD camera's 24f/p on a HD monitor flipping back and forth comparing the difference in color, resolution, dynamic feel, motion cadence, rendition and overall image quality...have you?

Forget a web report
Forget what you've 'heard'
Forget what people like "SHANNON" says on the internet

But have you seen it with your own two eyeballs? because I have.....4 different times! And each time, I never had to sell 24F to the audience....I let 24F sell itself. Now, if you have seen this, then you wouldn't say "I don't think". Instead I guarantee you Big Dave (assuming you're not color blind, have 20/20 vision and completely unbiased), that you would be ROCK SOLID with your assertion and instead say "I know". Because at that very moment you would become about as rock solid as I currently am.


Your excitment over the XLH1 is slowly but surely crossing the line from cool to frightening. For the record, I have compared footage from the various cameras. I've downloaded every scrap of footage I could get from the HVX200, HD100, and XLH1 (sorry but I hate the FX1/Z1 and wasn't ever an option) and compared them on HD monitors and also taken them into post programs to blow up the image, take out the noise, and see how much actual detail is there. I've never gotten the chance to work with an XLH1 since no one has one where I am (only of the cheap HD cameras I havn't messed with) but I've done all I could to get a pretty good idea of what it can do. I don't say, "I know" because I realize that it's a personal choice how much one is willing to give for a little extra resolution.

C'mon meta my man! You say that like I am the only one who is making an 'unproven' statement. Neither is it proven that IT IS actually 540.

I mean gee wiz...there's no PROOF that the Earths core is hot. There's no PROOF that Prot really isn't from the planet K-Pax. There's no PROOF that ones mother is really their mother (I doubt most people have taken a DNA test).

Instead...........We just...uhhhh, kinda beleive it when we're told. Especially if enough people tells us.

Well I'm telling you....

You're kind of losing me. Either you have proof that it's sigifigantly more or you don't. This is just yammering. I'd really love for someone to side by side shots of the XLH1 in 60i and 24f so we can judge for ourselves (which is really the best way instead of taking anyone's word for it). I keep suggesting this on this board but no one has done so yet.

[ShannonRawls]

It's not excitement. It's irritation.
Like when people (who never tested the camera) say silly stuff like "60i is better then it's competition and 24f is not much over its competition"
Psshhhh, I'm like....."how do you know??". LOL it's just silly talk.
Don't say that! it's misleading and unfair to people who might beleive your guesswork. If you havn't seen it and tested it yourself, then people shouldn't lay claims on the web as if they are experts on stuff. At the very least...test the gear before you act like you know what you're talking about.
Only thing I get excited over is my wife. These cameras are just cameras. But it's important that when we discuss them we TALK WHAT WE KNOW, not what we heard or wish or think about 'em.
------------------
either i have proof or i don't? lol see .... this is what I mean. Why didn't you quote the rest of the post where I did show proof?? LOL i provide a link to quick a test that i did proving it's significantly more then 540 (along with photos) in the very same post...and yet&still you come back with that kinda reply. Just silly talk. As if people just like to hear themselves talk. Oh well, it's all good Dave, we cool. ....RED is king anyhow, so screw all these cheap handycams. *smile*

Also, side by side 60i/24f shots were done long ago (circa dec 2005) by Pete Bauer and published on the web. Look em up on DVINFO.

[meta4]

Hey Shannon, would you mind reposting a link to that 540+ proof (seriously).

And all I was doing was showing how to put it to bed. These are digital pixels we're talking about here. I mean, you can always eyeball it, but even Barry has warned people about that. Depends on the cameras sharpness settings...yada yada.

Imatest is a software program that examines a particular frame of video shooting a controlled subject. It then quantifies the TRUE resolution, along with many other items important to video quality.

All I'm sayin' is that if we want to put it to rest, we gotta go with science, eyeballs just don't cut it.

My eyeballs tell me the DVX is beautiful, but it ain't no H1, and that can be demonstrated with scientific resolution measurement.

Science is good (http://www.imatest.com/docs/tour.html) :)

[DavidBeier]

It's not excitement. It's irritation.
Like when people (who never tested the camera) say silly stuff like "60i is better then it's competition and 24f is not much over its competition"
Psshhhh, I'm like....."how do you know??". LOL it's just silly talk.
Don't say that! it's misleading and unfair to people who might beleive your guesswork. If you havn't seen it and tested it yourself, then people shouldn't lay claims on the web as if they are experts on stuff. At the very least...test the gear before you act like you know what you're talking about.

Look at my origional quote Shannon. You'll not that I start off somthing along the lines of, "if Adam Wilt's and Barry's assesments of the camera is accurate..." I'm not arguing I'm an expert, I'm quoteing people who get paid to look test this gear and who have done so. I also do my best not just to take their word for it but to look at their files and images from their tests. I don't know what qualifies someone as an expert but (I don't think anyone here will dispute Barry being at least an expert ont he DVX/HVX) but I'm pretty confident that these guys a pretty good idea of what they are talking about. I'd love to do some tests on my own but, as I've said, XLH1s are hard to come by. We don't have anywhere to rent them down here and, while I know people and have worked with the HD100 and Sony FX1 and Z1, the XLH1 doesn't seem too popular (most likely because of the 9k price tag).

Only thing I get excited over is my wife.

Don't lie. Even the best of us glance at another woman from time to time :D .

These cameras are just cameras. But it's important that when we discuss them we TALK WHAT WE KNOW, not what we heard or wish or think about 'em.

You're never going to be able to know everything about every camer but there's a difference between looking at tests that professionals have done and looking at their data and "talking about what we heard or wish or think." I've had an HVX200 for several months and have done all kinds of tests but there's still a hell of a lot I don't KNOW about it. I KNOW you lose some fine detail when you stop down to F11 but I don't KNOW for sure if it's exactly as much as Barry's tests indicate (I'd think his estimates would be better than yours or mine). I KNOW 1080p provides a bit more resolution than 720p but I don't KNOW if it's as much or as little as some would claim. So many factors go into determining scientific stuff and much of it has to be collaberative. People need to share their results with others and others test them out and see how accurate they are. I've never blindly agreed with any of these tests. I've already asked I think 3 times on this thread for someone to do some side by side comparisons between 24f and 60i and post some grabs yet no one has. We share information and I have no problem with sharing the information that professionals have discovered (and, as I said before, explain that it's what professional tests have indicated).

either i have proof or i don't? lol see .... this is what I mean. Why didn't you quote the rest of the post where I did show proof?? LOL i provide a link to quick a test that i did proving it's significantly more then 540 (along with photos) in the very same post...and yet&still you come back with that kinda reply. Just silly talk. As if people just like to hear themselves talk.

I think Meta already explained why there are issues with that test. After all, if all we need to do is eyeball it then I've already eyeballed a hell of a lot of footage and grabs from the XLH1.

Oh well, it's all good Dave, we cool. ....RED is king anyhow, so screw all these cheap handycams. *smile*

True that. Pushing 1/3 chips to HD is amazing but it still can't compare to the real HD cameras and what RED may end up being. Still, it's what I can afford now so it's what I shoot.

Also, side by side 60i/24f shots were done long ago (circa dec 2005) by Pete Bauer and published on the web. Look em up on DVINFO.

Thanks, I'll do that.

[ShannonRawls]

Don't lie. Even the best of us glance at another woman from time to time :D .YOU GOT ME. I better quit whiule I'm ahead! lol

[Anhar Miah]

The Reason I dislike interlace is because:

In 3 Dimensional time and space curve, you have elements that are captured in TWO distinct time slices, physically speaking if zero movements occurred then interlace can capture at the combined resolution of both fields, but when movements occur, then the objects become out of phase, and no amount of interpolation can capture the state of the object as accurately as if it was imaged by a progressive method(where no time slicing occurs upon movement).

Of course all other elements of the camera system being equal.

I've tried all de-interlacing methods, in the end, I came to the cold mathematical conclusion, start of with a progressive imaging system if you want a progressive image.

Anhar

[Barry_Green]

I'd really love for someone to side by side shots of the XLH1 in 60i and 24f so we can judge for ourselves (which is really the best way instead of taking anyone's word for it). I keep suggesting this on this board but no one has done so yet.
No one? It's been done, over and over. Here's one example, from Pete's Scratchpad:
24F: http://www.geosynchrony.com/images/Scratchpad/H1%2024F%20rez2%20HD-20x.bmp

60i: http://www.geosynchrony.com/images/Scratchpad/H1%2060i%20rez2%20HD-20x.bmp

[GaryinCalifornia]

I guess this is off topic... just notice your location... did you move Barry...

[ShannonRawls]

if zero movements occurred then interlace can capture at the combined resolution of both fields, but when movements occur, then the objects become out of phase, and no amount of interpolation can capture the state of the object as accurately as if it was imaged by a progressive method(where no time slicing occurs upon movement). Agreed.
However, some think the new XDCAM-HD Sony CineAlta cameras (which are interlaced CCD's too), takes both interlaced 48i images at the same moment in time and simply stitches the image together. This is why Sony feels bold enough to call it 24p even with interlaced chips. For all we know, this is how the XL-H1 does as well. But I do know if these cameras didn't employ this method then they wouldn't be able to use 1/24th shutter in 24f/p mode......but they can. The XDCAMHD cameras go down to 1/8th while the H1 goes all the way down to 1/3rd.

Me...man....I don't know what to beleive. Neither companies want to talk aout how their stuff works like Panasonic boldly did for the HVX200. Shame on them! For all I know the chips are really progressive and Sony/Canon is just playing with our heads. lol

[androbot2084]

It is simply untrue that the Canon XL-H1 yields the highest resolution of any HDV camcorder. In actuality the 720p60 format yields higher resolution than 1080i. The only resolution advantage that 1080i has is in static resolution. So on static test charts 1080i will yield the higher resolution. But video is all about motion. As soon as motion is introduced the resolution of 1080i goes down yet the 720p resolution remains stable and actually exceeds that of 1080i. This is because 720p60 has much better temporal resolution than 1080i. Temporal resolution is an equally valid form of resolution as is spatial resolution and contributes significantly to video quality. Simply put 720p60 delivers more pixels than 1440x1080i and results in a sharper picture.

[Barry_Green]

But only in 60p.

At equivalent frame rates (i.e., 24p) that argument doesn't hold.

[meta4]

No one? It's been done, over and over. Here's one example, from Pete's Scratchpad:
24F: http://www.geosynchrony.com/images/Scratchpad/H1%2024F%20rez2%20HD-20x.bmp

60i: http://www.geosynchrony.com/images/Scratchpad/H1%2060i%20rez2%20HD-20x.bmp

Wow, actually those two look really different. The 24f has banding in a lot of the horizontal line areas. Hmmm, obviously there's some interlacing going on, but even with a static image it's noticeable.

This makes it tough, because I've been really excited about the A1...

[ShannonRawls]

Instead of just giving you some files...read the whole story: http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm It explains allot and is much more helpful in understanding how/why the images look like that. Pete proclaims his test was thrown together, lens over 50% of the zoom range, camera settings were mismatch, autofocus was activated, etc...

I have a test that looks dramatically different. I'll upload the photos later today.

Heck you can just look at the res chart grab from a pre-recorded HDV clip on the link i have above and see that it's DRAMATICALLY different. No interlacing. No banding. and i cheated the H1 from a better score because that shot is off center & further back then it was supposed to be. yet & still, you can see the difference.

P.S.
notice pete hasn't posted a single word to his blog in 10 months. Since he got his H1 he's been busy working. *smile*

[ShannonRawls]

But then again.... screw these tests!!! *smile* it doesn't matter what XL-H1 owners think of 24F.

Go see the A1 for yourself when it comes out. That's the ONLY way you should make your decision! That way you can see if 24F is for you.

You should never blindly buy a camera based on web forum discussions or pre-order a piece of untested video equipment that you've never tried yourself on the showroom floor......NEVER!

[Barry_Green]

The 24f has banding in a lot of the horizontal line areas. Hmmm, obviously there's some interlacing going on, but even with a static image it's noticeable.

The banding is the resolution drop. Look at the arrows at the top, it's really easy to see what's happening.

I'M NOT SAYING 24F IS "BAD". It delivers a great high-res image, especially on the horizontals, and is easily the best of the interlaced/24P simulators out there. But there IS a significant res drop which makes it look like it's a single 540-line field. Graeme Nattress says it, I say it, Adam Wilt says it, and anyone who looks at the charts (which are designed to measure such a thing) will see it. But that doesn't mean 24F is unusable or troublesome; the proof is in the visual pudding. If you like the look, what else matters? Accept it for what it is, and use it if you like it, work within whatever limitations it imposes.

[Barry_Green]

But then again.... screw these tests!!! *smile* it doesn't matter what XL-H1 owners think of 24F.

Go see the A1 for yourself when it comes out. That's the ONLY way you should make your decision! That way you can see if 24F is for you.

You should never blindly buy a camera based on web forum discussions or pre-order a piece of untested video equipment that you've never tried yourself on the showroom floor......NEVER!

Now THAT I agree with 100%. Furthermore, I suggest that it really doesn't matter what the tests say -- if you like it, regardless of what the tests say -- then what else matters?

[DavidBeier]

No one? It's been done, over and over. Here's one example, from Pete's Scratchpad:
24F: http://www.geosynchrony.com/images/Scratchpad/H1%2024F%20rez2%20HD-20x.bmp

60i: http://www.geosynchrony.com/images/Scratchpad/H1%2060i%20rez2%20HD-20x.bmp

Very intersting stuff. ALOT of vertical resolution is lost but most of the horizontal seems to be retained. Does a perfect job of explaining why I've gotten some of my HVX200 footage to look very close to XLH1 in terms of detail in some situations but not others. It seems like in general Pansonic seems less concerned than most with horizontal resolution, using only 1280x1080 campling for 1080p. On the other hand, I guess I'd still rather retain that than lose 4:2:2 color space.

But then again.... screw these tests!!! *smile* it doesn't matter what XL-H1 owners think of 24F.

Go see the A1 for yourself when it comes out. That's the ONLY way you should make your decision! That way you can see if 24F is for you.

You should never blindly buy a camera based on web forum discussions or pre-order a piece of untested video equipment that you've never tried yourself on the showroom floor......NEVER!

Well sadly not all of us can try all the cameras. I completely agree it's the best way but sometimes you have to settle for simply looking at as much footage as possible from each. I chose the HVX200 most of all because I loved the DVX100 and I though it's footage was more pleasing than that of the other cameras.

I also think we should take more of a wait and see attitude to the A1. If it does what it says it can do it'll be amazing but I'm surprised how many are willing to pre-order just based on the tech specs.

[ShannonRawls]

I also think we should take more of a wait and see attitude to the A1. If it does what it says it can do it'll be amazing but I'm surprised how many are willing to pre-order just based on the tech specs. Yea, it blows my mind.

I remember somewhere on one of these forums back in the day I made a statement to everyone that the reason the XL-H1 probably won't sell as many units as the other cameras is because people simply can't afford to buy one.......lord, i shouldn't have said that!

lol, I was beatdown for that comment. The counter-argument was that it's not about affordability. Everybody came off on me like it wasn't about the money, but rather they didn't want the XL-H1 because of the interlaced chips & 24f & HDV & this & that & blah blah blah.........

......... along comes the all new ironically "AFFORDABLE" XH-A1 and all of a sudden it's the best thing since sliced bread. The same people are ready to pre-order and praise the 24f & interlaced chips are great & hdv is wonderful & this & that & blah blah blah.

Humans are a funny species.

[Bogdan]

It's not like so many are willing to pre-order A1 based on spec. A1/G1 use existing XL-H1 technology in smaller form factor and knowing Canon's reputation we can rest assured they won't disappoint.

Talking about human nature, it reminded me about good old XL1. Many people complained it was not full DV resolution camera even though pixel shift improved image quality significantly. Now many of the same people glorify Panasonic for the same approach in HVX200 :)

Disclaimer: I do not claim HVX200 is bad camera :)

[DavidBeier]

It's not like so many are willing to pre-order A1 based on spec. A1/G1 use existing XL-H1 technology in smaller form factor and knowing Canon's reputation we can rest assured they won't disappoint.

Except we are seeing time and time again that that there is so much more to these cameras than simply the imagers. None of the 1/3 HD cameras delivers the full resolution their CCDs are supposedly capible of. There's a lot more to the camera then just the CCD. The prosect of the A1 is quite encouraging but there is a still a red light that goes off in my head when I see its price compared to the A1 (9k vs 4k). Logic says to me that something's gotta give (besides just the interchangible lenses and SDI out). Maybe that won't be the case. Maybe it'll give us all the imaging power of the XLH1 and perhaps I'll borrow one from a friend when I'm doing a nice wide static shot where the extra horizontal resolution over the HVX would be nice. Untill we see the images we don't know though.

And, out of curiosity, when were people complaining about the XL1 imager? I recall it constantly being thought of as the top of the line miniDV camera untill the DVX100 was released.

[Bogdan]

...
And, out of curiosity, when were people complaining about the XL1 imager? I recall it constantly being thought of as the top of the line miniDV camera untill the DVX100 was released.

You actually answered your question. Most of complains began when DVX100 was released. Suddenly many people started paying attention to how soft XL1 images were in comparison with DVX. I owned XL1 and worked with DVX100 also and personally I find XL1's images more pleasant and more resistant to artifacts when pushed to the limits of resolution at high contrasts.
When Panasonic used pixel shift approach in HVX200, many of those folks had no problem with low rez CCDs. That's why I say we are interesting species.

[Barry_Green]

So you owned and liked the XL1 and find the images pleasant?

You do realize the XL1 CCDs are Panasonic-manufactured, pixel-shift CCDs, right? ;)

[disjecta]

So you owned and liked the XL1 and find the images pleasant?

You do realize the XL1 CCDs are Panasonic-manufactured, pixel-shift CCDs, right? ;)
You've just got to love Barry :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

[Nik Manning]

Everyone should just let me borrow there cams for 1 month so I can use them for various projects and compare how good the picture is:).
But honestly the picture quality doesn't matter that much anymore. They are all comparable. Only things like dof,lenses,colorspace,audio,PRICE!!! matter now. Give me a sony fx1 and a 10 million dollar budget and I bet I could make a killer movie.
JACKASS 2 was #1 at the box office. What did they shoot?

and yeah Shannon I don't know about 24f on that XL-H1, but on the new XH-A1 I heard it was the bomb. :)

[Bogdan]

So you owned and liked the XL1 and find the images pleasant?

You do realize the XL1 CCDs are Panasonic-manufactured, pixel-shift CCDs, right? ;)

Of course I know that (knew that long, long time ago) and I don't have anything against shifting some pixels from time to time, as long as images look nice :)

I just find human nature fascinating. Another example: there is so much criticizm expressed these days against people so optimistically waiting for upcoming Canon A1 and G1 cameras (I'm one of them). I think our enthusiasm has very solid ground since Canon employed existing H1 technology. Funny, there was not so much of criticism when people got so fascinated about HVX200 before its specs were even known (!) calling it 1080p camcorder :huh: I don't get it... :)

[Bogdan]

You've just got to love Barry :Drogar-Evil(DBG):

One of the things I love for sure is your beautiful footage of nature. That's one of the reasons I fell in love with Canon XL-H1 :) and can't wait for A1, hoping to have it with me every time I have a chance to leave the big city.

Thanks!

[Nik Manning]

XL H2 update

now that the hdx500 is out at $14,000 with 2/3 inch ccds what do you think the canon XL H2 will have?
I think it will update the hdsdi out and put 2/3 ccds in it and charge about $10,000. This will undercut the panasonic 500 but will still shoot on mini dv. They should however add a hardrive, maybe one of those 80 gig ipod hardrives that can store hdv in cam. That would be sweet.

[Elton]

I'm pretty sure the Pana camera at $14K is minus a lens. 2/3" HD lenses are not cheap.

I doubt Canon will put 2/3" chips in an H1 successor. I'm guessing CMOS 1/3" full raster 3 chip design .

[Digigenic]

I'm pretty sure the Pana camera at $14K is minus a lens. 2/3" HD lenses are not cheap.

I doubt Canon will put 2/3" chips in an H1 successor. I'm guessing CMOS 1/3" full raster 3 chip design .
Indeed.
And a new image processor, Digic III.

Canon will deliver a 2/3 camcorder pretty soon.
They could implement a single chip design which when coupled with one of their own lenses, an economic solution (cheap zoom lens) might allow them to reduce costs say, $18,000 in all? Basically breaking it half, 10 gs initially, but later 8 gs for the camera, and 8 gs for the lens.

Still, SI2K will remain an alternative package.
And if RED keeps costs on their units below 20 grand, and they start to create packages that also include an economic zoom lens, and storage for below 23 grand and are able to keep up with demand, they will remain a strong alternative to these up and coming 2/3 HD cameras as well.

[Jack_Felis]

Sheesh, if that did happen, Digigenic, then what would that say about the prosumer market? I remember when people balked at prices higher than $5,000. Then we got acceptable camera packages that went all the way up to $10,000 no sweat. Now people are talking as if $12,000 - $20,000 is no big deal.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Canon make an XLH2 with all the fixes that were put into the A1 and G1, but not for anything higher than $10,000. Otherwise, as you said, people would look to SI and RED.

[bansheeproductions]

no itll be the XL-H1s and itll be exactly the same pretty much

[Nik Manning]

2/3 inch ccds and i am stiicking to it. For under at most $12,000 without a lens.I do however think it will be $12,000 with lens included. It will still record to hdv and that can be a good or bad thing. I think NAB will show what canon is hiding. And yeah it might be a H1s.