*** DVXuser Exclusive! *** Canon G1 Footage and Stills! DV and HDV now online!

[mikkowilson]

http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/CanonG1/CanonG1_1_half.jpg (http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/CanonG1/CanonG1_1_full.jpg)
Click for fullsize. (http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/CanonG1/CanonG1_1_full.jpg)

Ok folks, I managed to get a tape into some PRE-production models of the Canon G1 camcorders here at IBC 2006.
The camera I was able to shoot with had a Canon Wide Angle adapter on it, so that may affect image quality slightly.

I got 16:9 DV and HDV on tape at various framerates.

I'm working on getting it processed now. I have the DV captured and I've got some stills!

I will organaize and caption/explain settings etc, as I have time in the coming days, but for now, without furthur ado:


PLEASE RIGHT-CLICK AND SAVE file to your hard drive, I don't know what my server can take.

These have been shot quickly at a tradeshow booth in non-ideal conditions. THESE ARE NOT THE BEST THAT THIS CAMERA IS CAPABLE OF.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

FILES ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE!

The A1 and G1 are now available and there is a growing amount of footage beeing posted online from them by owners.
The new footage posted from production cameras is far more representative of what the cameras can produce (& better!) than the IBC clips originally posted here.

Please refer to the A1/G1 section of the forum for more information and video & stills from the cameras: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=93

---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Mikko

[Noel Evans]

Thats great Mikko. But why in 4:3? And what is the compression coming from the NLE? Those pics are horrible. Sorry Im amping on this.

MY DVX grabs look better. :P No in all honesty I dont think these are indicative, I have seen better grabs from the HC3.

Further I can see compression artifacts in the text now that definateley doesnt come from the cam :P

[mikkowilson]

Workflow as follows:

I stuck the tape in the camera and rolled. I set to manual and tired some basic settings. THESE ARE NOT THE BEST THAT THE CAMERA IS CAPABLE OF.
Was captured into Prem Pro.
.tif files exported directly from Premiere. There's no 16:9 flag, so the files are anamorphic.
There is no post processing of any sorts on the .tifs
The .jpgs are the .tifs run throguh photoshop, rescaled to 1024 x 576 (un anamorpic stretch to 16:9). one title layer added and exported at 100% quality.

I will post a few secs of raw DV in a moment...

- Mikko

[epicedium]

They're not pixel aspect ratio corrected ...

hmm, looking at them in photoshop now ... look crap ;)

[epicedium]

Cheers Mikko, really appreciate it!!

Bit underwhealmed, but will be v interesting to see the video.

I presume camera settings were defaults? Highlight handling *looks* poorer than my XL2s, but that v much depends on settings.

[epicedium]

Just noticed that the files aren't studio rgb / broadcast legal -- does Premiere Pro convert this on output?

[mikkowilson]

Video uploading now... see the first post for the URL.


- Mikko

[epicedium]

Just got the video, very interesting ... the picture definitely looks cleaner than it did in the stills- the noise dancing is there, but not as offensive as I thought it would be.

It's tough to judge without having footage from other cams in the same situation...

[UPDATE]
Pushing around the stills and the video, they're actually more forgiving than I expected... They really aren't bad- this is the SD signal of course. The blown highlights look slightly worrying, but depend on a lot of factors. It's not hard to make a camera look bad :) Seeing the XL-H1 in the same room would be v interesting

[mikkowilson]

I have a clip from a NON_MATCHED XL-H1 nearby coming online in just a sec..


- Mikko

[vidled]

....rescaled to 1024 x 576


Thanks for the pics, Mikko.
The pics quality is surprisingly poor, like others mentioned. Very odd...
Was this a WELL lit scene (they normally are at these shows)?

Also, the correct pic size would be 1050x576, not 1024x576, no?
(Unless the Canon only does the 702 width analog size of course....)

[mikkowilson]

1024x576 is 16:9 and the correct resolution of true 16:9 PAL.

The scene was moderatly well lit. But this was my first using of the camera, with no planning or reading any manuals of any short - and trying to avoid detection that I was actually recording!


- Mikko ... in stealth mode

[epicedium]

1047x576, according to vegas ;) I believe technically it is between 1047 and 1050 ,,, strictly 1048, where visible is 1024 .. as the extra 24 pixels are inactive, as the 18 pixels are inactive in 720 signal (actual = 702).

[mikkowilson]

Ok, that's it for me for right now.
I'll get some more video and stills online in a more organaized fassion with listed settings etc, in the coming days.

I still have a lot to check out here at IBC and very little time to do it.


Be gental on my server!


- Mikko

[rawfa]

Hard to come to any conclusions with these videos. Do you for how much will the 2 cameras be sold in europe?

[epicedium]

It's really appreciated Mikko!

[vidled]

1047x576, according to vegas ;) I believe technically it is between 1047 and 1050 ,,, strictly 1048, where visible is 1024 .. as the extra 24 pixels are inactive, as the 18 pixels are inactive in 720 signal (actual = 702).

1047? Never heard of THAT!!! :) If anything, it would most likely be 1049x576, but it is mostly considered to be 1050x576 (although the one pixel will make no difference).
Of course this will depend on the CAM! Canon G1: does this cam produce the blank 18 pixels on left/right, or not? Does it record the 702 wide (correct) analog type 4:3, like the older XM1, or does it go full wide (like the DVX and most others) and produce 720 wide pixels? If it's 720 full wide, you'd need to go to 1050 to be correct, otherwise 1024 is correct.

[Juan Diaz]

Thanks Mikko!

Really appreciate your hard work.

Juan

[epicedium]

1047? Never heard of THAT!!! :) If anything, it would most likely be 1049x576, but it is mostly considered to be 1050x576 (although the one pixel will make no difference).
Of course this will depend on the CAM! Canon G1: does this cam produce the blank 18 pixels on left/right, or not? Does it record the 702 wide (correct) analog type 4:3, like the older XM1, or does it go full wide (like the DVX and most others) and produce 720 wide pixels? If it's 720 full wide, you'd need to go to 1050 to be correct, otherwise 1024 is correct.

Just got calc out-- looks like 1047 can be reached by working out the PAR from a visible area of 704, rather than 702! (where 702 gives you 1050.256) I don't know the details of when it's 702 and when it's 704- I've seen both quoted in PAL compliant res tables!

And actually, you're right, I think vegas is 1049 .. now that you mention it ;)

[vidled]

Just got calc out-- looks like 1047 can be reached by working out the PAR from a visible area of 704, rather than 702! (where 702 gives you 1050.256) I don't know the details of when it's 702 and when it's 704- I've seen both quoted in PAL compliant res tables!.

Understood.
Well, when Mikko gets back, he should be able to confirm whether the G1 goes all way to 720 or not.



... I think vegas is 1049

Aye, for sure it is! :beer:

[Noel Evans]

Yeah great WORK Mikko really appreciate you trying to get stuff to us.

In the end that H1 footage looked the most ordinary H1 footage I have ever seen before, plenty of noise etc. Its unfortunate but that tells me that these clips arent giving me a solid story. As I said before with the stills these arent even showing the same quality as the consumer HC3 at my local sell all electric supermarket.

[TimurCivan]

was the gain way up? it lookd terrible, granted its not he best circumstances.

Correction:

after viewing in vegas:

The G1 fotage was still terrible. Peopel would have slaughtered a DVX for much less.

The H1 footage looked pretty good however. LESS noisy but still noisy. The vectorscopes and Waveforms said there was exposure al the way up to the mid 60's, and down to 0. So thats enough for the DSP to process. it shouldnt be this noisy unless the Gain is WAY up there. Even the Xl2 with 12db gain wasnt liek this. somethign is amiss.

We just need to wait for better footage from the camera once its shipped.


In the end that H1 footage looked the most ordinary H1 footage I have ever seen before, plenty of noise etc. Its unfortunate but that tells me that these clips arent giving me a solid story. As I said before with the stills these arent even showing the same quality as the consumer HC3 at my local sell all electric supermarket.

The HC3 actually puts out a Nice picture. the bigger model, the 1,400$ sony 1chip HDVcam, Puts out a GREAT! picture. thoes machines are surprising.

[epicedium]

Yeah, at least we know that it isn't just the A1 looking bad, the H1 didn't fare any better! So there's still hope ;) Definitely inconclusive.

[mikkowilson]

Yeah, those shots posted are VERY inconclusive and don't say anything tehcnically acurate. It will take a good side by side test in controlled conditions to determin how 'good' or 'bad' the cameras actually are. And then we'll need practiced operators in good conditions to show us what the cameras can produce.
I honestly think that they will fair similarly to the XL-H1 in most aspects. One thing that I am very pleased to see is the complete lack of any Chromatic abrasion. Granted those where with a wide angle lense & adapter, but still.

I took photographs of the LCD as I shot so I have camera settings logged, I will sit down when I get a chance and match camera settings to pictures by timecode. Then we will be able to at least make sence of this footage I have / posted.

- Mikko

[Kholi]

Thanks for doing this, Mikko. Valiant effort. It's awesome that you get to see it before most of us. =(

I am still going to wait until the camera is shipped and a few more tests show up. Seems that you wouldn't have had time to make sure that things were okay with settings and all.

Thanks again!

[TimurCivan]

How did tehy look on the monitors? were hey displaying Hifdef on the monitors?

[mikkowilson]

They looked prety darn allright punped out to HD monitors over HD-SDI.

My original posts about the cameras describes that in closer detail.


- Mikko

[Barry_Green]

Wow Mikko, nice job in getting an exclusive scoop! I've done this a couple of times, so I know what it's like.

That is not pleasant looking video. That is extremely disappointing looking video. The XLH1 looks like a RED compared to the G1.

So here's the question -- do you *have* to be furtive? When I got some of the first footage from the DVX back at WEVA 2002, I just asked the guys if it was okay to tape stuff and they said "sure". When I got some of the first footage from the HD100 at WEVA 2005 I just asked 'em if it would be okay to tape stuff, and they said "sure." I got the first 24F footage from the XLH1 at ResFest 2005 by asking the Canon reps "would it be okay if I recorded a little?"

So ask. If you ask them and they say it's okay, then you'll have much more freedom to experiment with settings and make sure you're drawing out a representative picture. Nobody expects it to be David Mullen caliber, but at least you would have the freedom to explore the menus and take your time to ensure that gain is at zero and focus is properly set, etc. And you may find that the reps will be exceptionally helpful, they were with me when I was getting early footage!

As for those hoping that this is unrepresentative because it's a preproduction model, that's not likely. They wouldn't be exhibiting it attached to a monitor if it wasn't representative of what the picture will look like; if the picture wasn't up to snuff they'd be showing a non-working model or they'd be showing it not connected to an HD monitor. But that doesn't mean Mikko's recorded footage is absolutely representative yet -- they may have fine-tuned the monitor output but somehow not certified the recorder yet, who knows? Maybe they're willing to show the analog output but aren't ready to show the recorded output? Although the very fact that the recorder is enabled would tend to disagree (for example, at NAB 2005 I tried to get HD100 footage but there was no actual recorder in the units, they were configured for live output only and even the menu settings were disabled; here at IBC 2006 that doesn't appear to be the case with the XH G1, they appear to be exhibiting a fully working unit).

Obviously everyone worldwide was expecting the footage to be a whole lot better than this. And everyone's disappointed. Some will say the camera itself is complete crap, others will point (perhaps rightly?) to the circumstances under which the footage was gathered. So I recommend taking a tape to the show and asking them, forthright, "do you mind if I record a little footage?" They'll probably say "yes". And I bet if you ask nicely enough, and if the booth isn't too overly crowded, they'll move an XLH1 over so you can do a side-by-side.

[Zim]

good idea Barry. There are a lot of people getting ready to dump money on this camera, some may have already on pre orders. Maybe not to late to get a refund.

[mikkowilson]

Asking permission? No kidding. :D

I will try tommorrow (the last day of the show) if I have time.

- Mikko

[Elton]

Mikko,

Do you have a laptop you can bring to the show? Try to record in 25F and 1080i HDV modes. I can point you towards some software that will allow you to capture the .m2t streams if they'll allow you to hook up a firewire cable to the cameras for a minute or two.

Please attempt the following:

Shoot HDV with the following enabled :

--Gain on zero or -3 dB
--Cinegamma 1 or 2 (on the H1 I like 2 better)
--Knee on medium or low (low smooths highlights a bit better)
--Black setting to medium (press will crush blacks and stretch will enhance noise)
--Edit!--DO NOT ALLOW ANY OF THE NOISE REDUCTION MODES TO BE ENABLED!! (in the XL-H1 menu they're called NR 1 and NR 2--I believe there might actually be a new NR mode on the XH cams) These will most likely soften the picture!

Everything else can be neutral or zero setting.

software on PC:

HDV capture: CapDVHS
http://www.videohelp.com/tools?tool=CapDVHS
Export: MPEG Streamclip
http://www.squared5.com

on the Mac:
HDV capture: DVHSCap (part of OSX 10.4 Developer Tools on installer CD)
http://developer.apple.com/hardwaredrivers/download/index.html
HDVxDV (demo is free) http://www.hdvxdv.com/
Export: MPEG Streamclip (OS X version) http://www.squared5.com


If you could possibly post a few raw clips (.m2t's--you'll see them in your capture folder) they don't need to be any longer than 3 or 4 seconds to give a sense of the picture quality.

I'm sure all this would be more difficult to pull off than recording DV, but if you can it'd be great to see. I think most people are interested in how the HDV looks anyway.

[Barry_Green]

If the laptop's not possible, just use the same settings and get it on tape. You can always find someone with a Canon to digitize it. Thanks Barlow for giving some recommended settings!

[mikkowilson]

Thankyou for those settings!
I will give them a try.

I do have a laptop and firewire cable with me in addition to tape (what do you mean it's as if I planned this a week ago?). i will grab that software in the morning and see what I can get.

Will that software work with sony HDV too? :innocent:


- Mikko

[TimurCivan]

I want this camera to be awesome.... so that the HVX100 ( or whatever is in the future will have ot be just as awesome)

[mikkowilson]

Yeah, so do I.

I think I just did a piss poor job of shooting.

- Mikko

[Noel Evans]

Again Mikko. Really appreciate you doing all this for us (me).

[Zim]

maybe try and get some video from the Sony V1 too. Thanks.

[Tibby]

Any chance you might get to shoot some footage in the new Sony (HVR-V1E?)? I would love to see what 3 chip CMOS progressive looks like.

(edit: Nevermind, it looks like Barry beat me to it in another thread)

[TimurCivan]

Yeah, so do I.

I think I just did a piss poor job of shooting.

- Mikko

Yea just make sure the Gain switch is off. i think thats the problem. Also everyone dont freak this is a show model. also looks like it wasnt properly Whitebalanced.

[mikkowilson]

Gain was off .. however I totally fergot to WB. I think that's a major part of the problem.

- Mikko

[Kholi]

Looking forward to it!

[Elton]

Will that software work with sony HDV too? :innocent:

It should!

The capture process should be really simple. 25F playback from the camera will look to the software like a normal 1080i MPEG 2 Transport stream. When you play the clips in VLC (www.videolan.org in case you don't have it) or the latest WMP they should obviously look like 25P.

I forgot to say--try to upload only the raw .m2t files from your capture folder that you've designated. If you try exporting the clips to another codec it'll just complicate things.

[Elton]

If the camera's operation is similar to the H1 try this:

--switch the mode select button to "HD"
--switch to F1 or F2 (one of them should be 25F--you'll see it in the EVF overlay info)
--Turn WB switch to "auto" or to the light bulb icon (tungsten color temp)
--Turn the camera dial to "M" (manual operation)
--Hit the menu button (it should show "camera menu" on the overlay)
--Scroll down to "Custom Preset"
--Hit the set button (it should show the CP edit mode functions)
--Scroll to "Tune" and hit set again
--Go to each parameter and scroll up or down for value changes and hit the set button to enable a value. Scroll up or down to move through the items

The menu should look something like this: http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/H1menu.jpg

That should do it--thanks again and good luck Mikko!

[mikkowilson]

Eton, unfortunatly the custom presets menu I saw on the G1 (I saw it) Is just index numbers and values - useless without a manual.

- Mikko

[rawfa]

Hey Mikko, thanks for all the insight. This is amazing. If the guy allows you to shoot a little bit with the camera, try shooting the guy (no pun intended) so that we can check out skin tones.

Elton, I wish I will look at an lcd like this many many times...very very soon.

[rawfa]

Oh, yes, of course it would be awesome to get some shots with the new sonys too.

[Elton]

Eton, unfortunatly the custom presets menu I saw on the G1 (I saw it) Is just index numbers and values - useless without a manual.

- Mikko

Really? I can't imagine that the G1's CP menu would be any less intuitive than the H1's. That would be a big step backwards.

I wonder if those cameras on display are even close to the finalized, shipping models?

[fantasticfilm]

Mikko - You are a Superstar!!

Thanks for taking time out to give us a bit of the excitement -we are all rooting for you!!

David

[mikkowilson]

Correction to the above:
I did see the same menues in the G1 today.


However the bad news is that I was unable to shoot any more footage with the Canon.

I did get yesterday's HDV captured though, I'll post it when I get the chance when I get home.


- Mikko

[Elton]

Great Mikko! Thanks for all your efforts--very much appreciated!

[Kholi]

Thanks for the efforts. I'm one of the watchdogs, as well. Post up when you get the HDV footage going!

[Drew Ott]

I really hope this camera starts getting better reviews.

[Kholi]

I wouldn't worry too much about it til it comes out, honestly. Then you'll see all the reviews you need when people have real time to play with it.

[PANA-MAN]

I'll reserve judgement until I actually have one in my hands and play with it for a while. When I first got my XL2 I almost took it back the next day because I thought the image looked horrible (this was out of the box). After learning how to properly optimize its image control settings I saw how incredible the images can actually look. Nearly two years later I'm still incredibly happy with it. Anyone who's judgement is swayed by this footage should really know better.

[Noel Evans]

Have to agree with Pana Man at this stage of the game. Though you think Canon would learn to have their cams pop out of the box with some presets that give optimal images. Then people could throw away the manual just like I have seen many appear to do on the DVX :P

That said you couldnt expect anymore from Mikko, the guy truly went out of his way to get this to us and although I have already Ill say it again : Thanks Mikko!

[MovieSwede]

Rememebered when I shoot with my DVX for the first time in avarage light indoors. Where not that impressed, the next day i shoot with it outside in good lightning and it really blowed me away.

[mikkowilson]

I've had a chance to review the footage again - including the HDV I shot (yes, I got it recorded, I will upload in a few minutes).

And it really doesn't look that bad at all.
I realize that the clips I posted give NO sence of the shooting conditions or context of the shot.
I have better stuff to post in a little bit, and I think that we will see much better results from the final cameras in the right hands.

Remember, this was in (supprizingly) crappy lighting, with an non-production line camera, quickly, and under the radar shooting. Oh yeah, and a Wide angle lens. - All things that alone can make for crappy footage.


My point of posting this footage isn't to show you what the camera can do, but that that it *can* do.

- Mikko

[rawfa]

Awesome. Can't wait for the new footage.

[mikkowilson]

HDV clips are up!

------------------

HDV - RAW TS captured with software from: http://www.videohelp.com/tools?tool=CapDVHS
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/CanonG1/CanonG1_HDV50i_1.mpg :3sec (12.4MB)
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/CanonG1/CanonG1_HDV25p_1.mpg :4sec (14.2MB)
http://ibc.mikkowilson.com/CanonG1/CanonG1_HDV25p_2.mpg :5sec (16.4MB)

------------------

The last one is my fave. It starts to show more into the direction of what this camera can do. :)


- Mikko

[meta4]

That last clip was sweet!

5 seconds long but totally worth the wait!

Thanks mikko!

*smokes post-video cigarette*

[Zim]

I still can't view your HDV stuff.

[philnerd]

I still can't view your HDV stuff.

www.videolan.org

I know they do windows, I think they have a Mac version too... you didn't specify your platform or anything.

[mikkowilson]

Ok, for those of you with bandwidth to burn who really want to see everything...

I've uploaded a capture of all of the HDV I shot - almost 2mins.
It's a huge 343MB file and will take a while to download.

For most it's not worth the wait. The stills and short clips I've posted show most that there is to see.


See the link in the first post of the thread.

- Mikko

[Zim]

www.videolan.org

I know they do windows, I think they have a Mac version too... you didn't specify your platform or anything.


I'm using a mac. The quicktime pops up then after a minute a question marks is on the inside of the quicktime. I have never seen that. I can view most stuff.

[mikkowilson]

You need a MPEG-2 codec installed. - It's not automatically in QT.

This HDV I'm posting is the raw HDV MPEG-2 Transport Stream. It's not regular web video.


If someone wants to convert to something more universal that would be fine, but I'm trying to preserve original quality.

- Mikko

[DavidBeier]

I'd really like to see more footage before I weigh in, especially on the A1 which is what most people seem to be excited about. Honestly, I simply don't get how removing interchangible lenses and SDI out can make a 9k cameras like the XLH1 only cost 4k. Seomthing doesn't seem right, especially from Canon who's never really given bargin prices.

[epicedium]

huh, clip #2 looks excellent

I'm relieved !

[Zim]

could someone put that footage another way?

[DavidBeier]

huh, clip #2 looks excellent

I'm relieved !

Excellent is a bit over-doing it. Both the HDV clips look light years beyond the noisy mess we saw in SD. However, do they really look on par with that of the XLH1. That's really what we're all wondering isn't it? The HVX200, HD100, and Z1 all deliver about the same amount of resolved detail for around 5k-6k. The Canon XLH1 signifigantly more resolved detail at a price of 9k. Now people are excited about the possability at keeping that extra detail but only losing the interchangible lenses for 7k (G1) or interchangible lenses and SDI out for 4k (A1). I have no doubt the G1 and A1 are going to produce a decent image. What I want to know is if they are really going to give is as much detail as we see in the 9k XLH1 and thus a signifigantly larger amount than in the other cheap HD cameras. I'm not seeing that here but the lack a controlled environment and proper settings could easily account for that. Side by side tests are the only thing that should make any of us releaved (or some footage demonstrating the same resolving power as the XLH1).

[epicedium]

David, if you take the second m2t file into your software and play with the curves, I think you'll be surprised ... It's more solid than I expected. Considering how bad the first stuff looked, it's a big relief to get a decent signal ... there is a lot of detail and depth, and IMO there is now every chance that it will look as good as the H1 (or, very close)... Here's hoping.

[DavidBeier]

I repeat, it looks quite respectible but I'm really not seeing the roughly 20% more detail that the XLH1 offers over the other cameras. As I said, I think for most this is really going to be the selling point of the A1 (which is the one everyone seems really excited about). From what Barry and a few others have reported, the XLH1 is the poorest selling of the cheaper HD cameras (not a measure on quality of course but much more likely because of it's price). The other cameras are in the 5-6k range and offer pretty similar resolved detail. With those being equal, those who want better low light performance go with the Sony Z1, those looking for interchangible lenses can go with the JVC HD100, and those looking for the DVCProHD codec with it's greater color space, better motion, as well as variable frame rates can go for the Pansonic HVX200 (I realize I've GREATLY simplified the cameras and everything but just humor me). The XLH1 offers abotu 20% more resolution than these guys but at a price of 3-4k more. Now, the A1 looks to offer the same resolved detail at a price of 4k, cheaper than all the rest. This is a bold claim and one that seems to go to be true (though very well may be). However, these two shots aren't enough to assess this. Yes, I like you would describe the second shot as "more solid than I expected." But just saying, "Considering how bad the first stuff looked, it's a big relief to get a decent signal" isn't enough. We already have three other cameras that give us a decent signal. What I, at least, am wondering is if it really delivers the extra detail that the XLH1 does. I don't see it in these shots nor would I expect to given the hectic nature they were taken under. The touted strength of the Canon XLH1 is the resolution (though I personally think it's colors beat JVC'x and Sony's) so for those who have already gotten one of the others with their distinct advantages or are waiting to buy because they are expecting the XLH1 advantage at a cheaper price, we can't judge untill we see some real tests.

[TimurCivan]

I agree david.

CAnon REALLLY REALLY HAS to nail this. I will buy one if they do. I swear to god.

[epicedium]

David, I agree with all that you say! But do remember that the A1 is indeed cheeper than it's competitors- it offers 24/25/30F, XLR ins, 20x zoom, and a 'wider' wide end than the H1's lens. I suppose that if the detail doesn't live up to the H1, then it will probably still sell as "the best value high quality 1080i camera, with the added bonus of 25f". If it *does* have the detail of the H1, then it will make a far more significant impact- this is really what we want, and I agree that it is not yet proved.

[Fugitive]

Thats what I was thinking as well. The point is, even if it is at par with other cameras, rather than have the extra detail, its pretty much the cheapest progressive HD camera out there. That alone gives it an edge, and a solid market to cater for.

As far as the detail is concerned, if it has the same XL-H1 chip, you would have to have a really bad lense to make it lose the extra detail. But as I said, even if it doesnt deliver extra detail, having the same details as the JVC or Sony would be good enough (I understand detail is not Panny's strong point).

[DavidBeier]

Thats what I was thinking as well. The point is, even if it is at par with other cameras, rather than have the extra detail, its pretty much the cheapest progressive HD camera out there. That alone gives it an edge, and a solid market to cater for.

As far as the detail is concerned, if it has the same XL-H1 chip, you would have to have a really bad lense to make it lose the extra detail. But as I said, even if it doesnt deliver extra detail, having the same details as the JVC or Sony would be good enough (I understand detail is not Panny's strong point).

First off, we don't know what the resulting cameras will be selling for when the A1 is released. The FX1 can already by found for 3k from an authorized dealer and, with the A1's release, it wouldn't surprise me if the HD100 and Z1 (both been out a while) dropped to a similar price point.

It's also not accurate to categorize it as a "progressive" camera since the chips are in fact interlaced. The HVX200 and HD100 have true progressive CCDs. The Z1 and XLH1 (and thus the A1) create their fake 24p by mixing fields. In the case of the Z1, this results in really odd looking motion and a big loss in resolution. The XLH1's fairs a bit better but is still not true progressive.

As for your last comment on detail, from what I saw from Barry's tests shooting side by side, the HVX200 is capable as roughly as much detail as the HD100 and more than the Z1 in 24 frame mode (when it messes with the fields).

I really don't mean to be a downer on the A1 as I'm really interested if Canon can pull off such a miraculous feat. And yes, even if the detail is comparible to the other cameras rather than better, the A1 would be attractive to those who insist on HDV since Canon's codec looks better than Sony's or JVC's (so still can't hold a candle to DVCProHD). From my point of view though, someone who already has an HVX200 and only glances at an XLH1 from time to time because of it's higher resolution, the A1 really needs to prove it retains the XLH1's key strength before I get excited.

[Fugitive]

We already know the rough price the A1 will be selling for, and if Canon charges anything more, people wont be buying it, so we can safely assume a ballpark price of about 3-4.5k. That said, this is a moot point.

As far as the interlaced chip is concerned, this has been beaten to death. It DOESNT MATTER if the chip is interlaced when you cant tell the difference! People have proven, time and again, that Canon's 24f is every bit as good as true progressive, just acheived in a different manner. So, for purists maybe this is a problem, but for the most of us, once again, this is a moot point.

As for my point on detail, I based my comment on the side-by-side comparison done by walter graff. I know "he" says they look the same, but to my poor eyes, they dont. The JVC image has a tad bit more detail. This point may be subjective, but I sure know I am not alone in thinking the HVX has a "slight" bit lesser detail than the other cams. The HVX is a great cam, and this is subjective, so I am not contesting the point, but rather pointing out what I observed.

All in all, my points still stand.

[lacuna]

From my point of view though, someone who already has an HVX200 and only glances at an XLH1 from time to time because of it's higher resolution, the A1 really needs to prove it retains the XLH1's key strength before I get excited.

That makes sense, but as someone who has not yet committed to HD, I think the A1 may have more too it than simply resolution bang for buck. It looks like a really nice package.

Leaving aside codec and media (because these issues have been bashed to death and I see advantages both ways), the A1 has a superior focal range to the HVX and a couple of new features that sound promising (instant AF and iris ring on lens). And if it retains the image characteristics of the H1, it will have a cleaner picture than the HVX and usable gain. The H1 also has even more tweakable image parametres than the HVX, and the new Canon's appear to be stepping this up a level further.

Whether it's "progressive" or not is neither here nor there. It looks progressive, it acts progressive, it works like progressive. Doesn't really matter how you get there. Just as the HVX CCDs have fewer pixels than my Pal XL2, it doesn't mean it's not an HD cam - it performs like one, that's all that matters.

Of course, for those whose decision is principally based on codec/media these are non-issues.

[Juan Diaz]

I really don't mean to be a downer on the A1 as I'm really interested if Canon can pull off such a miraculous feat. And yes, even if the detail is comparible to the other cameras rather than better, the A1 would be attractive to those who insist on HDV since Canon's codec looks better than Sony's or JVC's (so still can't hold a candle to DVCProHD). From my point of view though, someone who already has an HVX200 and only glances at an XLH1 from time to time because of it's higher resolution, the A1 really needs to prove it retains the XLH1's key strength before I get excited.


I don't think it would be a miraculous feat for Canon to put out a camera that performs like the XL H1 for the price of the A1. It makes perfect business sense for them to do this. Tech companies do this all the time.

Imagine, Canon has already invested a ton of money on R&D developing their 1/3" optical block and signal processing. It makes sense that they would want to maximize their investment by putting their (already developed) technology in a package that they can sell in greater volume. In other words, it would make sense for them to earn as much of a profit as they can on their current sensors before investing on their next generation CCDs.

The big money spent on Canon's part is on R&D. Once they have their manufacturing infrastructure in place, it's cheaper for them to mass produce what they have than to revamp their assembly line for new technology.

As the A1 and G1 are essentially a repackaging of existing technology (yes I am simplifying a little bit:-), I don't see any miracles happening here.

Having said that, I absolutely agree with David that it's pointless to make any conclusions until we see some real footage from these cameras. I am really excited about these cameras, but I still personally won't spend any of my own cash until I've seen them deliver the goods. I'm not too worried though.

[Zim]

OK this the A1 was announced what back in July? When are we going to see a good review of this camera? It's coming out in a month. The best I've seen so far are people sticking tapes in the camera at a trade show and a few seconds of video. That is great but why nothing else from Canon?

I on a waiting list but I'm not going to buy until I see something else.

We will probably get some reviews for the Sony V1 next week and it was just announced.

[Barry_Green]

The JVC image has a tad bit more detail. This point may be subjective, but I sure know I am not alone in thinking the HVX has a "slight" bit lesser detail than the other cams.
This is true. But we're talking about "detail", as in artificial edge enhancement, not "resolution", as in: the camera's ability to resolve the image.

When you set them at equivalent edge enhancement settings they resolve almost identically. But JVC's edge enhancement is much more aggressive than the HVX's. Set the HVX on absolute maximum edge enhancement (+7) and you'd have to set the JVC DOWN to -6 in order for them to match, as far as artificial enhancement goes. Set a JVC to -5 and it'll be more edge-enhanced (aka "detail" in the HVX's menus) than an HVX is even capable of. Set it all the way up to 0 (aka "normal" in the JVC's menus) and it'll be grossly oversharpened as compared to the HVX.

So what you're seeing is not resolved image or truly higher resolution, what you're seeing is the effect of the edge enhancement circuitry (aka "detail level").

[DavidBeier]

That makes sense, but as someone who has not yet committed to HD, I think the A1 may have more too it than simply resolution bang for buck. It looks like a really nice package.

Leaving aside codec and media (because these issues have been bashed to death and I see advantages both ways), the A1 has a superior focal range to the HVX and a couple of new features that sound promising (instant AF and iris ring on lens). And if it retains the image characteristics of the H1, it will have a cleaner picture than the HVX and usable gain. The H1 also has even more tweakable image parametres than the HVX, and the new Canon's appear to be stepping this up a level further.

Whether it's "progressive" or not is neither here nor there. It looks progressive, it acts progressive, it works like progressive. Doesn't really matter how you get there. Just as the HVX CCDs have fewer pixels than my Pal XL2, it doesn't mean it's not an HD cam - it performs like one, that's all that matters.

Of course, for those whose decision is principally based on codec/media these are non-issues.

Your point about progressive CCDs is a fair one though I've heard conflicting reports over whether or not the picture loses resolution when shooting in 24f (some say yes some say no).

As for "retaining the image characteristics of the H1" that's what we are trying to determine. From these shots, the camera looks noiser than the H1 (though I think some will dispute the H1 being cleaner than the HVX200). The point is that these images simply tell us way too little to make any sort of real decision. They've shown us a decent image but even the FX1 can produce a decent image with a lot of finess (still hate the camera with a passion). I'm just saying we need real tests to breath easily.

[MovieSwede]

This is true. But we're talking about "detail", as in artificial edge enhancement, not "resolution", as in: the camera's ability to resolve the image.

When you set them at equivalent edge enhancement settings they resolve almost identically. But JVC's edge enhancement is much more aggressive than the HVX's. Set the HVX on absolute maximum edge enhancement (+7) and you'd have to set the JVC DOWN to -6 in order for them to match, as far as artificial enhancement goes. Set a JVC to -5 and it'll be more edge-enhanced (aka "detail" in the HVX's menus) than an HVX is even capable of. Set it all the way up to 0 (aka "normal" in the JVC's menus) and it'll be grossly oversharpened as compared to the HVX.

So what you're seeing is not resolved image or truly higher resolution, what you're seeing is the effect of the edge enhancement circuitry (aka "detail level").

Nice that someone point that out. With -7 the image shall look soft. Every test with the HVX ive seen they put the detail to -7. That wouldnt give the image justice, it wouldnt give the DVX justice either that way.

I would like to see a test were they really push the HVX200 to its limits.

[mikkowilson]

I would like to see a test were they really push the HVX200 to its limits.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=90 :thumbsup:


- Mikko

[Fugitive]

Cant really argue with Barry if only because I cant really differentiate between subtle edge-enhancement and increased resolution. They "look" the same (if indeed that is why the JVC has more detail).

[filmmaker1977]

hey fugitive, what do you expect from the pana pope?

it's his baby.. there's no secrets..

[Barry_Green]

It's real easy to demonstrate -- turn the edge enhancement off with the JVC, and then look at it. You'll see a massive difference between with it off and with it on. Off = what it's truly resolving. On = artificial edge enhancement.

They all do it, but the JVC is a lot more aggressive than the others. Canon is second place in edge enhancement, Sony and Panasonic are mildest. At least with the JVC they let you turn it all the way off; the Canon doesn't, and the Sony -- well, it's odd. It looks like off is about 5, and anything lower than that seems to be actually blurring the image.

[Simon Wyndham]

Wouldn't be surprising if it did blur the image. I'd be surprised at that function being on a prosumer camera though, but on cameras such as the HDW-750 the detail can be put into the negatives to soften it more than had the detail just been turned off.

[Fugitive]

Interesting point. So can the detail be turned off for the HVX as well, for a side-by-side comparison with sharpness off for both? Has anyone done that?

[Barry_Green]

but on cameras such as the HDW-750 the detail can be put into the negatives to soften it more than had the detail just been turned off.
HVX, JVC, and Canon all offer negative settings, but all are still edge-enhancing. For example, on the JVC the lowest three settings are "OFF", "MIN", and "-9". -9 is more enhanced than MIN, which is still quite enhanced as opposed to "OFF".

The Sony is the only one that doesn't use a negative scale, it goes from 0 to 15. Yet anything below 5 is alarmingly soft. So maybe they're doing as Simon says, but it's curious why they didn't rank it on a negative scale.

But in the end, the point is that none of these scales matches the others. -7 on an HVX does not equate to -7 on a Canon or -7 on a JVC; MIN on a Canon is equivalent to about -3 on the HVX, -6 on the JVC is about equiv. to +7 on the HVX, and 5 on the Sony is about equiv. to Min/-7/Min on the JVC/HVX/Canon.

[Barry_Green]

Interesting point. So can the detail be turned off for the HVX as well, for a side-by-side comparison with sharpness off for both? Has anyone done that?
Turning it to -7 is not specifically claiming that it's "off". The only one that actually claims to go all the way off is JVC, none of the others do. But -7 on the HVX does look equivalent to "off" on the JVC, as far as enhancement goes.

[Bogdan]

I don't think it would be a miraculous feat for Canon to put out a camera that performs like the XL H1 for the price of the A1. It makes perfect business sense for them to do this. Tech companies do this all the time.

Imagine, Canon has already invested a ton of money on R&D developing their 1/3" optical block and signal processing. It makes sense that they would want to maximize their investment by putting their (already developed) technology in a package that they can sell in greater volume.
...

Juan -

What you wrote makes perfect sense. I don't find XH-A1 price surprising at all and don't believe Canon compromised core imaging system quality in A1 or G1. We shouldn't forget major chunk of XL-H1 cost went to the JackPack. XH-G1 equipped with that costs ~$7k. From this point of view, $4k for XH-A1 is perfectly right.

I wouldn't be surprised if A1/G1 actually perform slightly better than H1 with standard 20x lens. Big guy's advantage is more versatile connectivity, interchangeable lenses and form factor.

Canon G1 and Sony V1 footage looks very good to me (thanks Mikko!), even though it was not full test of finalized products. The market becomes more and more interesting. My impression is in progressive mode G1 goes hand to hand with V1, maybe with slight edge for Canon. In 1080i Canon is the king. No doubt about that. If only Sony had given us 1/3" sensors, I'd have hard time making up my mind. Without that, my choice was simple to go with Canon.

[Fugitive]

In 1080i Canon is the king. No doubt about that.

There we go again...

What are we talking about here, resolution? bang-for-the-buck? Looks? Each one has a different answer...

[Bogdan]

What did I say again to make you react like that? Canon H1 and soon A1/G1 are the only camcorders in this class that provide full HDV2 (1080i) resolution support plus with pixel shift it gets even better over HD-SDI. That's why H1 and soon G1 are so attractive to TV producers and broadcast studios on budget. So far, nobody else gives us 3 1440x1080 sensors in this ballpark and I hope you agree with that at least.

[Fugitive]

I definately do. :)

My apologies for comming across as rude if I did because that sure wasnt the intention. I just keep trying to point out that "better" is always in respect to something.

So, I was asking, better in which sense? Resolution? Then the Canon wins hands down. But there ARE other things that can make a camera better, and not necessarily resolution. Those can be "Bang-for the Buck", Looks, true progressive, variable frame-rates, or whatever else.

All in all, only trying to point out that using a blanket statement like "Canon is king" or "XYZ is best" doesnt make sense until you specify what it is that you think its best "at".

Besides, before you think I am a Canon-basher, I love their Optics, OIS, and the XL-2 just makes me drool. The XL-2 was my dream cam before HD. Honestly :)

[Bogdan]

By saying "in 1080i" I meant resolution, of course. Other image quality aspects are more or less subjective since all cameras in this class are so close. Canon are my favorite and XL2 was my king also :) Nothing is perfect in video equipment, especially for less than $10k, but Canon seems to spec their products slightly better than others, imo. I find HVX images very pleasant, but little soft and noisy. Sony images (including V1) are very clean on the other hand, but carry that sort of plastic appearance. Canon's images (even though Mikko's test was just a quickie) have more life, more filmic appearance imo.

I don't consider you Canon-basher, maybe Pana-fanatic a little bit ;-)

[Fugitive]

Lol. Pana-fanatic? And I keep talking about how the resolution of the HVX quite doesnt (IMHO) hold up to the JVC...I had to remind Barry and Filmaker1977 that I wasnt trolling, or trashing the HVX for that matter. Besides, I am probably the most active guy in the Silicon Imaging forum.

I dont play favorites, because I dont mind switching in a heart-beat if I think the image is better. Its all in the image. I am a film-maker, not a marketing advisor... :)


p.s: There are definately things where other cams are not so close, i.e interchangable lenses(JVC), Variable Frame-rates & tapeless workflow (Panny), lack of noise & affordability (Sony- FX1). Each camera is quite distinct in these factors. Others things? quite close.

[Bogdan]

I wasn't 100% serious about that pana-fanatic :-)

I do my best to bring some useful information to this forum and others but in many cases I find myself correcting inaccuracies in various opinions or statements, more for the sake of technical correctness rather than critique. I get labeled "troll" for that from time to time also.

Image quality is the ultimate factor by which we should judge and choose our tools and in this term all 1/3" (and 1/4) cameras are not far away. Workflow and features of course differ a lot. I agree, resolutionwise JVC has the edge over HVX, but HVX offers unique features. If some day I need to reach for variable frame rates, HVX will be the choice unless SI or RED becomes handy :-)

[DavidBeier]

By saying "in 1080i" I meant resolution, of course. Other image quality aspects are more or less subjective since all cameras in this class are so close.

That's kind of a silly statement. Many will tell you that the resolution on these 1/3 CCD cameras is prett close (People like Barry, Ash, and BobDiaz for instance). What's not subjective is a 100mbs DVCProHD codec with 4:2:2 color compression comared to a 25mbs HDV codec with 4:2:0. What's also not subjective is that the Canon has interlaced CCDs and Adam Wilt and several others have pointed out that it's vertical resolution drops to around 540 lines (same as the HVX200) when using 24f. Variable frame rates aren't subjective either.

All the cameras have strengths and weakness but suggesting that all other aspects, save resolution, are relativly equal is quite rather absurd.


Canon are my favorite and XL2 was my king also :) Nothing is perfect in video equipment, especially for less than $10k, but Canon seems to spec their products slightly better than others, imo. I find HVX images very pleasant, but little soft and noisy. Sony images (including V1) are very clean on the other hand, but carry that sort of plastic appearance. Canon's images (even though Mikko's test was just a quickie) have more life, more filmic appearance imo.


See this strikes me as an odd statment. I won't bother arguing the detail or noise of the HVX200 since we do that enough on other threads but claiming that the Canon's images or more filmic strikes me as the very definition of subjective. Many feel that Pansonic is better than anyone at the film look. I don't understand why you dismiss real things as "subjective" and then make a statment like this.

Claiming any of them as the king of 1080 is just silly. They are different cameras with different strengths and weakness (even a piece of crap like the FX1 has it's place).

[Bogdan]

...

What's also not subjective is that the Canon has interlaced CCDs and Adam Wilt and several others have pointed out that it's vertical resolution drops to around 540 lines (same as the HVX200) when using 24f. Variable frame rates aren't subjective either.

All the cameras have strengths and weakness but suggesting that all other aspects, save resolution, are relativly equal is quite rather absurd.


See this strikes me as an odd statment. I won't bother arguing the detail or noise of the HVX200 since we do that enough on other threads but claiming that the Canon's images or more filmic strikes me as the very definition of subjective. Many feel that Pansonic is better than anyone at the film look. I don't understand why you dismiss real things as "subjective" and then make a statment like this.

Claiming any of them as the king of 1080 is just silly. They are different cameras with different strengths and weakness (even a piece of crap like the FX1 has it's place).

David -

I think you should read my posts again. I was talking about resolution (not camera features) in 1080i i.e. interlaced mode and as proven by many tests, resolution-wise Canon has the lead in the class while in progressive (F) mode it's been still under discussion. Canon H1 (and soon A1/G1) are the only camcorders in this class that provide full, native support for HDV2 resolution. By saying "king of 1080i" I meant just that and I think I explained myself precisely enough.

As far as film look or personal taste is concerned, please pay attention to couple of "imo"s in my posts which stands for "in my opinion" :)

[DavidBeier]

David -

I think you should read my posts again. I was talking about resolution (not camera features) in 1080i i.e. interlaced mode and as proven by many tests, resolution-wise Canon has the lead in the class while in progressive (F) mode it's been still under discussion. Canon H1 (and soon A1/G1) are the only camcorders in this class that provide full, native support for HDV2 resolution.

Maybe you should read your post again too. You claim that all other aspects of the cameras, save for resolution, are subjective which simply isn't true. I gave you a number of very objective differences between it and the HVX200 and there are many more. For that matter, 1080i can mean a number of things. Right now, nearly all 1080 recording formats are interlaced even if you're going for a progressive image. 24p and 30p are still recorded onto an interlaced signal. Perhaps you might have wanted to argue it's the kind of 1080 60i, in which case it does beat the others in resolution. Still, that's hardly the whole battle.

*deep breath as I actually do the impossible and say something nice about the FX1/Z1*

In the 108060i realm, the FX1 and Z1 tend to be much more popular. Why? Because those who tend to tend not to care about a profressive image in any way shape or form also seem less concerned with resolution. Those who like 60i tend to have much less concern for the overal image. Thus, they flock to the Sony cameras because of their better low light performance, their smaller and easier to handle design, and their higher compatibility with NLEs and decks. Labling anything "king" is just uninformed no matter how you try to justify it (and if you think all other differences between the other cameras are subjective then you are very uninformed). Why not just say, "the XLH1 produces the highest resolved detail in 108060i?"


As far as film look or personal taste is concerned, please pay attention to couple of "imo"s in my posts which stands for "in my opinion" :)

Wow. And all these years I thought it stood for Interchangible Monkey Opportunity. Saying IMO doesn't change the rather hypocritical nature of claiming some really technical strengths of the other cameras are "subjective" then promoting the Canon based on your own subjective opinion.

[Bogdan]

Maybe you should read your post again too. You claim that all other aspects of the cameras, save for resolution, are subjective which simply isn't true.

I don't enjoy this childish conversation with you anymore since you twist my words and opinions in quite unfair way.

What I wrote in my own words, was for example "Other image quality aspects are more or less subjective since all cameras in this class are so close." If you don't get it then let me explain it to you one more time before I finish.

"Other image quality aspects" does not mean "all other aspects of the cameras" as in your manipulated version.

"more or less subjective" as I claimed does not mean "are subjective" like you wrote.

Since the subject was IMAGE QUALITY, not "all other aspects of the cameras", in my opinion dynamic range, film look etc. are not that far away apart in 1/3" class camcorders or can be easily changed in the camera or in post. If you don't agree with that please post side-by-side comparisons that will prove that any of these cameras blows away others beyond any doubt.

And since you are so willing to attack my opinions, please think twice before calling FX1 camcorder "piece of crap" because many people make their living with that equipment and I'm sure they would challenge your, not so objective statement.

[DavidBeier]

I don't enjoy this childish conversation with you anymore since you twist my words and opinions in quite unfair way.

What I wrote in my own words, was for example "Other image quality aspects are more or less subjective since all cameras in this class are so close." If you don't get it then let me explain it to you one more time before I finish.

"Other image quality aspects" does not mean "all other aspects of the cameras" as in your manipulated version.

"more or less subjective" as I claimed does not mean "are subjective" like you wrote.

Since the subject was IMAGE QUALITY, not "all other aspects of the cameras", in my opinion dynamic range, film look etc. are not that far away apart in 1/3" class camcorders or can be easily changed in the camera or in post. If you don't agree with that please post side-by-side comparisons that will prove that any of these cameras blows away others beyond any doubt.

And since you are so willing to attack my opinions, please think twice before calling FX1 camcorder "piece of crap" because many people make their living with that equipment and I'm sure they would challenge your, not so objective statement.

I'm sorry but so now color sampling isn't a factor of "image quality?" Niether is motion compression, or lattitude, or any of this other stuff? I havn't seen you post any pictures to prove the Canon is vastly better than the others in what you claim. Not to mention it isn't even a matter of that but math. 4:2:2 color space is quite different from 4:2:0. It had nothing to do with being in a "1/3 class camcorder." It's a codec and how it's stored. Interframe encoding is very different than having 24, 30, or 60 pure frames rather than generated ones based on only one in six (in Canon's case) or one in eleven (Sony's I believe) I frames. Once again, these are not "more or less subjective." These are simple facts of the codecs. I think most who use the Sony's will tell you their low light performance is not "more or less" subjective either. Maybe you just don't know what the word subjective means. Saying "they're about the same in my opinion" doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. It doesn't suddenly make HDV stop using interframe encoding or 4:2:0 color sampling. It doesn't make the noise you'll get from upping the gain in the Canon disapear. You like Canon and that's fine. If I wanted to shoot 1080i60i landscapes and resolution was paramount then I'd call the Canon the king of that maybe (though having a bit less lattitude can kill you on at times). Calling it the 1080i king is almost as silly as claiming everything aside from resolution is "more or less subjective." Not to mention, once again, a lot of pros I know say that the resolution of the 1/3 cameras is closer than not and it's the other features that really distinguish them.

As for the FX1 and Z1, I think they are pieces or crap for what I want to do but they have their place (weddings and other low light videography affairs) and I'm fine with anyone arguing different. I guess piece of crap is a bad term. I just don't find them useful for what I want to do.

[Elton]

You know David, you make some excellent points, but something you seem to fail to recognize about DV100 "4:2:2" is that it is sub-sampled raster 4:2:2, which can still look great, but in reality it's a reduced resolution 4:2:2. It's actual color sampling isn't quite the leap that 4:2:2 would seem to be in comparison to HDV...especially DV100 720p. It's still fairly heavy compression, and yes, it doesn't suffer motion compression, but it has it's own set of compromises.

Ever seen full 4:2:2 SDI from the H1? I'd be happy to show you some examples down the road if you'd like to see the difference between full raster 1920 x 1080 4:2:2 and DVCPRO HD 1080 4:2:2 (1280x1080)

[Bogdan]

I'm sorry but so now color sampling isn't a factor of "image quality?" Niether is motion compression, or lattitude, or any of this other stuff? I havn't seen you post any pictures to prove the Canon is vastly better than the others in what you claim. Not to mention it isn't even a matter of that but math.
...

You are really persistent in playing around with my words. Can you do me a favor and tell me when did I say Canon is "vastly better" or "blows away all the competition"? "Better" may be very subjective and I perfectly understand it. To some it's image resolution, to others interchangeable lenses or tapeless workflow etc.

In my opinion XL-H1 produces the best looking images of the bunch, but the difference is not big. In fact, I used words like "Canon has the edge" or "slightly better". Don't you think it's a little bit different from your interpretation? I relied more on final images than the math and that's why I didn't get very technical in this discussion.

Btw, latitude is dynamic range and I included it in my post as one of the most important image quality aspects.

Talking about math, HDV compression is effective enough so one really needs to look closely to notice any motion or other compression artifacts. Maybe you witnessed some of those watching examples available on the Web, but keep in mind those movies are usually quite heavily compressed so judging HDV image quality based on that is wrong.

Color sampling and DVCPRO HD codec are valid arguments, but don't forget Canon starts with 3x more sampling points than HVX200, so do your math again. Even with HDV sacrificing some quality, final images speak for themselves. Again, I do not claim HVX200 is bad camera, but only that Canon has the edge, so please don't "quote me" again like you did before.

H1 (and soon G1) offer uncompressed digital output and that's one of the reasons why I dared to call Canon the king of 1080i in the class. Full HDV2 resolution and connectivity make these cameras more attractive to TV producers and small TV stations than other models.

I don't own XL-H1 and don't have access to this camera currently, but hopefully will get A1 soon. I think I will squeeze couple of hundred bucks to rent HVX200 and do side-by-side comparisons then.

[DavidBeier]

You know David, you make some excellent points, but something you seem to fail to recognize about DV100 "4:2:2" is that it is sub-sampled raster 4:2:2, which can still look great, but in reality it's a reduced resolution 4:2:2. It's actual color sampling isn't quite the leap that 4:2:2 would seem to be in comparison to HDV...especially DV100 720p. It's still fairly heavy compression, and yes, it doesn't suffer motion compression, but it has it's own set of compromises.

Ever seen full 4:2:2 SDI from the H1? I'd be happy to show you some examples down the road if you'd like to see the difference between full raster 1920 x 1080 4:2:2 and DVCPRO HD 1080 4:2:2 (1280x1080)

Fair enough but a few points. 1. Both HDV and DVCProHD make compromises yes but they are different and produce different results. They aren't things which I would simply dismiss as "mostly subjective" which was my point. 2. From messing with some HDV stuff in post along with DVCProHD, I can say that there is a big difference to me. It's ultimatly just a more resiliant and stable codec. 3. Motion compression, to me, is by far the biggest draw back and a huge deal since it's actually a step backwards from DV. I get frustrated enough dealing with interlaced pulldown in 24p. Adding motion compression just isn't acceptible to me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Tim posted an article about a HD TV show that normall used a CineAlta on their stuff who decided to stick with regular old DV for PoV shots over HDV because of the motion compression (though that was based on the Sony Z1). Later the switched to the HVX200. Motion compression really is a big deal to many of us.

And yeah, I'd love to take a look at some SDI out stuff from 24f mode. It was never an option for me sadly since, with the XLH1 already being $3500 more than the others, the expense for SDI out wasn't in my range (nor do I like being tethered to a laptop). Still, I'd love to see what's possible.


You are really persistent in playing around with my words. Can you do me a favor and tell me when did I say Canon is "vastly better" or "blows away all the competition"? "Better" may be very subjective and I perfectly understand it. To some it's image resolution, to others interchangeable lenses or tapeless workflow etc.

In my opinion XL-H1 produces the best looking images of the bunch, but the difference is not big. In fact, I used words like "Canon has the edge" or "slightly better". Don't you think it's a little bit different from your interpretation? I relied more on final images than the math and that's why I didn't get very technical in this discussion.

I'm sorry but did I hallucinate this?


In 1080i Canon is the king. No doubt about that.

I also can't help but find it a bit hypocritical that you ask me to show images to prove my point but refer to ones you havn't posted in defense of yours. Also, if you don't want to get into a technical discussion then don't make uninformed technical generalizations.


Talking about math, HDV compression is effective enough so one really needs to look closely to notice any motion or other compression artifacts.

See, it's statmens like this that really strike me as ignorant. You saying, "talking about the math," and then go on to make a generalization that doesn't have any factual evidence. There's quite a big difference between havin 24, 30, or 60 pure frames (as the HVX200 does) and having a bunch of generated frames and only a real one every 11 frames or every 6 in Canon's case (yes, I think Canon has a much better HDV codec but it's still different).


Maybe you witnessed some of those watching examples available on the Web, but keep in mind those movies are usually quite heavily compressed so judging HDV image quality based on that is wrong.

Remember what they say, when you assume you make an ass out of you and...well actually just you in a case like this. For someone who whines that I've twisted his words your own invetions come accross as rather hypocritical. I've seen uncomressed HDV. I've worked with HDV. The difference is quite there. Honestly, do you really think there's not going to be much of a difference between a 20 mbs codec and a 100 mbs one? The HDV codecs aren't even all the same. As I've already mentioned Canon's is different from Sony's and I believe Sony's is different from JVC's. The bottom line is that making generalizations like you have been is just silly. There's a world of difference in so many respects. Labling one king and then trying to defend such a statment by saying that everything but resolution is more or less subjective is out and out wrong.


Color sampling and DVCPRO HD codec are valid arguments, but don't forget Canon starts with 3x more sampling points than HVX200, so do your math again. Even with HDV sacrificing some quality, final images speak for themselves.

These magical final images that you still won't post but demand from others. Hate to burst your bubble but I've looked at a hell of a lot of images from the two cameras and I find the HVX200's more pleasing. I know I'm not the only one. The same ones who praised the Canon's resolution in the shootouts praised the HVX200's colors. It was the images that go me to buy my HVX200 in the first place. I still don't claim, based on that, that the HVX200 is "the 1080p king. No doubt about that." And it's not the sampling I'm refering to but he compression. Try working with HDV and try working with DVCProHD. There's a world of difference as far as CC goes. If you're using SDI out the it's a different story. It also comes down to specifics not dumb generalizations.


H1 (and soon G1) offer uncompressed digital output and that's one of the reasons why I dared to call Canon the king of 1080i in the class. Full HDV2 resolution and connectivity make these cameras more attractive to TV producers and small TV stations than other models.

Once again yet another uninformed statment. The G1 isn't out yet so we can't gage it's reaction but I havn't seen any evidence that the XLH1 is being used more for TV than the other cameras. Point of fact, most indicate that it's the poorest selling of all the under 10k cameras (not neccesarily a jugment on it's quality). Why do you continue to say things with nothing to back them up?


don't own XL-H1 and don't have access to this camera currently, but hopefully will get A1 soon. I think I will squeeze couple of hundred bucks to rent HVX200 and do side-by-side comparisons then.

Have you even tried the camera? Something I'd like to do before I claim one camera is "king." The bottom line is that you made a stupid statment and then tried to backpeddle with another stupid one. It's OK. We all make stupid generalizations. Me calling the FX1 a piece of crap was one. Stop trying to defend it.

[TimurCivan]

Shoot i'll take either camera....... I'd Give an arm for a HVX or an XLH1..... i'd make like 3,000$ off of it in two weeks.... in a month if i wasnt happy i'd buy the other.....

[Barry_Green]

Well, that's the point -- these are business tools. If you can make that kind of cash with one or the other, how do you lose? If you find that you think the other one would be more suited to your workflow, you can always sell the one you've got on ebay and recover most (if not all) of the price difference!

[TimurCivan]

Well, that's the point -- these are business tools. If you can make that kind of cash with one or the other, how do you lose? If you find that you think the other one would be more suited to your workflow, you can always sell the one you've got on ebay and recover most (if not all) of the price difference!


Dude, barry, you taught me this bussiness model. It works im all about renting now a days.

[Fugitive]

Renting cameras rather than buying? Or do you mean renting out a camera? I would feel nervous renting out my camera...

[DavidBeier]

^
Ditto. You want to rent my HVX you're gonna need to rent me as an opperator.

[meta4]

I wonder...why HVX fan/owners in A1/G1 thread? Here to argue or here because they want both? Makes no sense!

I hope we can get back to talking about this camera.

NCJE is at an unveiling as we speak?

[Elton]

I wonder...why HVX fan/owners in A1/G1 thread? Here to argue or here because they want both? Makes no sense!

It's just a healthy interest in a competing camera. Lots of people want to see whether the XH cams deliver the goods or not.

Have you noticed how many current DVX owners are seriously pondering the new Canon's? The competition has become much stiffer and everyone will benefit as a result.

[DavidBeier]

^
Very true. If the A1 delivers on what it promises then it might be a decent augmentation to my HVX200 if I ever get a second camera. Something to use for wide shots where the extra horizontal resolution would be nice. It's also good to know what people are going to use which can make a difference in support (both technically and community wise) and whether TV networks and shows will accept footage from it.

[Elton]

David,

With a few tweaks I'd wager both cams could intercut quite well, especially in 720.