24F, at least on the XLH is every bit as sharp as the HVX in 24P, if not moreso. The motion cadence is identical. It is a cleaner image, but has a different color, more kodachome. It edits in a 24P timeline and has no interlacing artifacts...
Results 41 to 50 of 608
07-26-2006 07:35 PM
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
07-27-2006 08:19 AM
I'm kind of surprised more people here aren't more excited about this camera. I mean I know this is DVXuser.com but I figured any HD camera with 24fps recording and a lower pricetag would get more people excited. Especially since Canon seems to have done almost everything right with this camera.
Sure the recording format may leave something to be desired. But I wonder how many people here have actually used HDV (instead of just reading about it) and how many people here actaully need anything bettr then HDV or if they just think they do. I've seen some really good stuff shot on HDV. I wouldn't dismiss it just yet.
07-27-2006 09:36 AMOriginally Posted by roxics
For post production I have pretty much completely switched to a Digital Intermediate (DI) workflow, so I don't care about HDV vs DVCPro on the input or HDDVD vs BluRay for the encoding. I just want the best image quality possible.
"dustino -- Too bad canon can't get true 24p. I find it both amazing and bizarre. I want to be a canon fan, really I do. They make great glass and I love almost everything they do in their still camera line. So what's up with the 24p? Why are they overlooking such an enormous factor in image quality?"
A freind of mine holds the pattent on 24P and had to take all of the major manufacturers to court, Panasonic was the first to license the technology. I believe Canon and Sony's implementation of "24P" functionality is just an attempt to get around the patent.
Although I have not used the Canon XL-1H myself, I have seen some great footage from it and heard lots of good things from people who own them. Granted that's a bit like asking an FCP user how they like Apple... If this camera has the same image quality as the XL-1H for this price point in this form factor, I agree with Jarred, this might well become the best HDV camera out there.
Its all good.Cap'n Jolly Daryl Barbossa
07-27-2006 09:46 AMOriginally Posted by ChuckS
As much as I like 4:2:2 color and the idea of tapeless workflow spending twice as much to get it will put it out of alot of peoples ballparks. For a working pro maybe not, but for an amateur filmmaker who doesn't hardly make a return that's a lot of money. What Canon is offering sounds pretty good.
But then again I see it as being in the same market as the DVX100 not the HVX200. So if I had to chose between a DVX100 or a XH-A1 that part of the market just got more interesting and I'd personally go with the Canon.
07-27-2006 09:59 AM
Oops, sorry I just read Yardsales post regarding licensing 24P.
The company that Bob formed that developed the 24P technology was FilmLook. This article makes it sound like Bob was "blackmailing" camera manufacturers with a patent that was so vague it shouldn't have been issued. Any of these manufactures could have developed this technology, but didn't and refused to pay for the licensing for years. When it became painfully apparent that they would lose thier law suite the manufacturers began settling out of court.
If there was any borderline illigal activity it wasn't on Bob's side. If this patent was so vague the manufacturers would just ignor it, which is pretty much what they tried to do. Bob is now a VERY wealthy man. Someone needs to inform the author of that article that patents that are defensible are more than ideas. Bob mortgaged his house and spent years developing his business, good for him to be able to defend it.
Ideas ar like ass holes, everybody's got one.Cap'n Jolly Daryl Barbossa
07-27-2006 10:12 AMOriginally Posted by roxics
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Los Angeles, CA
With the release of these Canon HD cameras, I think for the independent filmmaker, both the HVX and the DVX at current prices are bad choices. Sure, DVCPRO-HD is nice, but the reality is most indie filmmakers are broke. We all know that. So paying $3k+ more for the HVX and P2 media for very marginal improvement makes no sense to me. You could put that 3 grand towards a better tripod, sound equipment and lighting that will immensely improve your production values. It's also money well spent because all that stuff can be used with your next camera purchase anyway.
If anything, more people should show excitement for these Canon cameras because if more people buy them, Panasonic will have to lower their prices on the HVX and the DVX to remain competitive. Because for $4K I'd take the A1 any day.
07-27-2006 10:25 AM
Anyone know how or where to preorder the A1?
I want it the second it ships!Why do there have to be puppets like Frank?
07-27-2006 10:25 AMOriginally Posted by roxicsCap'n Jolly Daryl Barbossa
07-27-2006 12:29 PM
I have to say, I'm not sure why you'd opt for the DVX over the A1.
Don't get me wrong; I'm all about the mojo. But at that price point . . .
07-27-2006 02:21 PM
there is a big difference between 420 and 422 colospace. it isnt important for eventcoverage or weddigns or the such. but for commercials, music vids, budgeted features etc i think the producers/DP/directors would probabaly like the post production controll the dvcpro can offer. evenif the hvx isnt the sharpest.
but i will admit, 24F at 4G's is mighty good. and the xlh chip block is very very good.
anyone know if it shoots 24F/P in DV mode? if so its AWESOME.
Last edited by TimurCivan; 07-27-2006 at 02:25 PM.