Canon Unveils New Prosumer HDV Line: XH G1 and XH A1

[Noel Evans]

and being a regular user of both HVX (this wont change thus I still want that bootcamp DVD whenyou guys Barry and Jarred can get one together)


One thing is the A1 lens screw mount is 72mm. Wonder would it accept the Century 0.6 wide angle lens? (any thoughts on this from people with the knowledge?)

I also wonder would this work with the current letus flip? I mean the flip works by focusing on the gg and then focusing from the lens. So my brain says yes it would?

OK still have these questions - anyone care to speculate? Sorry Jarred and Barry gonna keep bugging you about the HVX DVD .

Also found this: doesnt seem entirely accurate but it does show A1 specs compared to z1 xlh1 and HVX. Forget Xlh1 and HVX they an entirely different kettle of fish for this... but FX1 looks dead in the water here. http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-XH-A1-XH-G1-XL-H1-Panasonic-AG-HVX200-Sony-HDR-FX1-Compared.htm

 

[Barry_Green]

Sometimes I think if Panasonic to made both the HVX and the A1 I think this forum would give it more praise.

Interesting point. I think that there may be some merit to this supposition, because by it being Canon we're back to that whole brand war thing again.

You never see this "mine is better than yours" attitude within the same brand -- I don't see H1 users bagging on XL2 users, or XL2 users laughing at H1 users because they spent 2x or 3x as much, etc. I don't see DVX users mocking HVX buyers, or HVX buyers dissing on DVX buyers.

But, back to your original point, Panasonic wouldn't have made the A1 as-is. They wouldn't put HDV in it. If they were to make an A1-caliber camera with all the same features and capabilities as the A1, it wouldn't have HDV in it, it'd probably have AVC-HD in it instead. And then, yes, you'd probably see substantially more praise for it, no doubt.

 

[Barry_Green]

Now seriously, isn't it like a thief bad mouthing a burglar? The HVX200 also doesn't have a real manual lens. Nitpicking on the Canon for some personal issue sounds really ironic.

You're joking, right? Have you tried them both? The HVX's lens ACTS like one, feels like one, performs like one, and gives control like one. And as far as zoom goes, it *is* one. The Canon is none of the above.

Or would you actually still prefer the HD100's lens, having seen what that does to the footage? Because it's "real"?

I read several times about the HVX200 being “actually in reality” a 4:2:0 camera.

There was random speculation about that, yes. But the fact of the matter is that the HVX delivers substantially better chroma resolution than any of its competition, including the $30,000 XDCAM-HD system. The guys from WETA Digital (Peter Jackson's digital effects company) tested the HVX against the XDCAM HD system in a chroma keying test and got substantially superior keying from the HVX. So if someone wants to argue technicalities then they can go right ahead, but the actuality is that you're getting more usable chroma resolution from the HVX.


As far as the rest of your post, looks like we're back where we started, you and I. Nothing's changed, so no real reason to go into it.

 

[Barry_Green]

OK still have these questions - anyone care to speculate?

The Century .6 isn't a threaded product, so it won't thread onto the A1's lens. But, you could probably get them to remount it, pull off the DVX mount and attach a Canon bayonet mount. I believe they already offer that service for the 1.6 teleconverter.

Sorry Jarred and Barry gonna keep bugging you about the HVX DVD .

It's due soon. Soon...

 

[Noel Evans]

Just an update. Looks like I cant get my hands on this soon enough so my current project looks like it will end up shot on a DVX. If thats the case I plan to make this the best damn little DVX flick I can. I havent given up though... I have some avenues I can try to get it sooner.

 

[Emanuel]

The President and Chevy Chace are absolutely right. DVXuser is one of the most complete sources of online information for film there is. Countless times I found the answer for difficult issues here and I'm sure I'm was not the only one. This is an amazing place for sharing VERY useful information and it is truly a pity when people have to spoil it all over stuff like this. Live and let live. I really can't undestand this "necesity" to prove that "this is better and this is worst". Jesus, isn't it good enough to have so many choices to chose from to suit different styles, preferences, etc? Must people go through the trouble of going online, log in on to dvxuser just to make sure they "win" which is best? This is not a competition and nobody is going to gain anything here. The only thing I want to gain from being here in the forum is useful information and have a good time talking to people who share the same passion then me. Now that the mood is lighter, lets get this tread on the track and focus on canons' new pupies.

Rafa said all.

 

[SPZ]

I'm curious to see how many shorts shot with HVX and XLh1 end up in, say, Sundance. One thing is for sure: With a 35mm adaptor, It will be hard to tell the difference from either cam and 16mm film (even 35mm, if it is well post-produced enough...)

 

[StMad]

it wouldn't have HDV in it, it'd probably have AVC-HD in it instead. And then, yes, you'd probably see substantially more praise for it, no doubt.

Apart from your test Barry (pirate ship?), I haven't seen an example of the motion problems HDV inherently has. That may be because the shooter doesn't post it when it appears. It could also be that it is rarely (extremely rarely?) a problem, or that my eyes can't detect it. Almost every comment I see about HDV is of the "HDV - yuk!" variety. I'm not sure that people who post those sorts of comments have seen the issues either.

Of all the footage you've seen, how much suffered from the inherent issues that HDV faces? Would you be willing to put a % figure on it? Obviously I'm leading - though objectively I am curious.

There's often a lot of personal, emotional investment in the camera we purchase (I'm getting giddy waiting for my HVX and thinking about playing with framerates, and popping an adapter on the front).

The issues I do see with the HVX (soft footage/grabs when displayed at full res, chroma noise) I see more often. There's plenty of defense of these issues - it appears in part due to emotional investment and the solidarity of this community. Which is no knock - these factors play a part in making this community as enjoyable as it is.

I'm not sure it's a given that on technical merits Pana's (hypothetical) new cam - HDV = more praise.

If you were to say...Canon's new cam + DVX mojo = more praise, then I'd be inclined to agree

I can't finish this semi-emotional post without saying...Everyone get your butts over to the XLH1 forum and check out Disjecta's latest footy. OMG!!

 

[rawfa]

Things are getting steamy. We've been warned before. Let's not spoil the fun and keep the focus where it should be.

 

[rawfa]

There's an interesting article on camcorderinfo on how will these cameras do on the the current market.

 

[razamalik]

There's an interesting article on camcorderinfo on how will these cameras do on the the current market.

link please...

 

[rawfa]

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canons-Role-in-a-Crowded-HD-Market.htm

 

[Kholi]

I'm curious to see how many shorts shot with HVX and XLh1 end up in, say, Sundance. One thing is for sure: With a 35mm adaptor, It will be hard to tell the difference from either cam and 16mm film (even 35mm, if it is well post-produced enough...)

IT depends on how many of those have Sundance worthy content, right?

Camera helps, but it's not going to make you a great storyteller.

 

[Elton]

IT depends on how many of those have Sundance worthy content, right?

Camera helps, but it's not going to make you a great storyteller.

Amen. The signifigant difference with these new cameras is that audiences won't have to fight a soft/fuzzy image on the big screen and digital will look less digital than before, whether transferred to film or HD projected. (film projection at festivals wil become increasingly rare)

 

[David Jimerson]

(Actually, it probably depends quite a bit more on the names which are in the credits.)

 

[Kholi]

Amen. The signifigant difference with these new cameras is that audiences won't have to fight a soft/fuzzy image on the big screen and digital will look less digital than before, whether transferred to film or HD projected. (film projection at festivals wil become increasingly rare)

Exactly. It puts you right into the realm of film-like images. Starway picture's Twenty-Third Letter is a perfect example.

There's just not an excuse, anymore.

Well, having to work a nine-to-five is one. :cough: But, other than that.

 

[Elton]

You never see this "mine is better than yours" attitude within the same brand -- I don't see H1 users bagging on XL2 users, or XL2 users laughing at H1 users because they spent 2x or 3x as much, etc. I don't see DVX users mocking HVX buyers, or HVX buyers dissing on DVX buyers.

This is a natural, tribal kind of instinct that is fostered by a signifigant investment in a brand. Ford/Chevy stuff.

Panasonic wouldn't have made the A1 as-is. They wouldn't put HDV in it. If they were to make an A1-caliber camera with all the same features and capabilities as the A1, it wouldn't have HDV in it, it'd probably have AVC-HD in it instead. And then, yes, you'd probably see substantially more praise for it, no doubt.

I just don't understand all this hoopla for AVC-HD yet. It's just theoretically better EXTREME compression that will probably require long-GOP rebuilds for edits, just like native HDV (which is why so many opt for the intermediate approach)...and it isn't like HDV is old school MPEG2; it's the absolute latest and best of MPEG2 technology which isn't all that different from AVC.

We'll see what's what with the format when there are tangible , professional products to discuss, but HDV is what it is; if done well it's a "who care's, it looks great!" kind of thing. That's how I feel about XL-H1 HDV. It's like a pretty damn good HD meal, and SDI is a 5 star gourmet experience.

 

[Kholi]

We'll see what's what with the format when there are tangible , professional products to discuss, but HDV is what it is; if done well it's a "who care's, it looks great!" kind of thing. That's how I feel about XL-H1 HDV. It's like a pretty damn good HD meal, and SDI is a 5 star gourmet experience.

And what about NLE support? It seems that adaptation of codecs happens fast...

What are you able to slice AVC-HD on at the moment? If Panasonic were to release an AVC-HD camera around the same time (october/november... even december)... would it be safe to say that by then there'd be editing solutions?

 

[Elton]

And what about NLE support? It seems that adaptation of codecs happens fast...

What are you able to slice AVC-HD on at the moment? If Panasonic were to release an AVC-HD camera around the same time (october/november... even december)... would it be safe to say that by then there'd be editing solutions?

There'd probably be some editing solutions in short order, but I've never *edited* AVC/h.264/MPEG4...only encoded to it.

 

[Barry_Green]

What are you able to slice JVC 24p HDV on yet? What are you able to slice Canon 24F on yet?

Things take time.

With that said, I am extraordinarily confident that the reason we didn't see Vegas 7 debut at NAB is because they were holding on to it to implement AVC-HD into it.

And I'm also quite confident that the reason we didn't see FCP 6 debut at NAB is because they're holding onto it to implement AVC-HD into it.

You guys have to understand (whether you want to or not) that JVC Broadcast is a tiny, tiny, tiny fringe player in the camcorder market, and pulling man-hours to develop support for JVC's proprietary 24p is just not going to rank very high on anyone's priority list. And Canon's proprietary 24F is in the same boat, and actually worse off, because there are probably five HD100's out there for every XLH1. Sony probably sells a hundred camcorders of various types for every one that Canon sells. And Panasonic probably sells a hundred camcorders of various types for every one that JVC sells.

Sony and Panasonic are the dominant behemoths, the big dogs. So when Sony and Panasonic are on the same page? That's when stuff happens. That's why DV was so immediately everywhere. That's why AVC-HD, being a single unified universal format, is going to be supported far better than all the various implementations of HDV combined.

You're really missing the point on AVC-HD. It isn't just that it's "better under extreme compression". It's that it's THE FORMAT that's going to go forward. HDV is a splintered/fragmented vague "standard" that resulted in three nearly incompatible formats. HDV was a "format war" in and of itself. AVC-HD is the next DV, it's the high-def DV. The universal standard. And since AVC-HD is inherently scalable (because in the consumer realm it'll support anywhere from 5 to 18 megabits) I don't doubt for a second that we'll see professional implementation as well, even in bigger cameras. Sony took DV and turned it into DVCAM, they could just as easily take AVC-HD and turn it into AVC-HDCAM by adding some more megabits -- heck, existing AVC-HD is probably as good as, or better than, existing XDCAM-HD (as a FORMAT, not as a camera.)

AVC-HD is also going to have support from the hardware manufacturers, the graphics card manufacturers, the next-gen DVD players, the broadcasters, the IPTV broadcasters, the satellite transmission companies... look at the bigger picture and then you'll see what I'm talking about. HDV will turn out to be a blip on the radar in the history of camcorder formats. It'll go down in history as the Hi8 of HD formats. AVC-HD is the next "DV", the next universal "big" format that everyone, everywhere is supporting.

Yes you're finding HDV to do what you need right now, I understand that and have no problem with that. I'm not telling you your chosen product doesn't do what you want. What I am saying is, it's about to be overwhelmed by an onslaught of H.264 product, and instead of being washed away by the tidal wave I'd rather grab a surfboard and ride it.