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

Yes many buys the XL series because of it interchangable lenses, so that group the A1 will not threat.

The group that bought the XL1H for its picture quality they would be better of buying one of its two little brothers. (If the quality is the same)

So even if canon looses sale because of the A1 they will gain some customers because now they moved their products to a lot bigger market the 4K HD group.

I think the biggest threat the A1 produces is against the FX, Z, V series from sony.


Myself is just gonna sit back and enjoy the ride.
 
RUN! dont walk to Mikko Wilsons IBC thread where in a few moments from this post he will post actual GRABS!
 
The problem with the Canon is that it does not do true progressive scanning but only has a frame mode. Therefore the Sony HVR-V1 or the Panasonic HVX-200 will be the better choice because it does 1080p progressive scan. Progressive scan is what you need if you have a flat panel display. Once you go progressive scan you never want to go back. I suspect that the Sony HVR-V1u will have 24p and 30p. But the Panasonic HVX-200 gives you high frame rate 60p progressive scanning which is good for the action movies. Sony keeps promissing 1080p60 but has failed to deliver this format to the consumer.
 
androbot2084 said:
The problem with the Canon is that it does not do true progressive scanning but only has a frame mode.
Click to expand...

There's spec talk and then there's the real world. If the frame modes behave like progressive and look good then what else matters? You want to try and find the interlace problems in the F modes? Be my guest. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that really knows what progressive should look like that the frame modes don't work.

If this image had interlace issues you would see scan line combing on the ball in motion. It's from 24F mode--open it up in QT player and you will see it as a full 1920x1080 image.
H1-SDI-DV100422.jpg
 
Last edited:
Progressive "SCAN" means jack when it comes to the final image.

I wouldn't care if all 3 sensors wore funky fresh Adidas and had to breakdance then do the robot and get crunk with a headspin then finish up with a B-Boy hand stance, so long as they provide the final recorded image with 24 progressive frames per second.

And "THAT" my friends, the recorded image, is what a flat panel display needs. Not scanning.
 
Your point?

Exactly how do you define "full high definition"? Does the image above look like yucky interlace?
 
Elton that your favorite grab in theworld isnt it? haha


Dear friends, 24F dont mean squat. ignore the F. ITS 24p just like you know, trust me. IT looks fine. The only time ive seen the image get funky was when some guy put a green filter or a red filter over the XLH1 lens and the chroma saturation brought out a couple INterlace lines. i forgot who it was but it was at the begining of the 24F debate. Seriously, we need to stop obsessing over 24f. if you dont like it, dont buy a canon.

I would use it no prob. and im a panny "fanboy"... ;)
 
TimurCivan said:
Elton that your favorite grab in theworld isnt it? haha
Click to expand...

Hahaha. I suppose I should get a new grab up there--especially one that shows more motion--but I like the skin tones and color.

DThe only time ive seen the image get funky was when some guy put a green filter or a red filter over the XLH1 lens and the chroma saturation brought out a couple INterlace lines. i forgot who it was but it was at the begining of the 24F debate. Seriously, we need to stop obsessing over 24f. if you dont like it, dont buy a canon.
Click to expand...

That was Mike Pappas. He was using a heavy red filter to see how the H1 would look with different contrast values for black and white shooting...and it wasn't pretty. It seems that you can't completely starve the CCD of the full light spectrum and expect decent results. ;)


I would use it no prob. and im a panny "fanboy"... ;)
Click to expand...

Just about every person of notable dp'ing skill that I've ever read/heard about their opinion of 24F had no problem with it. And you're right--the nitpicking of the F modes is getting old. Most think they look fine, others want to dwell/glitch on the "true progressive" thing. It's all a matter of what looks good in the end.
 
The end results is the only thing that counts in the end. But of course workflow and other stuff always comes at second place.

If i would buy another came to this date only XLH1 and HVX200 would be on my list. And I am a progressive freak. So the 24F mode holds very well.

But I love if someone could show me 24F HDV footage with lot of cameramovement and color to se how the camera can handle it.
 
What I do not like is all these camera companies that say that 720p is not real high definition so you are better off shooting with a good single chip 480i standard definition camcorder but if you insist on high definition then only 1080i is real high definition. So these camera companies come up with all these 1080f modes and 1080cf modes and the truth is that other than taking up more space it resolves no better than 720p.
 
androbot, you've made a very large number of anti-25f comments lately!!

in terms of raw resolving/resolution, the XL-H1 and the HD100 are both leading the HDV pack for the moment ... Z1/HVX don't come close. Both do amazingly well- the H1 in I mode is certainly higher res than the HD-100 (both vertically and horizontally), while in p/f modes things are more evenly matched-- the H1 has more horizontal res, while the HD100 has more vertical res (due to true progressive) ... it's pretty evenly matched.

So while it's easy to attack 25f, the fact is that the vast majority of people don't have a problem with it- it's good. It's not interlaced crap. The ONLY current cam which can come close to the H1's resolution is the HD-100 .. but the HD-100 won't do interlaced (while the H1 does 'very' high res 1080i), AND the HD-100 has poor stock glass, while the H1 has the best HD glass that you'll see for anywhere NEAR it's price...

So the H1 is the best you can currently buy .. and this is why a "mini" H1 (in the form of the A1) is so exciting.

The best would of course be a cam which would be as sharp as the H1 but with full 1080p+i plus great glass.... the Sony V1 sounded like it might shock us and deliver this (well, for about 10 minutes), but the concensus is that it's unlikely! 1/4in CMOS .. hmm .. plus it's horizontal res makes it very unlikely that it will match the H1's true 1440 horizontal sampling.

so the wait goes on, and H1 with 24/25f remains the best game in town for the sub$10k crowd who value resolution :)
 
Last edited:
As far as comparing the Canon and the JVC cameras in high frame rate capture modes the JVC GY-HD200 has far more resolving power than the Canon XL-H1. This is because the JVC can capture 60 complete photographs at 1280x720 resolution every second. The Canon can only capture 60 fields with each field having 1440x540 resolution. So the JVC delivers 55 million pixels per second while the Canon only delivers 47 million pisels per second. This results is a 20 percent increase in resolving power for the JVC. It is true that the Canon will resolve more resolution on static test patterns. But video is all about motion and as soon as motion introduced the resolving power of 1080i goes down. In this day and age of digital compression technology it always amazes me that camera makers insist that we have to resort to obsolete analog compression technologies like interlace which not only do nothing to improve picture quality but actually worsen picture quality. But I think the real advantage to interlace is marketing because it is easier to sell camcorders with so called higher resolution numbers.
 
Well, that's 17%, not 20%, but even then you're comparing sensor size- NOT lines resolved. I agree that interlacing should be retired ASAP, but it doesn't change the real-world performance of these cams... My previous post sums up my views on that!
 
I think many mix up the downside with interlace ccd and resolving power.

There is no problem get a a full 1920*1080 resolution from an interlace chip. Just make the interlace chip 1920*2160 in resolution. The downside isnt resolution but small pixels on the sensor.

And what people also should consider is that an avarage cinema only shows between 700-800 lines of resolution.

remember 28 days was 720*270 in resolution.
 
When are these camera companies going to realize that what we want is high frame rate progressive 1080p60? If these camera companies can't deliver this format then we are going to have to settle for 720p60. What I can't stand is these companies giving us half of 1080p. With smoke and mirrors they invent 1080i and 1080f which is no better than 720p. If these companies can't deliver the full progressive 1920x1080p then I am not looking for that extra resolution that 1080i and 1080f promises but fails to deliver. If 720p is not full high definition then fine half of 1080p is not full high definition either.
 
androbot2084 said:
When are these camera companies going to realize that what we want is high frame rate progressive 1080p60?
Click to expand...
When I bought both my Canon XL1s, I was the Big Man on the block.

When I got my JVC DV100, you couldn't tell me sh!t!!!

When I got my Panasonic DVX100a, I was floored by the quality.

When I got my Sony Z1U I thought I was dreaming when I looked at the footage I was making all by myself.

Now that I am rockin' two Canon XL-H1's, i'm almost a mini-celebrity around here.

And now...

let me get this straight.....

you want me to ............... complain?

Pshhhh, you go right ahead bro.

As far as I'm concnered, CANON and PANASONIC and SONY....you guys are doing a WONDERFUL JOB. keep up the good work! And thank you for the wonderful technology and products.

I'm not with that guy. He's speaking for himself, not Shannon W. Rawls.

lol (shakin' my head)

P.S.
1080i is better then 720p. (just thought i'd throw that in there)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top