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

[Barry_Green]

I met him at NAB, he was looking at the HVX. They shoot most of the show on F900's, and had tried using the Z1 for some POV on-camera shots and found it completely unacceptable, so they ditched it and were looking to replace them with HVXs .

 

[Elton]

Have you had a chance to view much H1 footage on television sets? Hi-Def and Standard Def?

I've watched it on just about everything but film. (someday soon...the word is film transfer is exceptionally good from the H1)

I usually watch it on my 12' HT screen with an HD projector. I've also projected HDV 24F on a $10,000 Sony 1080p LCOS system, and also some new 1080p HDTV sets.

All very good, with the 1080p front projection being my favorite. It just looks great.

 

[Elton]

Why didint they just shoot it in DVCproHD to begin with... HVX cough cough.... ( i'm sorry i couldnt help it......)

Better low light and DOF with the H1. Also used the SD wide lens with great results in HD. Signifigantly wider than the HVX. Lens options were important for this project.

I hope this thread doesn't regress into the old HDV vs. DVCproHD thing. It's so played out.

All that matters is that these new little cameras should be a very good option for a certain market segment.

I think it's fairly obvious that Canon is looking to seriously compete with the HVX and Sony's, not only on price but on features. The G1 should be a strong consideration for anyone that understands how cool SDI can be for acquisition. Combining H1 imagery with codec choice via SDI is a phenomenal thing. Many don't realize that the Canon CCD block tech. uses pixel shift horizontally to legitimately achieve a full 1920x1080 (rather than subsampled 1440x1080) raster. This means with capture to a full raster codec like CineForm or PhotoJPEG or Sheer, you actually get true 4:2:2 HD chroma sampling, which is signifigantly higher than DVCProHD subsampled 4:2:2.

If I'm not mistaken that means an image with 1920 luma x 960 x 960 chroma. This is in contrast to DVCProHD 1080, which is 1280 luma x 640 x 640 chroma, and 720 is 960 x 480 x480 chroma.

Not all 4:2:2 sampling is created equal.

 

[lacuna]

The cards are far superior to work with (barring only the shorter record times.)

Absolutely, I said myself I'd love working with 64gig cards, even 32.

Well, almost any pro would choose 1/2" over 1/3", and $20,000 instead of $5995, sure.

But that's my point, if this is such an inferior codec, what's it doing in $20,000 1/2" cameras. Not all pros are hung up on HDV codec issues.

But XDCAM over P2? I don't think so. Not once they actually look at what the system means.

We'll have to agree to differ here Barry. You've just been over here in NZ - both of the major networks are using the SD version and rave about. Sole operators are in the process of transferring from XDcam to XDcam HD - they love the workflow, and from what I've seen demonstrated first hand, it rocks.[/QUOTE]

Which means, by the way you say it, that you don't have one yet?

You're right, I don't have a firestore yet, and I'm aware of its limitations. But golly, 8gigs of DVCproHD is a fairly severe limitation as well. My point is no solution is ideal. But let's not go there. I know P2 has some terrific advantages.

if someone's going to try to say that an HDV camera with a FireStore is the equivalent of an HVX/P2 system, you'll have to forgive me if I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

No one said they're equivalent, just that there are options for the indi-film maker here - pro or otherwise - and not all differences favour the HVX. Not everyone sees this as a clear cut battle between codecs and acquisition styles. Personally I could live with P2 or Tape, HDV or DVCproHD, and I don't think I'm the only one in that position.

If the HVX had a little more grunt in the ccd department, if it had a 20x lens, and if it had all the optional inputs/outputs, then it would be a no-brainer.

For some people that won't matter. For others, like the D.P. of Monster Garage who ditched the Z1 specifically because of HDV, it matters a lot.

Absolutely. As I said codec is an issue for some. Though I don't think you can compare Sony's implementation of HDV to the more robust offering from Canon.

At any rate, I stand by my initial comment that this will impact Panny sales, and that I think they will respond sooner rather than later, which is all good!

 

[lacuna]

actually the JVC is one of the best. its roll off to white is very natural.

I shall have to do more reasearch on this. i thought HVX was pushing a half stop on the rest.

yes, the JVC is probably the best of the lot in this respect.

The HVX does have half a stop in sensitivity (the trade off being that it's arguably noiser), but not dynamic range from Adam's testing. At any rate, they're all in the same ballpark.

 

[Elton]

BUT: the big question mark is the lens controls. I hate (despise, actually) the rubber-band loosey-goosey "wet cabbage" feel of the XLH1's lens. If Canon has addressed that, they may have a contender here. If they haven't addressed it, I don't care what it costs I wouldn't stand using it.

This is an interesting question mark about the A1/G1. My guess is that they will actually be an improvement over the standard lens of the XL-H1. I own the XL manual lens and it works well in HD in certain apertures, and there is no doubt that the "feel" is much better. I also like the fact that I can do whip zooms with the manual lens, (on rare occasion, mind you, he he) which is impossible with the auto lens. However, I find that I miss the focus distance readout feature when switching to the manual lens, but the manual lens is fairly easy to focus and repeat focuses because it has end marks, etc. The manual lens also breathes a little, which the 20x H1 lens doesn't exhibit at all.

The interesting thing about the little Canon's is the iris ring on the lens. That is seriously cool. I hope it's got a fluid feel while rolling through exposures without "steppiness" which the old XL suffered horribly from. I guess we'll see but that seems to be a very useful new feature on the lens.

My guess is that there may be some "wet cabbage" leftovers, but as to how "loosey-goosey" it will feel will anybody's guess until it ships. It may have an improved focus preset function that will allow for perfectly repeatable rack focuses at different speeds.

Have you ever tried the H1 lens with a good Chroziel follow focus? It's surprising how much it improves the "tactile" feel of focusing with the standard lens. It also improves repeatable rack focusing accuracy at longer focal lengths when using the distance readout. You can move the lens in much finer increments then you would normally be able to achieve by moving the focus ring manually.

 

[Barry_Green]

Haven't tried that, no. And I just thought -- I wonder if that "instant focus" autofocus thing would make it a non-issue... if you can spot in exactly what you want to focus on and instantly snap to it, then it might be a good workaround?

 

[tnle2]

Haven't tried that, no. And I just thought -- I wonder if that "instant focus" autofocus thing would make it a non-issue... if you can spot in exactly what you want to focus on and instantly snap to it, then it might be a good workaround?

Barry, I think you're thinking of Fujinon's Precision Focus system. In Canon's system I don't think you will have control over the focus point (hopefully I am wrong). Instant Focus is just an improvement to regular AF by using a secondary IR sensor. The Fujinon system actually puts a crosshair on the viewfinder and the camera operator uses a cursor control on the focus controller to move the crosshair around the frame and then pushes a button to focus on that point.

One downer is that you will not be able to put a standard geared follow focus system on the lens because the Instant Focus sensor and XLR housing are physically in the way. See this:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72454

Also, standard matte boxes will block the Instant Focus IR emitter on the front of the lens. So if you use a matte box, you will have to turn off Instant Focus (which you can in the menu). That doesn't mean you lose all AF capability, just the additional benefit of the IR sensor.

 

[Elton]

Looks like an IndieFocus would work because its a rubber wheel instead of a geared ring. I don't know how good they actually are but something like it might work reasonably well.

 

[Kholi]

I'll wait until I have the camera in hand to find out if the rings are loose.

I just moved moneys to another bank account, I'm getting the A1 on release.

As far as the Iris ring goes, is this new to the Canon line? Or was it on the H1? Mis-informed there.

 

[lacuna]

As far as the Iris ring goes, is this new to the Canon line? Or was it on the H1? Mis-informed there.

It's not on the standard H1 20x lens, but is on the newly announced 6x.

These new cameras also feature underscan (missing on the H1), so along with the other new functions, it looks like an H1s is going to come along soon... or else it's really asking a lot to make people pay thousands more for a camera lacking the features of its siblings.

 

[TimurCivan]

Combining H1 imagery with codec choice via SDI is a phenomenal thing. Many don't realize that the Canon CCD block tech. uses pixel shift horizontally to legitimately achieve a full 1920x1080 (rather than subsampled 1440x1080) raster. This means with capture to a full raster codec like CineForm or PhotoJPEG or Sheer, you actually get true 4:2:2 HD chroma sampling, which is signifigantly higher than DVCProHD subsampled 4:2:2.

If I'm not mistaken that means an image with 1920 luma x 960 x 960 chroma. This is in contrast to DVCProHD 1080, which is 1280 luma x 640 x 640 chroma, and 720 is 960 x 480 x480 chroma.

Not all 4:2:2 sampling is created equal.

Yea but... wait. youre trandslating HDV 4:2:0 => cineform/DVCcpro/PhototJpeg 422 codec. you cant get that color space back regardless of what "lossless" codec you use. That just soundsl ike taking SD video, stretching it to "hd" and presenting it as HD. the image does not have the information in it. How does that work???

Im seriously asking and not flaming this cause if i can get "better" results, I WILL shoot Canon G1 and rent a HVX for over cranked shots. How does this work? I am looking at this from the standpoint of a DP, keeping my clients best interests in mind, and giving them footage that can be manipulated without problems.

 

[Kholi]

If I'm understanding the misunderstanding correctly...You can capture 4:2:2 via SDI out on the G1 and H1... that means you are no longer dealing with HDV as a codec but the ones that Elton mentioned.

 

[savethestars]

I'm not trying to start anything but I seem to remember some of you saying about 3-6 months ago that the HDV format was already dying and would soon be dead. Given this announcement, do you see a different view, and if so, what changed your mind?

Thanks, (considering a new camera purchase and don't want to invest in a format that is hard to edit, or that will soon be "dead," or that the industry doesn't like.)

 

[Drew Ott]

Well HDV obviously isn't dead, but I think everybody can agree that true HD is "better".

 

[lacuna]

Well HDV obviously isn't dead, but I think everybody can agree that true HD is "better".

I kinda like Canon's implementation of fake HD... it's higher res than its competitors with "true" HD

 

[Emanuel]

1080x1440 chips - with higher res than the HVX/Z1 in both interlace and frame modes (which, by the way, have identical candence to progressive)

Independent iris ring on lens

20x flourite lens

1920x1080 still image capture

Optional HD-SDI, Genlock, Timecode, Pal/NTSC switchable

More image controls than any sub 10k camera

Cheap media

Sleek design

If this camera doesn't have mojo, mojo must have died in a hail of bullets and gone to transitor heaven

:thumbsup:

 

[Emanuel]

It's not that they're overlooking it; remember they put 24p on the XL2.

It's more likely that they're buying their CCDs from Sony, and Sony seems to have a hard-to-understand aversion to making progressive scan. I mean, even in their new supposedly-progressive-scan XDCAM HD lineup, they're using interlaced CCDs and "faking it". That's why the variable frame rate 350 drops to half-resolution if you push it to faster than 30fps; it drops to using a single field. Even in AVC-HD, a format that natively supports 1080/24p, they put out an interlaced-only camera. It seems like their marketing slogan should change from "Sony: The One And Only" to "Sony: Interlaced Only."

I think Canon is probably a victim of their suppliers. They know people want 24p, and I'm sure they'd love to be able to offer it, but apparently they can't find the chips they need.

My dear friend Barry, quite informative and enlightening, as usual. How long?... It reminds me those good old HVX pre-launch hot times...

I read all of your recent comments and I can follow your POV about AVC-HD vs. HDV or your pro A1 thoughts, as well.

why would someone pay $2,000 more for a Z1? The XH A1 is $3999 MSRP, the Z1 is $5946, and the A1 does (theoretically) more than the Z1 does and can be upgraded to offer the same NTSC/PAL switchability. And the FX1? Pshaw. Who would buy an FX1 ($3699) instead of an XH A1 ($3999)? The XLRs alone are worth the price difference, not to mention the superior 24F instead of CF24 and the longer lens. I think the FX1 and Z1 have met their match, and they both lost.

...but maybe are you forgetting the Canon's 3 x 1.67mp CCD block?!... The best 1/3" deal I could find. Actually what made me away from the HVX. Its lowlighting & noiseless properties were/are speaking (and they will now as a smaller form factor) for themselves. What awesome 1/3" camera is that XL-H1!!

Now we'll have the same camera but LIGHTER & really handheld, as well, for less than a half of the price!!!

As you well said regarding the AVC-HD reply vs. Canon's offer:
Probably, Sony will be interlaced.

I add:
Pana will be what the lower 1/3" CCD HVX block shows what the major manufaturers have to offer.

AVC-HD is a new high-def format that frankly beats HDV in nearly every category. Probably the most interesting aspect of AVC-HD is that it's sponsored by both Sony and Panasonic.

They have a high-end market to protect. That's all !!!!

...Canon doesn't offer more than 1/3" camcorders and period.

Aside the RED & Silicon Imaging route, now we'll also have the Canon's 24f higher res via beginning from $3,999. Where's the competition?

PS
It's not relevant -- at least to me, if it is tape (otherwise, a cheap media even if old) or a hated label like HDV seems to be here for many. I'm not a geek just an INDIE moviemaker.

 

[Zim]

THe Canon A1 doesn't offer SMPTE . Is that much of a problem for one camera indie filmaking? Or what if you planned to have some on TV? Where is this a must?

 

[Emanuel]

THe Canon A1 doesn't offer SMPTE . Is that much of a problem for one camera indie filmaking? Or what if you planned to have some on TV? Where is this a must?

I said: «Aside the RED & Silicon Imaging route, now we'll also have the Canon's 24f higher res via beginning from $3,999.»

Beginning from...

It depends of your own needs and other gear that you own as well your budget, of course. IMO, even without SMPTE, as run & gun deal for doc work, for example, or "B" camera for simple handheld capture -- the $3,999 A1's offer can be an unbeatable deal. At least, for unbiased dvxuser.com members.

Even if without SMPTE and with compressed audio or from the HDV environment. Specially if we are going to the Cineform codec solution@post where the MPEG2 handicap is away.

Just a hint.