Canon XL-H2!

[AuditoryVisuals]

The XL H1 uses native interlaced CCDs. For 24f and 30f it simply deinterlaces it. But it is native 24fps, unlike the HVX200 which chops 36 frames out of 60.

I want the XL H2 to not use HDV and use AVCHD, CMOS sensors, and progressive scan. Oh, and none of that 1440x1080. I want 1920x1080.

 

[Elton]

The XL H1 uses native interlaced CCDs. For 24f and 30f it simply deinterlaces it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "simply deinterlaces it". If it was simple deinterlacing the drop in res would be painfully obvious and there would be noticeable temporal artifacts when you carefully look at if frame-by-frame--unless all it's doing is simple field doubling, which I doubt for a number of reasons.

Out of curiosity I've taken 60i material and used Graeme Nattress' excellent Map Frames tool and converted single 1080i fields into full 1080 frames (field doubling) and compared to 30F footage.; 30F appears to have higher resolution. Why? It's either doing some sophisticated interpolation in the DIGIC processing (motion compensation) or there is some unique kind of CCD scanning going on that is making it easier to synthesize a progressive frame from an interlace sensor.

I tend to doubt that motion compensated deinterlacing could be achieved in RT without added circuitry and expense. Maybe the DIGIC DV II is able to do this just like a Realta/Teranex chip but it's questionable.

 

[ShannonRawls]

So basically, for all "Intents" and "Purposes". I repeat, for all "INTENTS" and "PURPOSES" ...... 24f is 24p.

 

[MovieSwede]

The XL H1 uses native interlaced CCDs. For 24f and 30f it simply deinterlaces it. But it is native 24fps, unlike the HVX200 which chops 36 frames out of 60.

I want the XL H2 to not use HDV and use AVCHD, CMOS sensors, and progressive scan. Oh, and none of that 1440x1080. I want 1920x1080.

The HVX doesnt chops 36 frames.

The CCDs can read a number of different framerates but the internal processing is done in 60fps 1080P. But it isnt chopped 36 frames, That would have looked ugly.

The Z1 on the other hand shoots 60i and thendeinterlace and blend frames to get 24CF.

Well and about the XLH2, we all want that, its just if we want the price.

 

[Elton]

So basically, for all "Intents" and "Purposes". I repeat, for all "INTENTS" and "PURPOSES" ...... 24f is 24p.

Amen and amen!

 

[DavidBeier]

So basically, for all "Intents" and "Purposes". I repeat, for all "INTENTS" and "PURPOSES" ...... 24f is 24p.

I think that's an over simplification however. First off, if Barry's Adam Wilt quote is accurate, then that's kind of a big deal. Easily the most highly touted aspect of the XLH1 over the other under 10k HD cameras is its higher resolved detail. If 24f actually knocks this down so much (I'd love to see some side by side comparisons to see how accurate this is) then that's a pretty big deal (since the camera is already so much more expensive than the others). 24f also isn't the same for all intents and purposes since it isn't compatible with other HDV 24p systems. Other HDV decks don't understand it and won't accept it. Many NLEs also don't support it or need new codecs in order to do so.

 

[Barry_Green]

Let's clarify Adam's comment. Here's the exact quote from his article in DV magazine:

In 60i, vertical resolution was a solid 700+ lines; in 24f mode, we thought it looked like half-resolution material on the monitors, consistent with what you'd get with field-doubling. Looking at the captured clips, especially the Combi-2.3's bullseyes, I'd have to say that it certainly looks like field-doubled vertical sampling, with about 540 TV lines usable, although certain aspects of the image "feel" sharper. I'm not sure how to describe it, but perhaps Canon's secret sauce for creating 24f results in a perceptually sharper picture than plain field-doubling, even if the clues I can glean from the interference patterns on the bullseyes would indicate otherwise.

 

[ShannonRawls]

wow....it's September 25th and we're still talking about this? LOL

Ok, guys...without any political spin, commercial gain, threat of persecution, backlash from people who follow me or beleive in me, hypothetics, or tricky wording, allow me to be crystal clear (same as I was back in January).....

"24f on the XL-H1 nets higher then 540 lines of verticle resolution, period!
Moreover, in every mode this camera can shoot (24f (which is 24p), 30f (which is 30p) and 60i) this camera undeniably yields more verticle and horizontal resolution then any other 1/3" CCD camcorder currently available on the planet. This includes 1-chip, 3-chip, & even CMOS camcorders"

I made this statement 10 months ago, and it still holds true today. I don't know how else to say it. Maybe if I knew spanish or french, I would say it in those languages, but I currently only know english and I don't know how to write it in plain english any clearer then that.

Now because the resolution is higher, don't mean it's the BEST. (i personally happen to think it is the best, but thats just me). *shrugs* what's the rocket science? It didn't stop Steven Spielberg or Peter Jackson from buying HVX200's. It didn't stop Michael Pappas from selling his XL-H1 and buying an HD100 instead. Why? because so much more rides on the looks of a photo then the sharpness of it. You have things like dynamic range, color control, rolloff, latitude, chromatic abberation, barrel distortion, banding, the list goes on and on and on. YES, ofcourse in HIGH DEFINTION you want the most DEFINITION you can get, but there's more to it.

and the camera costs 9 thousand bucks too! So it's no big surprise that it has the highest definition. it damn well better have!

Now....can we lay this to rest already?

24f also isn't the same for all intents and purposes since it isn't compatible with other HDV 24p systems. Other HDV decks don't understand it and won't accept it. Many NLEs also don't support it or need new codecs in order to do so.

Other HDV 24p systems?? LOL...(barry, barlow, do you see what I have to go through? *smile*) Ummmmm David, WHAT "other" HDV 24p systems would that be? There's only ONE other 'standard' and that's 720p from JVC. But you and I both should know that this is 1080p we're talking about, so i'm not entirely understanding you're point. Espeically since 24F from the XL-H1 is the ONE AND ONLY HDV 1080p24 recording system that creates .M2T files in the world.

I hope that helps,

 

[Barry_Green]

Other HDV 24p systems?? LOL...(barry, barlow, do you see what I have to go through? *smile*) Ummmmm David, WHAT "other" HDV 24p systems would that be?

JVC 24p, and Sony HDV 24p. So there are at least three methods out there; all fairly mutually incompatible with each other.

As a recording standard I suspect that Canon's will prove to be the most efficient, as Sony's uses 3:2 pulldown to record within a 60i stream.

Espeically since 24F from the XL-H1 is the ONE AND ONLY HDV 1080p24 recording system that creates .M2T files in the world.

Sony HVR-V1U. 24p recorded within 60i to .m2t files. Of course, it's not on the market yet, and won't be for about three more months, so you do still have a point...

 

[ShannonRawls]

Sony isn't 'out there'. I never EVER talk about "future" stuff. I never mix that into my equations or arguments. So as far as I'm concerned there is no Sony HDV 24p and there is no other camera that records HDV 1080p24 besides Canon. Heck, if I did that, then I might as well talk about the RED, BLUE and BLACK camera coming in 2010, with its portable HD-SDI recorder the size of a cell phone.

The HVX is still the only 720p60 camcorder with 1/3" CCD's too. yea, i know about the HD200/250 and all...but it AINT HERE. So the HVX is the ONE and ONLY, know what I mean?

Sorta Off Topic Question:

As a recording standard I suspect that Canon's will prove to be the most efficient, as Sony's uses 3:2 pulldown to record within a 60i stream.

But that's how I thought it was supposed to be?? I thought Canon 'dropped the ball' when they didn't emply that method. Do you really think Canon's interlaced scaning but 24p recording system will be better then Sony progressive scanning but 60i recording system? I was thinking the 24p in a 60i stream would be more efficient and all, reminescent of the DVX/XL2. Especially after the beat down that the XL-H1 got for not having so-called "true" 24p with progressive scanning. I mean, to finally end this debacle with the Canon's interlaced CCDs out-performing the highly coveted "PROGRESSIVE SCAN" of its competitor simply means allot of good people wasted allot of good time bickering about progressive vs. interlaced scanning.

 

[David Jimerson]

But it is native 24fps, unlike the HVX200 which chops 36 frames out of 60..

I'm guessing you say this out of a misunderstanding.

DVCPRO HD recorded to tape is always recorded as 60 fps, it is true. However, it isn't acquired that way -- it's 24p acquisition, and then frames are repeated in order to pull 24 up to 60.

Then, those frames -- which were created for the purpose of recording only -- are then discarded. To say this is "fake" 24p is simply not accurate.

The HVX can also record only 24 fps to the card, in its 24pN mode, with no need for a 60p stream.

 

[AshG]

If the XLH2 comes... maybe they will use progressive CMOS chips? And audio embedded HD-SDI? I passed on the XLH as far as buying because I feel it was priced too high, IMHO it should have been no more than $6999 with a $6K street.


ash =o)

 

[Barry_Green]

Do you really think Canon's interlaced scaning but 24p recording system will be better then Sony progressive scanning but 60i recording system? I was thinking the 24p in a 60i stream is the best, reminescent of the DVX/XL2.

But you're mixing technologies, and that's the problem.

DVX/XL2 used progressive SCAN, and interlaced recording. Canon uses INTERLACE scan, and progressive recording. Not the same thing.

Not that far different though, in terms of measured results; 24F is the best interlace-sourced 24P simulation out there and infinitely better than any other interlace->progressive system being offered (such as CineFrame 24, etc).

Canon's recording technique is, like I said before, probably the better of the two. Recording in a 2-3 pulldown system is not as convenient to work with, and especially when dealing with a long-GOP system, you'd really rather not have frames split up and interlaced throughout. XL2/DVX used 24pA which was the best compromise; 24 frames recorded as 24 frames, with six disposable frames thrown in to round out the sequence. Canon's system is sort of the same but they discard the six disposable frames right off the bat and only store the valid frames, that's the best way to record (but, unfortunately, the side effect is that it's incompatible with other HDV equipment). Sony's system is really about the only one they could choose: they went with a 60i 2-3 system because their decks could play it. They couldn't go with a true 24p canon-style recording because it'd be incompatible with their gear. So if you're content to edit 60i, Sony probably made the right choice within their sphere of equipment and workflow. If you want to do a true 24p edit (and let's face it, who among us, shooting 24p, don't want to do a true 24p edit? Of course we do!) then Sony's implementation is lacking and Canon's is better.

Had Sony gone with a 24pA system that would have been better, I believe. They could get active progressive encoding on the four frames, and who cares about the fifth/interlaced frame because we're just going to discard it anyway. But they didn't, so we have to work with what we've got.

JVC's is a clever middle-of-the-road system, they actually use frame-based 3:2 pulldown but they don't record it, they just use repeat flags. So on tape it's actually 24 recorded frames, but as a data stream it's technically 60 frames because once you add in the repeat frame flags the sequence comes out as 60.

As it stands now, there's always a compromise somewhere. Canon scans interlaced and takes a resolution hit, but records what it gets as progressive with no wasted bandwidth. Which is good, but not ideal, it'd be just that much cleaner if they'd have done a true progressive scan, but I believe they did the best with the recording system that could be expected.

Sony V1U scans progressively and takes no resolution hit at all. That part's great. But then they record it within 2-3 pulldown and that introduces complications, as Thomas Smet on DVInfo is talking about, we may run into chroma issues. Remains to be seen.

Scan progressively, record progressively, then you're talking. That's what JVC and Panasonic do. But JVC has its share of issues, and Panasonic only delivers about the same vertical res as 24F anyway.

 

[ShannonRawls]

ohmy, the dreaded GOP. I forgot about that.

24 progressively scanned images recorded @ 15-GOP with a 2:3 pulldown laid as 60i to tape .... whew!! It seems the camera would need a super computer to accurately process that with little error or artifacts.

Oh well, I guess it remains to be seen.

1920x1080p High Resolution + Progressive Chips + Progressive Recording for Progressive Editing = $90,0000 still!

 

[Barry_Green]

Yes, that it does. Soon it'll be $17,500 but until then, we pays our money and we makes our choices.

 

[DavidBeier]

"24f on the XL-H1 nets higher then 540 lines of verticle resolution, period!
Moreover, in every mode this camera can shoot (24f (which is 24p), 30f (which is 30p) and 60i) this camera undeniably yields more verticle and horizontal resolution then any other 1/3" CCD camcorder currently available on the planet.

I don't think I'm arguing with this, just simply talking about weighing the benafits and gains. For instance, for those of use who want to do commercials, narrative films, or other stuff that requires the typical "film look," then interlaced really isn't an option. We want a progressive image plain and simple and there really isn't a substitute for it when you're going for that kind of look. Now, 24f's motion does look pretty much indistinguishible from real 24 frames a second (even though it's not). In respect to motion, that's all that matters. My point about the resolution however is that there is a big difference bewteen 700 lines and around 550 and, as you already said, resolution isn't everything. At 700+ lines, perhaps the extra 3k and lack of color resolution that the HVX200 has would be worth it for some. Given the loss of resolution in 24f, it may not be. I know the XLH1 is still going to be sharper in 24f than the others but not nearly to as great as an extent as the interlaced numbers would. That's why I made the distinction. Not trying to knock the camera but just to be clear. I hear things like, "The XLH1 has almost as much resolution as a CineAlta and 24f is, for all intent's an purposes, the same as 24p!" These two statments are true but misleading since it doesn't have that kind of resolution in 24f, which is I think what most of these people are going to want to use. It still is sharper but not to the same extent and that can be a big deal for some. I considered the XLH1 for quite a while and still think it's a great camera and sharper than the others but, in 24f, I don't think it's worth quite so much more over its competition; not for what I want to do which is shoot something with the typical film look that I could possibly do a film out for or burn to an SD DVD. Of course, if I wanted to shoot a documentary or event in 60i that would be broadcast on a 1080i system, then I may very well think it was worth the extra cash.

 

[ShannonRawls]

in 24f, I don't think it's worth quite so much more over its competition

Gotcha Dave...and I feel you 100% on your points.

Now, on what you said in quotes above.....Ya see, that's where the internet reports and discussion forum politics vs. real life testing & seeing with your own eys comes into play.

I'm guessing here (hands up), and I could be 100% wrong, but I don't think you, Mr. David Beier, has stood in a room and compared the 24f of a XL-H1 to any other 1/3" CCD camera's 24f/p on a HD monitor flipping back and forth comparing the difference in color, resolution, dynamic feel, motion cadence, rendition and overall image quality...have you?

Forget a web report
Forget what you've 'heard'
Forget what people like "SHANNON" says on the internet

But have you seen it with your own two eyeballs? because I have.....4 different times! And each time, I never had to sell 24F to the audience....I let 24F sell itself. Now, if you have seen this, then you wouldn't say "I don't think". Instead I guarantee you Big Dave (assuming you're not color blind, have 20/20 vision and completely unbiased), that you would be ROCK SOLID with your assertion and instead say "I know". Because at that very moment you would become about as rock solid as I currently am.

So at this point....I encourage you to strike everything I have ever said about the XL-H1 and it's phenomenal image quality, superb color capabilites & outstanding resolution in 24F mode. *smile* (you like how i threw all the extras in there?) And instead go compare them yourself. I have a feeling you will see that 24F will exceed your previous expecations.

*smile*

 

[Noel Evans]

I'm guessing here (hands up), and I could be 100% wrong, but I don't think you, Mr. David Beier, has stood in a room and compared the 24f of a XL-H1 to any other 1/3" CCD camera's 24f/p on a HD monitor flipping back and forth comparing the difference in color, resolution, dynamic feel, motion cadence, rendition and overall image quality...have you?


*smile*

I HAVE. And am suitably happy thus going with the new canon cameras. I do like the HVX I work with, it has nice look to it overall, but Im just not in a position to go entirely tapeless myself for HD aquisition.

 

[Nik Manning]

Canon XL-H2 all it needs is audio added to the uncompressed HD-SDI and 2/3 ccds. Thats it! They should charge a even 10k and they will hit a market sweet spot. Remember Canon makes lenses so offering a new 2/3 cam would help their lense market. Also the film and ENG market will eat up any 2/3 chip camera under 20k. Also they are introducing cheaper Sony HDcam decks so effects work is getting cheaper also.

Basically Canon canon make these simple changes and sales will be up 300% for pro camera sales and lense sales will increase 75%. Bosses get bonuses,consumers get happy.
Prosumer cam sales will go up also because of the need for B and C cameras. Basically buy a XL-H1/2 and a XH G1 and XH A1.
Somebody from Canon forward this to the right people!

 

[DCCowan]

Or better yet, they should hire you Nik! I think you're right on the money.