I saw one today -- I looked twice to be sure that's what I was looking at. It was.
Older model? Or someone gone nuts with spraypaint?
Anyone?
Older model? Or someone gone nuts with spraypaint?
Anyone?
Charcoal Grey XL1?
- Thread starter David Jimerson
- Start date
DVX100Shooter
Veteran
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
I was told from a current XL-1 owner that there is a new XL-1 or 2 coming out soon. He said March but its March now and I havent heard anything yet. Its possible that could have been it.
I was told from a current XL-1 owner that there is a new XL-1 or 2 coming out soon. He said March but its March now and I havent heard anything yet. Its possible that could have been it.
Z
Zoomforce
Guest
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
someone saw a grey xl-1 at a tony hawk show last year.. could be the same guy, heck even barby gets an XL1:
someone saw a grey xl-1 at a tony hawk show last year.. could be the same guy, heck even barby gets an XL1:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
What's a redneck's famous last words?
"Watch this!" ;D
Here's my famous last words: there will never be a 16:9, 24P XL2.
(unless it's HDV, and implements 24P the same way Panasonic did on the DVX, by in-camera 3:2 pulldown, on 1080i material).
Any XL2 will be HDV. Marketing a DV XL2 would be pure insanity on Canon's part, especially now that Sony's announced plans to bring basically an HDV PD170 to market (or at least, that's what it looked like from the mockup), and JVC has (according to posts at DVINFO.NET) apparently decided to bring an ENG-style HDV camera (perhaps an HDV-5000U?) to market. A straight-DV XL2 would be the most ignored, anticlimactic announcement Canon could make at this point.
What's a redneck's famous last words?
"Watch this!" ;D
Here's my famous last words: there will never be a 16:9, 24P XL2.
(unless it's HDV, and implements 24P the same way Panasonic did on the DVX, by in-camera 3:2 pulldown, on 1080i material).
Any XL2 will be HDV. Marketing a DV XL2 would be pure insanity on Canon's part, especially now that Sony's announced plans to bring basically an HDV PD170 to market (or at least, that's what it looked like from the mockup), and JVC has (according to posts at DVINFO.NET) apparently decided to bring an ENG-style HDV camera (perhaps an HDV-5000U?) to market. A straight-DV XL2 would be the most ignored, anticlimactic announcement Canon could make at this point.
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
Well, I think it boils down to WILL there be an XL2 at all...
How many of us want to walk away from 24 fps?
How many of us want to go back to some kinda of frame mode or interlaced ANYTHING?
How many would be truly happy editing in MPEG(anything)?
Answer the above questions truthfully and what is left?
Is Canon totally stupid, or could they maybe just have just an inkling of what would pass for acceptable in most of our minds -- Or better, wallets.
I see progressive. I see 24 fps. I see true 16:9. I see something besides MPEG for pros right now. And I see removable lens'.
If Canon can't see that -- Too bad for Canon, cause I can also see big $$$ for them, if they would see it.
-Rodger
Well, I think it boils down to WILL there be an XL2 at all...
How many of us want to walk away from 24 fps?
How many of us want to go back to some kinda of frame mode or interlaced ANYTHING?
How many would be truly happy editing in MPEG(anything)?
Answer the above questions truthfully and what is left?
Is Canon totally stupid, or could they maybe just have just an inkling of what would pass for acceptable in most of our minds -- Or better, wallets.
I see progressive. I see 24 fps. I see true 16:9. I see something besides MPEG for pros right now. And I see removable lens'.
If Canon can't see that -- Too bad for Canon, cause I can also see big $$$ for them, if they would see it.
-Rodger
Z
Zoomforce
Guest
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
canon JVC and sony all have commited to the un-24p HDV standard. So sad.. watch Pansonic up the antee with the HD 24p dvx200
canon JVC and sony all have commited to the un-24p HDV standard. So sad.. watch Pansonic up the antee with the HD 24p dvx200
Z
Zoomforce
Guest
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
and as for the rights. It is illegal to use copyrighted music in a demo real.. but ASCAP acknowledges that it is common practice to do so and admits that it is very unlikely they every would pursue action, just ask you to stop.
and as for the rights. It is illegal to use copyrighted music in a demo real.. but ASCAP acknowledges that it is common practice to do so and admits that it is very unlikely they every would pursue action, just ask you to stop.
kyle_doris
Well-known member
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
the irony is, the HDV standard has to be popular for Panny to retaliate with some type of HD ready version of the DVX100. if aspiring filmmakers are still pulling towards the DVX100, there will be very little reason to upgrade.
isn't it true that the bandwidth of HDV is lower then standard miniDV?... like 19mbps as opposed to 25mbps.
i'd love to see some type of HD standard for miniDV tapes that doesn't use mpeg-2 format which fully utilizes the same bandwidth as SD DV.
the irony is, the HDV standard has to be popular for Panny to retaliate with some type of HD ready version of the DVX100. if aspiring filmmakers are still pulling towards the DVX100, there will be very little reason to upgrade.
isn't it true that the bandwidth of HDV is lower then standard miniDV?... like 19mbps as opposed to 25mbps.
i'd love to see some type of HD standard for miniDV tapes that doesn't use mpeg-2 format which fully utilizes the same bandwidth as SD DV.
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
The simple fact is none of the normal editors (most everyone works with) today is good at editing MPEG2 files, especially those at HD resolutions. The other problem is the MPEG editors designed to handle edits on HDV formats are far from the fully featured editors most of us use, almost like taking 5 steps backwards version-wise on you favorite editor today.
I suppose once enough HDV/MPEG2 cameras hit the streets, Vegas, Adobe, Apple, and others will include methods to edit for them. Problem is, MPEG is so awkward to work with because of its non-standard intra frame method of compression that I suspect it will most likely have to be converted to lowrez full frames for edits and then render to final output using some form of EDL working with the original MPEG2 file to produce from.
I've used Womble for a few years and it will edit original MPEG2/HDV footage on a timeline frame accurately and only re-render changed GOPs on rendering output, but aside from basic cutting, most everything else is just to simplistic to make use of. I can't even imagine how anything from HDV will ever get to film without some massive convoluted routines to go through. I suppose it will, but there will have to be a new infrastructure designed and built for this, as right now it is a hackers game and not for the timid in any respects.
I think a much smarter move for HDV would have been to work more toward capturing HD in full frames using a lossless method to micro plug-in harddrives. Any capture frame rate could then be used, only depended on final production requirements. Lossless Huffyuv has been available for years at 2:1 compression. If resources where spent to rework the hufflyuv algorithms, it could maybe reach 3~4 to 1 lossless compression, maybe more if enough effort were applied to it.
But, I guess we we'll get what the camera makers feel they would like to sell us. Too bad to, as it would be kinda neat to be able to shoot AND edit HDV as we do with DV or even beeter lossless. Having the options to produce to any output format would also have been nice TOUCH!.
-Rodger
The simple fact is none of the normal editors (most everyone works with) today is good at editing MPEG2 files, especially those at HD resolutions. The other problem is the MPEG editors designed to handle edits on HDV formats are far from the fully featured editors most of us use, almost like taking 5 steps backwards version-wise on you favorite editor today.
I suppose once enough HDV/MPEG2 cameras hit the streets, Vegas, Adobe, Apple, and others will include methods to edit for them. Problem is, MPEG is so awkward to work with because of its non-standard intra frame method of compression that I suspect it will most likely have to be converted to lowrez full frames for edits and then render to final output using some form of EDL working with the original MPEG2 file to produce from.
I've used Womble for a few years and it will edit original MPEG2/HDV footage on a timeline frame accurately and only re-render changed GOPs on rendering output, but aside from basic cutting, most everything else is just to simplistic to make use of. I can't even imagine how anything from HDV will ever get to film without some massive convoluted routines to go through. I suppose it will, but there will have to be a new infrastructure designed and built for this, as right now it is a hackers game and not for the timid in any respects.
I think a much smarter move for HDV would have been to work more toward capturing HD in full frames using a lossless method to micro plug-in harddrives. Any capture frame rate could then be used, only depended on final production requirements. Lossless Huffyuv has been available for years at 2:1 compression. If resources where spent to rework the hufflyuv algorithms, it could maybe reach 3~4 to 1 lossless compression, maybe more if enough effort were applied to it.
But, I guess we we'll get what the camera makers feel they would like to sell us. Too bad to, as it would be kinda neat to be able to shoot AND edit HDV as we do with DV or even beeter lossless. Having the options to produce to any output format would also have been nice TOUCH!.
-Rodger
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
[quote author=Kyle Doris link=board=Offtopic;num=1079465235;start=0#9 date=03/21/04 at 22:16:13]
isn't it true that the bandwidth of HDV is lower then standard miniDV?... like 19mbps as opposed to 25mbps.
[/quote]
Yes, it is. But the bandwidth of DVD's is like 8mbps as opposed to 25mbps, and people don't complain much about the quality on DVD's...
Bandwidth is only one factor, there's also GOP size, overall frame size, etc. And HDV is 19mbps for the 1280x720 size, it's 25mbps for the 1440x1080 size.
As for editing, as I've said before, you can drag JVC files straight from the capture utility and drop 'em in the Vegas timeline. If your computer's fast enough, you can edit full resolution, full frame, real time. And since Sony bought Vegas, you can bet there'll be 100% HDV support incorporated in Vegas 5.0. And, CineForm apparently makes some sort of plug-ins that you can use to get two streams of HD, realtime, with editors like Premiere.
The editing situation is simply no big deal. You can work today, I've done it. And it'll work much better soon. As to whether the quality is up to par, seems to me we should wait until there's a real camera available before we judge its quality. The JVC HD1 is a joke, we all know that. Sony's offering looks like it should be taken seriously -- but it won't be available for who knows how long, probably a year. Any discussion between now and then is likely just wasted bandwidth -- nobody will know anything until they see the actual results.
[quote author=Kyle Doris link=board=Offtopic;num=1079465235;start=0#9 date=03/21/04 at 22:16:13]
isn't it true that the bandwidth of HDV is lower then standard miniDV?... like 19mbps as opposed to 25mbps.
[/quote]
Yes, it is. But the bandwidth of DVD's is like 8mbps as opposed to 25mbps, and people don't complain much about the quality on DVD's...
Bandwidth is only one factor, there's also GOP size, overall frame size, etc. And HDV is 19mbps for the 1280x720 size, it's 25mbps for the 1440x1080 size.
As for editing, as I've said before, you can drag JVC files straight from the capture utility and drop 'em in the Vegas timeline. If your computer's fast enough, you can edit full resolution, full frame, real time. And since Sony bought Vegas, you can bet there'll be 100% HDV support incorporated in Vegas 5.0. And, CineForm apparently makes some sort of plug-ins that you can use to get two streams of HD, realtime, with editors like Premiere.
The editing situation is simply no big deal. You can work today, I've done it. And it'll work much better soon. As to whether the quality is up to par, seems to me we should wait until there's a real camera available before we judge its quality. The JVC HD1 is a joke, we all know that. Sony's offering looks like it should be taken seriously -- but it won't be available for who knows how long, probably a year. Any discussion between now and then is likely just wasted bandwidth -- nobody will know anything until they see the actual results.
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
speaking of sony, and vegas, there is a position open at sony pictures development here in madison (where vegas, and acid and such are made), for a director of media marketing. .. im waiting for them to open up some position like. "guy who comes in and gets software and leaves"
speaking of sony, and vegas, there is a position open at sony pictures development here in madison (where vegas, and acid and such are made), for a director of media marketing. .. im waiting for them to open up some position like. "guy who comes in and gets software and leaves"
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1079465235;start=0#12 date=03/22/04 at 10:31:37]...As for editing, as I've said before, you can drag JVC files straight from the capture utility and drop 'em in the Vegas timeline. If your computer's fast enough, you can edit full resolution, full frame, real time. And since Sony bought Vegas, you can bet there'll be 100% HDV support incorporated in Vegas 5.0. And, CineForm apparently makes some sort of plug-ins that you can use to get two streams of HD, realtime, with editors like Premiere.
The editing situation is simply no big deal. You can work today, I've done it. And it'll work much better soon. As to whether the quality is up to par, seems to me we should wait until there's a real camera available before we judge its quality.[/quote]
Well again I see Barry is on the ball. 8)
I just opened up some of the original JVC clips I d/l'ed when the HD1 first came out and indeed they will edit on Vegas 4.0. I had not tried to edit these clips since my Vegas 4.0 upgrade, but they would not open in Vegas 3.0 back then. As for Premiere 6.5, it would crash just opening the import folder when it read the headers, and still does. So, my impression was that only good 'ol Womble and maybe some other MPEG specific editors would work on these HD MPEG's.
So, since it opened in Vegas 4.0, I took a few minutes to play with them. So far, it seems Vegas 4.0 is frame accurate, as I can step, cut, paste to specific frames. I'll do some more compatibility testing, but this is already much more then I've been able to do with HD MPEG's outside of Womble.
Now to see if somehow could render split GOPs and not re-render unaltered GOPs, I started by using the standard HD 720-30p template (which worked nice), but it was rendering all the GOPs. Suspecting, like in most MPEG editors, if I could find the original render settings used during in-camera encoding, this re-rendering of non-changed GOPs could be avoided. So just out of curiosity, I change from VBR to CBR using 19,000,000 bps and rendered again...
Shazam! It worked -- No re-rendering! This was really getting interesting now...
A thought came to me as I watch the frame rendering indicator racing by -- If I can actually edit HD 30p, I can also make use of Twixtor and change this 30p into 24p HiDef. If this works well enough, this may indeed be a reasonable method to get HiDef 24p out of HDV.
So, Premiere 6.5 and Twixtor are working as I type. I'll post back after I see what this stuff looks like.
Thanks Barry for setting me straight. Really would be smarter if I kept on the ball better then I do, but as you get older, you slow down a bit and it sure is alot easier to contemplate doing something then it is actually doing it ;D.
-Rodger
[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1079465235;start=0#12 date=03/22/04 at 10:31:37]...As for editing, as I've said before, you can drag JVC files straight from the capture utility and drop 'em in the Vegas timeline. If your computer's fast enough, you can edit full resolution, full frame, real time. And since Sony bought Vegas, you can bet there'll be 100% HDV support incorporated in Vegas 5.0. And, CineForm apparently makes some sort of plug-ins that you can use to get two streams of HD, realtime, with editors like Premiere.
The editing situation is simply no big deal. You can work today, I've done it. And it'll work much better soon. As to whether the quality is up to par, seems to me we should wait until there's a real camera available before we judge its quality.[/quote]
Well again I see Barry is on the ball. 8)
I just opened up some of the original JVC clips I d/l'ed when the HD1 first came out and indeed they will edit on Vegas 4.0. I had not tried to edit these clips since my Vegas 4.0 upgrade, but they would not open in Vegas 3.0 back then. As for Premiere 6.5, it would crash just opening the import folder when it read the headers, and still does. So, my impression was that only good 'ol Womble and maybe some other MPEG specific editors would work on these HD MPEG's.
So, since it opened in Vegas 4.0, I took a few minutes to play with them. So far, it seems Vegas 4.0 is frame accurate, as I can step, cut, paste to specific frames. I'll do some more compatibility testing, but this is already much more then I've been able to do with HD MPEG's outside of Womble.
Now to see if somehow could render split GOPs and not re-render unaltered GOPs, I started by using the standard HD 720-30p template (which worked nice), but it was rendering all the GOPs. Suspecting, like in most MPEG editors, if I could find the original render settings used during in-camera encoding, this re-rendering of non-changed GOPs could be avoided. So just out of curiosity, I change from VBR to CBR using 19,000,000 bps and rendered again...
Shazam! It worked -- No re-rendering! This was really getting interesting now...
A thought came to me as I watch the frame rendering indicator racing by -- If I can actually edit HD 30p, I can also make use of Twixtor and change this 30p into 24p HiDef. If this works well enough, this may indeed be a reasonable method to get HiDef 24p out of HDV.
So, Premiere 6.5 and Twixtor are working as I type. I'll post back after I see what this stuff looks like.
Thanks Barry for setting me straight. Really would be smarter if I kept on the ball better then I do, but as you get older, you slow down a bit and it sure is alot easier to contemplate doing something then it is actually doing it ;D.
-Rodger
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
Ok. Did quite a bit of this and that, but through it all I can say it is entirely possible to produce 24 fps progressive from HD 720-30p footage. The big question would be why? From my testing so far, very little difference in overall perceptual quality or aesthetic quality. No, it doesn't look like 24p from the DVX, not even close. It does however not look any less, and maybe even just a bit nicer then the original 30p footage.
So why is the big question. So far, I can only see that film-out could benefit from this conversion and maybe just a tad, 24p DVD. But if time is important or of value, this effort will not be very appealing. Much time was spent using Twixtor in AE. Some time was spent rendering the original (with edits) out to uncompressed AVI. Normal time was spent going to MPEG2 w/flags and then to DVD authoring.
But 30p can be converted to 24p if any of these reasons or others make it necessary.
-Rodger
Ok. Did quite a bit of this and that, but through it all I can say it is entirely possible to produce 24 fps progressive from HD 720-30p footage. The big question would be why? From my testing so far, very little difference in overall perceptual quality or aesthetic quality. No, it doesn't look like 24p from the DVX, not even close. It does however not look any less, and maybe even just a bit nicer then the original 30p footage.
So why is the big question. So far, I can only see that film-out could benefit from this conversion and maybe just a tad, 24p DVD. But if time is important or of value, this effort will not be very appealing. Much time was spent using Twixtor in AE. Some time was spent rendering the original (with edits) out to uncompressed AVI. Normal time was spent going to MPEG2 w/flags and then to DVD authoring.
But 30p can be converted to 24p if any of these reasons or others make it necessary.
-Rodger
Z
Zoomforce
Guest
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
your missing the 24fps motion blur.. i guess you can fake that though too.
your missing the 24fps motion blur.. i guess you can fake that though too.
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
[quote author=Jarred Land link=board=Offtopic;num=1079465235;start=0#16 date=03/22/04 at 20:56:25]your missing the 24fps motion blur.. i guess you can fake that though too.[/quote]
I'm not sure. I think it's more then that, as Twixtor has so many adjustments for blur and how to blur. It's more involved somehow, but I just can't put my finger on it. I did notice after conversion, more smoothing to some of the herringbone very evident in the original footage. This without any noticeable loss in sharpness. It also a bit smoother, less strobey.
Remember, this is with JVC HD1 footage. I would surmise that once some of these (hopefully) better HD/HDV cameras start coming out, it may very prove out better once we have something with more inherent quality to work with.
Interesting though is that its been here right along, but nobody seems to have noticed what Twixtor can do. Personally, I never really gave it a thought, as I have for years been converting every kind of footage into every other kind for my own purposes. Got the DVX and all of sudden from many sources I'm hearing "you can't make 24p out of this or that".
I guess I just don't listen so good sometimes
.
-Rodger
[quote author=Jarred Land link=board=Offtopic;num=1079465235;start=0#16 date=03/22/04 at 20:56:25]your missing the 24fps motion blur.. i guess you can fake that though too.[/quote]
I'm not sure. I think it's more then that, as Twixtor has so many adjustments for blur and how to blur. It's more involved somehow, but I just can't put my finger on it. I did notice after conversion, more smoothing to some of the herringbone very evident in the original footage. This without any noticeable loss in sharpness. It also a bit smoother, less strobey.
Remember, this is with JVC HD1 footage. I would surmise that once some of these (hopefully) better HD/HDV cameras start coming out, it may very prove out better once we have something with more inherent quality to work with.
Interesting though is that its been here right along, but nobody seems to have noticed what Twixtor can do. Personally, I never really gave it a thought, as I have for years been converting every kind of footage into every other kind for my own purposes. Got the DVX and all of sudden from many sources I'm hearing "you can't make 24p out of this or that".
I guess I just don't listen so good sometimes
.-Rodger
Re: Charcoal Grey XL1?
For any who may be curious, here's the two clips I made as described in the preceding posts.
There is only about 10% difference in filesizes, even though both are compressed into MPEG2 at exactly the same settings - other then one is 23.976fps with flags, and the other is 29.97fps. I guess because they are so small, the flags themselves must be taking up the extra 10% or so you would normally see as extra space. Either that or there is enough difference because of Twixtor's frame generations that they just compress differently then the 20% or so you would normally see.
Anyway, take a look and see what differences you may see. They both are in .VOB (DVD) format so you may need to open them using a DVD player. Personally, I think the 24p file's nicer as I described above, but not enough so that I would go through these extra gyrations just to say "hey it's 24p" ;D. But if you have some 30p and need it to go to film, then here ya go - there is a way!
Here's the 30p clip: http://4site-communications.com/temp_storage/VTS_01_1.VOB
And the 24p clip: http://4site-communications.com/temp_storage/VTS_02_1.VOB
-Rodger
For any who may be curious, here's the two clips I made as described in the preceding posts.
There is only about 10% difference in filesizes, even though both are compressed into MPEG2 at exactly the same settings - other then one is 23.976fps with flags, and the other is 29.97fps. I guess because they are so small, the flags themselves must be taking up the extra 10% or so you would normally see as extra space. Either that or there is enough difference because of Twixtor's frame generations that they just compress differently then the 20% or so you would normally see.
Anyway, take a look and see what differences you may see. They both are in .VOB (DVD) format so you may need to open them using a DVD player. Personally, I think the 24p file's nicer as I described above, but not enough so that I would go through these extra gyrations just to say "hey it's 24p" ;D. But if you have some 30p and need it to go to film, then here ya go - there is a way!
Here's the 30p clip: http://4site-communications.com/temp_storage/VTS_01_1.VOB
And the 24p clip: http://4site-communications.com/temp_storage/VTS_02_1.VOB
-Rodger