Discussion of dv.com results

Certainly is reasurring that the quality gap to the super expensive cameras is less than everyone expected. I think that once you decide on one.. then this is all mute. I didn't care about 24p when I was shooting with my XL1. I was happy with the results and didn't have the cash to switch. Time moves on and we all have to upgrade our gear when it becomes unreliable. My XL1 isn't reliable anymore.. so it's time to step up and see what's up.

I do think that all of them will help independents to deliver higher quality products. Shoot I was so impressed with the Macro on the sony single chip HD that I almost bought one the other day because.. I have a technology spending problem....
 
Kholi said:
Why are you calling Barry out to confirm the resolution tests? You think the guy lied about them or something? Barry was right there, wasn't he? And he's experienced. I'd like to think he tried his best to get the communities the best possible results out of the one camera that everyone wants to get their hands on.

The HVX still looks good for it's price. They said it-- You can get half-way decent HD with these cameras and they all weighed in very close.
Click to expand...

What I mean by that is does Barry really think that 540 is it res, or he also have reservation about the outcome. If he tell me, this is as good as it get, than I will know.
 
Stop dissing Barry. The guy is as objective as anyone can possibly be. He is NOBODY'S pawn. NOBODY'S!

I give tremendous weight to what Barry says and so should everyone else. Regarding why the operator of the Canon is mentioned is because the Canon does not ship "movie looking ready". Neither did the XL2, but it can be made to look however you want. Too bad Ash wasn't available for these tests. You would have seen very different looks from the Canon. But at the end of the day, anyone who knows the camera knows that, so it really isn't that important. What is important are the real limitations not the imagined ones. And the real limitations are HDV and all that goes with it, until an alternative, affordable recording solution is offered. Also the issue of a manual lens. It appears that the 16X manual actually works on this HD cam - if this is thrue it is a true testament to Canon's lenses.
 
ullanta said:
Oh man, you're sure to be disappointed... 15 years on top... that doesn't happen in the electronics world.

Except maybe my Milennia preamps... ;-)
Click to expand...

I am not talking about Transfer to film, or maybe HD cinema projection, but to HDTV. The specs are here, and wont change anytime soon.

The resolution might make a difference in term of how sharp an image can look, but it will still look good and HD with the HVX in 15 year (I HOPE ;)
 
Xl1 convert

Xl1 convert

This is my first post to this forum! I finally decided to stop being a passive observer.
I am a Canon XL1 owner, I love the size and feel of the camera, except for its terrible lens control, I feel like the camera shape serves as an extension of the body when shooting handheld. I have never been a fan of the DVX design, but I love the imagery it produces, and think the Leica lens is much better then the overrated Canon lens.
Thus, I recently put a deposite down w/Barbara at AVS. I am really excited about the HD, variable frame-rate, intervolmeter, p2, and not having to deal with HDV and tape anymore.
That said, I read the article and have a question. If the upcoming firestore devices aew used on the Canon and JVC cameras
would it record Uncompressed, or does it record the same HDV compression as it would to tape? If so that would make uncompressed recording in the field very feasable, (ie, not having to lug around a G5 quad with a generator ;-) and hence wouldn't the results of Adam's Wilt hold true of the JVC and Canon recording higher res in the field?
I am a Canon XL1 owner, I love the size and feel of the camera, except for its horrible lens, I feel like the camera shape serves as an extension of the body when shooting handheld.
Lastly, where is Berry's two cents about Wilt's article?
 
DP StrangeLove said:
That said, I read the article and have a question. If the upcoming firestore devices aew used on the Canon and JVC cameras
would it record Uncompressed, or does it record the same HDV compression as it would to tape?
Click to expand...
It will be HDV, 25mbits. So same as if it were on tape.
 
MattC said:
Stop dissing Barry. The guy is as objective as anyone can possibly be. He is NOBODY'S pawn. NOBODY'S!

I give tremendous weight to what Barry says and so should everyone else. Regarding why the operator of the Canon is mentioned is because the Canon does not ship "movie looking ready". Neither did the XL2, but it can be made to look however you want. Too bad Ash wasn't available for these tests. You would have seen very different looks from the Canon. But at the end of the day, anyone who knows the camera knows that, so it really isn't that important. What is important are the real limitations not the imagined ones. And the real limitations are HDV and all that goes with it, until an alternative, affordable recording solution is offered. Also the issue of a manual lens. It appears that the 16X manual actually works on this HD cam - if this is thrue it is a true testament to Canon's lenses.
Click to expand...


That's right, Matt. Dunno WHY people keep calling Jan and Barry out. It's retarded.

As for the HDV solution, I agree with you -- It's NOT affordable right now. At least with the HVX, you can get used to the p2 workflow. But with HDV, you're looking into Kona cards to capture to HDV100 like Barlow did. While I know that I can get my hands on the right stuff to get the really good stuff out of the Canon, I'd still want an affordale, tapeless solution to capture DVCPROHD.

As it's been stated-- choose your workflow. Then make something.

It's going to be laughable when people go pick up these cameras that they've been arguing about, and their material SUCKS.

Should've been paying more attention to your scripts.
 
I have to ask if you've used any of Canon's other lenses? Canon's glass is superb, if not the best available. The control's on their stock lenses suck. There is no doubt about it, but they do serve well when autofocus and OIS are a priority (non-narative work). However the 16X also has beautiful glass and the feel is exceptional.
 
DP StrangeLove said:
That said, I read the article and have a question. If the upcoming firestore devices aew used on the Canon and JVC cameras
would it record Uncompressed, or does it record the same HDV compression as it would to tape? If so that would make uncompressed recording in the field very feasable
Click to expand...

The FireStores are firewire devices... so they capture compressed footage, not uncompressed. Portable HDDs are not yet up to recording a full uncompressed stream, you really need a RAID of pretty fast drives...
 
DP StrangeLove said:
This is my first post to this forum! I finally decided to stop being a passive observer.
I am a Canon XL1 owner, I love the size and feel of the camera, except for its terrible lens control, I feel like the camera shape serves as an extension of the body when shooting handheld. I have never been a fan of the DVX design, but I love the imagery it produces, and think the Leica lens is much better then the overrated Canon lens.
Thus, I recently put a deposite down w/Barbara at AVS. I am really excited about the HD, variable frame-rate, intervolmeter, p2, and not having to deal with HDV and tape anymore.
That said, I read the article and have a question. If the upcoming firestore devices aew used on the Canon and JVC cameras
would it record Uncompressed, or does it record the same HDV compression as it would to tape? If so that would make uncompressed recording in the field very feasable, (ie, not having to lug around a G5 quad with a generator ;-) and hence wouldn't the results of Adam's Wilt hold true of the JVC and Canon recording higher res in the field?
I am a Canon XL1 owner, I love the size and feel of the camera, except for its horrible lens, I feel like the camera shape serves as an extension of the body when shooting handheld.
Lastly, where is Berry's two cents about Wilt's article?
Click to expand...

Uhm.. that's not so accurate. But if that's from your perspective, then okay.

I believe there were people switching from Canon's new 20x lense to the 16x lens because it was so great.

Am I wrong?
 
I found this part particularly funny

>The HVX200's strong showing--it was the most sensitive of the group--is interesting in that the camera is said to use a 1080p-native chip. With vertically smaller pixels than the 720p-native JVC, and without the benefit of sensitivity-doubling dual-line readout used in the interlaced Z1 and H1, one might expect it to be between half a stop and a full stop slower than the other 1/3" cameras. Not only was it faster, it was no noisier than the JVC or the Canon. The reason behind the HVX200's strong showing is unknown.<

Take this fact and add to the lower resolution results and you get “the reason behind the HVX200's strong showing”.
 
MattC said:
Stop dissing Barry. The guy is as objective as anyone can possibly be. He is NOBODY'S pawn. NOBODY'S!
Click to expand...

Ok I do not know if this is pointed to me (I had to check webster for dissing definition(In native french speaking))

I keep refering Barry, as my ultimate Trusted Source ;) I love the comment and footage he provided about the HVX.

So if I was dissing (slang : to treat with disrespect or contempt : INSULT or 2 slang : to find fault with : CRITICIZE) I am very sorry
 
Kholi said:
It's going to be laughable when people go pick up these cameras that they've been arguing about, and their material SUCKS.
Click to expand...

As most of it does now...

But that's besides the point. I don't mind the Kona card, but the problem with that is that you still lost all that information when you initially captured using HDV. No, that's not a good solution, for me anyways. For me to go Canon, I either need to have HDV for some reason or telescopic reach (which I don't think I'll need in an HD Cam). For me to really be exited about the Canon, which I would like to be, would be a way to capture the footage uncompressed in the field.

Now, all of that said. If you really making an indie film (one with a budget) you're probably setting up quite the video village. If that's the case, "lugging" a G5 wouldn't be such a hassle.

Matt
 
Nah you're cool, and I knew where you were coming from, but small comments like that tend to snowball here. So I was being proactive if you will. No worries.
 
I thought that was telling as well mediacre...


Also, I wholeheartedly agree with DP strangelove. I really love the balanced feel of the XL1s and the new canon is build like a craphouse rat... Really solid and study with a good balanced feel.. But damn.. if they didn't keep that awefully floating zoom lens and focus. Trying to figure out if you were in focus on the canon was a *****. A manual lens switch would be in order.

Form factor of the canon is great for handheld. I will have to get used to the HVX... but I'm sure one of those shoulder harnesses and my trusted monopod will be all ya need.
 
I have only used Canon's stock glasss which doesn't jive with me, what else is 'not accurate'
Thanks for the clarification about the Firestore not being able to record uncompressed yet, now I can go to sleep re-assured that the HVX is going to kick some major booty in the field compared to the other '1/2' HD cams.
Yee haw
 
MattC said:
As most of it does now...

But that's besides the point. I don't mind the Kona card, but the problem with that is that you still lost all that information when you initially captured using HDV. No, that's not a good solution, for me anyways. For me to go Canon, I either need to have HDV for some reason or telescopic reach (which I don't think I'll need in an HD Cam). For me to really be exited about the Canon, which I would like to be, would be a way to capture the footage uncompressed in the field.

Now, all of that said. If you really making an indie film (one with a budget) you're probably setting up quite the video village. If that's the case, "lugging" a G5 wouldn't be such a hassle.

Matt
Click to expand...

Thank you! That's what I've been getting at the whole time.

If it's a real indie movie, you've pre-planned things out and more than likely, ripping the uncompressed footage right from the camera in the same room isn't going to be a hassle at all.

I have the necessary equipment to edit after capturing to HD-SDI, and I'm willing to bet that even after we were to invest in Kona cards or Decks (hypothetical here, because I don't know which cameras we're going to get), I'd be fine with pulling any kind of footage off the camera and using DS Nitris for what it's for.

We don't have Raids and the damned Nitris system for nothin'.
 
Yes, the manual lens is necessary, without question. But I do like that lens better than the lenses included on other comparatively priced cameras. If the current 16X (or 14X) manual lens works on the XLH1, then that is one obstacle down, if not, I wouldn't buy the Canon until a good manual lens was made available.

Matt
 
Well, there's indie and there's indie. And theres guerrilla...
But yes, on many productions I imagine the G5 is not going to stand out as something difficult to lug around. One still has to deal with tethering, though. It's all a question of what one imagines one will be shooting... I know I'm not likely to have a video village anytime soon. *Sniff*.

Anyone want to take up a collection for Ullanta's Video Village? I'll let everyone come play!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top