*** DVXuser Exclusive! *** Canon G1 Footage and Stills! DV and HDV now online!

mikkowilson

mikkowilson

Steadi-Guru

Click for fullsize.

Ok folks, I managed to get a tape into some PRE-production models of the Canon G1 camcorders here at IBC 2006.
The camera I was able to shoot with had a Canon Wide Angle adapter on it, so that may affect image quality slightly.

I got 16:9 DV and HDV on tape at various framerates.

I'm working on getting it processed now. I have the DV captured and I've got some stills!

I will organaize and caption/explain settings etc, as I have time in the coming days, but for now, without furthur ado:


PLEASE RIGHT-CLICK AND SAVE file to your hard drive, I don't know what my server can take.

These have been shot quickly at a tradeshow booth in non-ideal conditions. THESE ARE NOT THE BEST THAT THIS CAMERA IS CAPABLE OF.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

FILES ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE!

The A1 and G1 are now available and there is a growing amount of footage beeing posted online from them by owners.
The new footage posted from production cameras is far more representative of what the cameras can produce (& better!) than the IBC clips originally posted here.

Please refer to the A1/G1 section of the forum for more information and video & stills from the cameras: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=93

---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Mikko
 
Thats great Mikko. But why in 4:3? And what is the compression coming from the NLE? Those pics are horrible. Sorry Im amping on this.

MY DVX grabs look better. :p No in all honesty I dont think these are indicative, I have seen better grabs from the HC3.

Further I can see compression artifacts in the text now that definateley doesnt come from the cam :p
 
Workflow as follows:

I stuck the tape in the camera and rolled. I set to manual and tired some basic settings. THESE ARE NOT THE BEST THAT THE CAMERA IS CAPABLE OF.
Was captured into Prem Pro.
.tif files exported directly from Premiere. There's no 16:9 flag, so the files are anamorphic.
There is no post processing of any sorts on the .tifs
The .jpgs are the .tifs run throguh photoshop, rescaled to 1024 x 576 (un anamorpic stretch to 16:9). one title layer added and exported at 100% quality.

I will post a few secs of raw DV in a moment...

- Mikko
 
Cheers Mikko, really appreciate it!!

Bit underwhealmed, but will be v interesting to see the video.

I presume camera settings were defaults? Highlight handling *looks* poorer than my XL2s, but that v much depends on settings.
 
Just noticed that the files aren't studio rgb / broadcast legal -- does Premiere Pro convert this on output?
 
Just got the video, very interesting ... the picture definitely looks cleaner than it did in the stills- the noise dancing is there, but not as offensive as I thought it would be.

It's tough to judge without having footage from other cams in the same situation...

[UPDATE]
Pushing around the stills and the video, they're actually more forgiving than I expected... They really aren't bad- this is the SD signal of course. The blown highlights look slightly worrying, but depend on a lot of factors. It's not hard to make a camera look bad :) Seeing the XL-H1 in the same room would be v interesting
 
Last edited:
mikkowilson said:
....rescaled to 1024 x 576
Click to expand...


Thanks for the pics, Mikko.
The pics quality is surprisingly poor, like others mentioned. Very odd...
Was this a WELL lit scene (they normally are at these shows)?

Also, the correct pic size would be 1050x576, not 1024x576, no?
(Unless the Canon only does the 702 width analog size of course....)
 
Last edited:
1024x576 is 16:9 and the correct resolution of true 16:9 PAL.

The scene was moderatly well lit. But this was my first using of the camera, with no planning or reading any manuals of any short - and trying to avoid detection that I was actually recording!


- Mikko ... in stealth mode
 
1047x576, according to vegas ;) I believe technically it is between 1047 and 1050 ,,, strictly 1048, where visible is 1024 .. as the extra 24 pixels are inactive, as the 18 pixels are inactive in 720 signal (actual = 702).
 
Last edited:
Ok, that's it for me for right now.
I'll get some more video and stills online in a more organaized fassion with listed settings etc, in the coming days.

I still have a lot to check out here at IBC and very little time to do it.


Be gental on my server!


- Mikko
 
Hard to come to any conclusions with these videos. Do you for how much will the 2 cameras be sold in europe?
 
epicedium said:
1047x576, according to vegas ;) I believe technically it is between 1047 and 1050 ,,, strictly 1048, where visible is 1024 .. as the extra 24 pixels are inactive, as the 18 pixels are inactive in 720 signal (actual = 702).
Click to expand...

1047? Never heard of THAT!!! :) If anything, it would most likely be 1049x576, but it is mostly considered to be 1050x576 (although the one pixel will make no difference).
Of course this will depend on the CAM! Canon G1: does this cam produce the blank 18 pixels on left/right, or not? Does it record the 702 wide (correct) analog type 4:3, like the older XM1, or does it go full wide (like the DVX and most others) and produce 720 wide pixels? If it's 720 full wide, you'd need to go to 1050 to be correct, otherwise 1024 is correct.
 
Last edited:
vidled said:
1047? Never heard of THAT!!! :) If anything, it would most likely be 1049x576, but it is mostly considered to be 1050x576 (although the one pixel will make no difference).
Of course this will depend on the CAM! Canon G1: does this cam produce the blank 18 pixels on left/right, or not? Does it record the 702 wide (correct) analog type 4:3, like the older XM1, or does it go full wide (like the DVX and most others) and produce 720 wide pixels? If it's 720 full wide, you'd need to go to 1050 to be correct, otherwise 1024 is correct.
Click to expand...

Just got calc out-- looks like 1047 can be reached by working out the PAR from a visible area of 704, rather than 702! (where 702 gives you 1050.256) I don't know the details of when it's 702 and when it's 704- I've seen both quoted in PAL compliant res tables!

And actually, you're right, I think vegas is 1049 .. now that you mention it ;)
 
Last edited:
epicedium said:
Just got calc out-- looks like 1047 can be reached by working out the PAR from a visible area of 704, rather than 702! (where 702 gives you 1050.256) I don't know the details of when it's 702 and when it's 704- I've seen both quoted in PAL compliant res tables!.
Click to expand...

Understood.
Well, when Mikko gets back, he should be able to confirm whether the G1 goes all way to 720 or not.


epicedium said:
... I think vegas is 1049
Click to expand...

Aye, for sure it is! :beer:
 
Yeah great WORK Mikko really appreciate you trying to get stuff to us.

In the end that H1 footage looked the most ordinary H1 footage I have ever seen before, plenty of noise etc. Its unfortunate but that tells me that these clips arent giving me a solid story. As I said before with the stills these arent even showing the same quality as the consumer HC3 at my local sell all electric supermarket.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top