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

Ok, for those of you with bandwidth to burn who really want to see everything...

I've uploaded a capture of all of the HDV I shot - almost 2mins.
It's a huge 343MB file and will take a while to download.

For most it's not worth the wait. The stills and short clips I've posted show most that there is to see.


See the link in the first post of the thread.

- Mikko
 
philnerd said:
www.videolan.org

I know they do windows, I think they have a Mac version too... you didn't specify your platform or anything.
Click to expand...


I'm using a mac. The quicktime pops up then after a minute a question marks is on the inside of the quicktime. I have never seen that. I can view most stuff.
 
You need a MPEG-2 codec installed. - It's not automatically in QT.

This HDV I'm posting is the raw HDV MPEG-2 Transport Stream. It's not regular web video.


If someone wants to convert to something more universal that would be fine, but I'm trying to preserve original quality.

- Mikko
 
I'd really like to see more footage before I weigh in, especially on the A1 which is what most people seem to be excited about. Honestly, I simply don't get how removing interchangible lenses and SDI out can make a 9k cameras like the XLH1 only cost 4k. Seomthing doesn't seem right, especially from Canon who's never really given bargin prices.
 
epicedium said:
huh, clip #2 looks excellent

I'm relieved !
Click to expand...

Excellent is a bit over-doing it. Both the HDV clips look light years beyond the noisy mess we saw in SD. However, do they really look on par with that of the XLH1. That's really what we're all wondering isn't it? The HVX200, HD100, and Z1 all deliver about the same amount of resolved detail for around 5k-6k. The Canon XLH1 signifigantly more resolved detail at a price of 9k. Now people are excited about the possability at keeping that extra detail but only losing the interchangible lenses for 7k (G1) or interchangible lenses and SDI out for 4k (A1). I have no doubt the G1 and A1 are going to produce a decent image. What I want to know is if they are really going to give is as much detail as we see in the 9k XLH1 and thus a signifigantly larger amount than in the other cheap HD cameras. I'm not seeing that here but the lack a controlled environment and proper settings could easily account for that. Side by side tests are the only thing that should make any of us releaved (or some footage demonstrating the same resolving power as the XLH1).
 
David, if you take the second m2t file into your software and play with the curves, I think you'll be surprised ... It's more solid than I expected. Considering how bad the first stuff looked, it's a big relief to get a decent signal ... there is a lot of detail and depth, and IMO there is now every chance that it will look as good as the H1 (or, very close)... Here's hoping.
 
I repeat, it looks quite respectible but I'm really not seeing the roughly 20% more detail that the XLH1 offers over the other cameras. As I said, I think for most this is really going to be the selling point of the A1 (which is the one everyone seems really excited about). From what Barry and a few others have reported, the XLH1 is the poorest selling of the cheaper HD cameras (not a measure on quality of course but much more likely because of it's price). The other cameras are in the 5-6k range and offer pretty similar resolved detail. With those being equal, those who want better low light performance go with the Sony Z1, those looking for interchangible lenses can go with the JVC HD100, and those looking for the DVCProHD codec with it's greater color space, better motion, as well as variable frame rates can go for the Pansonic HVX200 (I realize I've GREATLY simplified the cameras and everything but just humor me). The XLH1 offers abotu 20% more resolution than these guys but at a price of 3-4k more. Now, the A1 looks to offer the same resolved detail at a price of 4k, cheaper than all the rest. This is a bold claim and one that seems to go to be true (though very well may be). However, these two shots aren't enough to assess this. Yes, I like you would describe the second shot as "more solid than I expected." But just saying, "Considering how bad the first stuff looked, it's a big relief to get a decent signal" isn't enough. We already have three other cameras that give us a decent signal. What I, at least, am wondering is if it really delivers the extra detail that the XLH1 does. I don't see it in these shots nor would I expect to given the hectic nature they were taken under. The touted strength of the Canon XLH1 is the resolution (though I personally think it's colors beat JVC'x and Sony's) so for those who have already gotten one of the others with their distinct advantages or are waiting to buy because they are expecting the XLH1 advantage at a cheaper price, we can't judge untill we see some real tests.
 
I agree david.

CAnon REALLLY REALLY HAS to nail this. I will buy one if they do. I swear to god.
 
David, I agree with all that you say! But do remember that the A1 is indeed cheeper than it's competitors- it offers 24/25/30F, XLR ins, 20x zoom, and a 'wider' wide end than the H1's lens. I suppose that if the detail doesn't live up to the H1, then it will probably still sell as "the best value high quality 1080i camera, with the added bonus of 25f". If it *does* have the detail of the H1, then it will make a far more significant impact- this is really what we want, and I agree that it is not yet proved.
 
Thats what I was thinking as well. The point is, even if it is at par with other cameras, rather than have the extra detail, its pretty much the cheapest progressive HD camera out there. That alone gives it an edge, and a solid market to cater for.

As far as the detail is concerned, if it has the same XL-H1 chip, you would have to have a really bad lense to make it lose the extra detail. But as I said, even if it doesnt deliver extra detail, having the same details as the JVC or Sony would be good enough (I understand detail is not Panny's strong point).
 
Fugitive said:
Thats what I was thinking as well. The point is, even if it is at par with other cameras, rather than have the extra detail, its pretty much the cheapest progressive HD camera out there. That alone gives it an edge, and a solid market to cater for.

As far as the detail is concerned, if it has the same XL-H1 chip, you would have to have a really bad lense to make it lose the extra detail. But as I said, even if it doesnt deliver extra detail, having the same details as the JVC or Sony would be good enough (I understand detail is not Panny's strong point).
Click to expand...

First off, we don't know what the resulting cameras will be selling for when the A1 is released. The FX1 can already by found for 3k from an authorized dealer and, with the A1's release, it wouldn't surprise me if the HD100 and Z1 (both been out a while) dropped to a similar price point.

It's also not accurate to categorize it as a "progressive" camera since the chips are in fact interlaced. The HVX200 and HD100 have true progressive CCDs. The Z1 and XLH1 (and thus the A1) create their fake 24p by mixing fields. In the case of the Z1, this results in really odd looking motion and a big loss in resolution. The XLH1's fairs a bit better but is still not true progressive.

As for your last comment on detail, from what I saw from Barry's tests shooting side by side, the HVX200 is capable as roughly as much detail as the HD100 and more than the Z1 in 24 frame mode (when it messes with the fields).

I really don't mean to be a downer on the A1 as I'm really interested if Canon can pull off such a miraculous feat. And yes, even if the detail is comparible to the other cameras rather than better, the A1 would be attractive to those who insist on HDV since Canon's codec looks better than Sony's or JVC's (so still can't hold a candle to DVCProHD). From my point of view though, someone who already has an HVX200 and only glances at an XLH1 from time to time because of it's higher resolution, the A1 really needs to prove it retains the XLH1's key strength before I get excited.
 
We already know the rough price the A1 will be selling for, and if Canon charges anything more, people wont be buying it, so we can safely assume a ballpark price of about 3-4.5k. That said, this is a moot point.

As far as the interlaced chip is concerned, this has been beaten to death. It DOESNT MATTER if the chip is interlaced when you cant tell the difference! People have proven, time and again, that Canon's 24f is every bit as good as true progressive, just acheived in a different manner. So, for purists maybe this is a problem, but for the most of us, once again, this is a moot point.

As for my point on detail, I based my comment on the side-by-side comparison done by walter graff. I know "he" says they look the same, but to my poor eyes, they dont. The JVC image has a tad bit more detail. This point may be subjective, but I sure know I am not alone in thinking the HVX has a "slight" bit lesser detail than the other cams. The HVX is a great cam, and this is subjective, so I am not contesting the point, but rather pointing out what I observed.

All in all, my points still stand.
 
DavidBeier said:
From my point of view though, someone who already has an HVX200 and only glances at an XLH1 from time to time because of it's higher resolution, the A1 really needs to prove it retains the XLH1's key strength before I get excited.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, but as someone who has not yet committed to HD, I think the A1 may have more too it than simply resolution bang for buck. It looks like a really nice package.

Leaving aside codec and media (because these issues have been bashed to death and I see advantages both ways), the A1 has a superior focal range to the HVX and a couple of new features that sound promising (instant AF and iris ring on lens). And if it retains the image characteristics of the H1, it will have a cleaner picture than the HVX and usable gain. The H1 also has even more tweakable image parametres than the HVX, and the new Canon's appear to be stepping this up a level further.

Whether it's "progressive" or not is neither here nor there. It looks progressive, it acts progressive, it works like progressive. Doesn't really matter how you get there. Just as the HVX CCDs have fewer pixels than my Pal XL2, it doesn't mean it's not an HD cam - it performs like one, that's all that matters.

Of course, for those whose decision is principally based on codec/media these are non-issues.
 
DavidBeier said:
I really don't mean to be a downer on the A1 as I'm really interested if Canon can pull off such a miraculous feat. And yes, even if the detail is comparible to the other cameras rather than better, the A1 would be attractive to those who insist on HDV since Canon's codec looks better than Sony's or JVC's (so still can't hold a candle to DVCProHD). From my point of view though, someone who already has an HVX200 and only glances at an XLH1 from time to time because of it's higher resolution, the A1 really needs to prove it retains the XLH1's key strength before I get excited.
Click to expand...


I don't think it would be a miraculous feat for Canon to put out a camera that performs like the XL H1 for the price of the A1. It makes perfect business sense for them to do this. Tech companies do this all the time.

Imagine, Canon has already invested a ton of money on R&D developing their 1/3" optical block and signal processing. It makes sense that they would want to maximize their investment by putting their (already developed) technology in a package that they can sell in greater volume. In other words, it would make sense for them to earn as much of a profit as they can on their current sensors before investing on their next generation CCDs.

The big money spent on Canon's part is on R&D. Once they have their manufacturing infrastructure in place, it's cheaper for them to mass produce what they have than to revamp their assembly line for new technology.

As the A1 and G1 are essentially a repackaging of existing technology (yes I am simplifying a little bit:), I don't see any miracles happening here.

Having said that, I absolutely agree with David that it's pointless to make any conclusions until we see some real footage from these cameras. I am really excited about these cameras, but I still personally won't spend any of my own cash until I've seen them deliver the goods. I'm not too worried though.
 
OK this the A1 was announced what back in July? When are we going to see a good review of this camera? It's coming out in a month. The best I've seen so far are people sticking tapes in the camera at a trade show and a few seconds of video. That is great but why nothing else from Canon?

I on a waiting list but I'm not going to buy until I see something else.

We will probably get some reviews for the Sony V1 next week and it was just announced.
 
Fugitive said:
The JVC image has a tad bit more detail. This point may be subjective, but I sure know I am not alone in thinking the HVX has a "slight" bit lesser detail than the other cams.
Click to expand...
This is true. But we're talking about "detail", as in artificial edge enhancement, not "resolution", as in: the camera's ability to resolve the image.

When you set them at equivalent edge enhancement settings they resolve almost identically. But JVC's edge enhancement is much more aggressive than the HVX's. Set the HVX on absolute maximum edge enhancement (+7) and you'd have to set the JVC DOWN to -6 in order for them to match, as far as artificial enhancement goes. Set a JVC to -5 and it'll be more edge-enhanced (aka "detail" in the HVX's menus) than an HVX is even capable of. Set it all the way up to 0 (aka "normal" in the JVC's menus) and it'll be grossly oversharpened as compared to the HVX.

So what you're seeing is not resolved image or truly higher resolution, what you're seeing is the effect of the edge enhancement circuitry (aka "detail level").
 
lacuna said:
That makes sense, but as someone who has not yet committed to HD, I think the A1 may have more too it than simply resolution bang for buck. It looks like a really nice package.

Leaving aside codec and media (because these issues have been bashed to death and I see advantages both ways), the A1 has a superior focal range to the HVX and a couple of new features that sound promising (instant AF and iris ring on lens). And if it retains the image characteristics of the H1, it will have a cleaner picture than the HVX and usable gain. The H1 also has even more tweakable image parametres than the HVX, and the new Canon's appear to be stepping this up a level further.

Whether it's "progressive" or not is neither here nor there. It looks progressive, it acts progressive, it works like progressive. Doesn't really matter how you get there. Just as the HVX CCDs have fewer pixels than my Pal XL2, it doesn't mean it's not an HD cam - it performs like one, that's all that matters.

Of course, for those whose decision is principally based on codec/media these are non-issues.
Click to expand...

Your point about progressive CCDs is a fair one though I've heard conflicting reports over whether or not the picture loses resolution when shooting in 24f (some say yes some say no).

As for "retaining the image characteristics of the H1" that's what we are trying to determine. From these shots, the camera looks noiser than the H1 (though I think some will dispute the H1 being cleaner than the HVX200). The point is that these images simply tell us way too little to make any sort of real decision. They've shown us a decent image but even the FX1 can produce a decent image with a lot of finess (still hate the camera with a passion). I'm just saying we need real tests to breath easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top