Whoa. Sony, Panny, and now Canon? Which ONE?

I had this posted somewhere else but it actually belongs in this area so I'll jump here. I like the Canon because of it's form factor and it's storage capacity. I doubt I'll ever shoot true HD unless some ask for it. If needed, then I'd run out and rent an HD deck. But frankly I don't plan to do any HD shooting. Now HDV on the other hand, that's a different story. Here's the way it's looking with HD/HDV:

Sony:
Love the Sony DV image. Don't like Sony as a company. They seem to know what we want and consistantly decide not to give it to us to protect camera that aren't even threatened because of price. People who want 2/3 chips won't seattle if they can afford not too. But if Sony does throw us a bone they do it in some sucktastic way. And yes it's intentional and yes I take it personally. Screw Sony. Why do I say screw Sony? Because I can considering the options are vast.

Panny (aka Pana/Panasonic):
Love these guys. Always will. But this P2 thing isn't doing it for me. If you could switch from HD to HDV then I'd look at it harder. While I'm still not totally over the HVX I'm not as excited as I was after Canon's news. On the backend one has to think about the fact that even though this camera is HD, your set up will have to become HD too, which is expensive unless Pana's going to offer us cheaper decks and tape (back to tape again so not completely "tapeless" on output).

JVC:
Simply never used a prosumer JVC. I did use that square consumer cam that used to have the swivel screen. If JVC made one of those in three chip with 24p, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I loved that thing. I know Pana, Sony and Canon all produce great images. I know nothing about JVC other than the experience I mentioned. The problems with the camera are also a draw back for me. I don't think even Sony suffered from split screens and dead pix. Bad press and a big digital projector when they did their press coference but not a bad image from the actual cam. (Correct me if I'm wrong). Now that JVC fixes it, the problems are still there but simply unseen or masked. Also no 1080i/24p only 720/24p. While the look and form factor whooed me (I'm loving the small shoulder mounted cameras) all these other things together kill my enthusiasm for it.

Canon:
Love the form factor. If I can shoot HDV 1080/24f, store three to six hours on an FS and then bump it down to DV for SD viewing or up to HD to make an HD master (not to mention output to HD if I really need to via HD deck while shooting) then I'm all good. I doubt Canon would put something out on the market that gives a bad image.

I do perfer Panasonic's 24p/30p image over Canon and Sony's interlaced image over everyone elses 60i image but I don't shoot interlaced most of the time. And if I did I like Canon's 60i (or what I'm sure would be a similar 1080i) image enough. But shooting 1080i/24f sounds good to me. 1080 interlaced lines squeeze into one frame 24 times. That's what I need. From what I hear HDV is better than a PAL DV to film output. I'd have to see it but I've seen films shot on NTSC DV and projected and they looked fine, so an image that's better than PAL DV would be great. Again if someone has a ton of cash and wants me to rent or buy a HD deck, or if I know I'm going to film out I'll get a deck, but I don't really need all that right now.

At this point I should also mention a product called "The LaCie Bigger Disk" which says it allows users to store nearly two years of continuous music and up to one month of non-stop MPEG-2 video. Think about it guys. It's basically a 1 terabyte drive

If I got this cam today, I'd still be shooting DV. As soon as I got an HDV set up (Mac G5/FCP Studio/a terabyte drive/HD monitor, etc) I'd start shooting HDV. I'd make a DV master and a Betacam master. If someone actually wants an HD DVD, I can do that, and if someone wants an HD master again I'd rent a deck and save to HD tape directly from the computer. There's the workflow I'm looking at and it looks pretty good. That's how I see it.

-Nate
 
Does everyone here feel the "cine" look of Canon (so far) is not as nice as the Pana? I have heard that a lot that the XL2 does not look as "film-like" as the DVX. This is a big issue with me as I would really like ONLY to shoot narrative features with the camera and want the audience to feel as film-comfortable as possible while watching.

For instance, when I saw Open Water (which I am pretty sure was not shot 24P but could be wrong) I was never able to get into the film. Felt cheap to me. But if it was a documentary it would have been different. It's just a style thing, I know, and don't feel one thing is better over another over all but am trying to get something that will help me in that area.

So...any takers on this XL2 vs. DVX image thing (for film look)? And if that is so, could there be a change in the new XL?
 
In my opinon, Canon has always had a great image. Everyone talks about how the DVX changed the industry, but we really need to give the original Canon GL-1 it's due. That thing rocked, had amazing image, very crushed, and the frame mode was ahead of it's time.

My DVX rocks the GL-1, but I will always have very fond memories of my Cannon. But overall, again, I think the new XL HD will have a great image. Canon is not know to screw around. The only thing that still bothers me is the HDV. Don't know how I can get past that in the edit. Especially when working the image.

Early news out of resfest is so, so, on the HVX image in 1080i mode. I fully understand the camera is not done, but still, ? why would they show an image from a camera that they admit is not ready. Man, this is getting tense. :)

Cheers,
Chris
 
Guys, Cameras at this level, have all the options to tweak the camera to make the image look like anything you want.


Anhar
 
Zig_Zigman said:
For usable form factor, ease of editing, and portability, I'll take the HVX.

I'm also assuming the picture looks good...
Click to expand...

Usable form factor - What, a breeze block! IMO this is the worst of the 4 by a mile.

Ease of editing - If you have 4 times the disk space of the HDV options and a well planned backing-up procedure.

Portability - This camera CAN NOT shoot extended runs of HD without:
a) lugging around a laptop and hard drives for downloading from P2 & Firestore
b) Spending a FORTUNE on extra P2 cards and Firestores.
The other 3 cameras can shoot HD ALL DAY with a pocket full of £1.50 tapes (and maybe a few pockets full of batteries for the JVC!).

However, like you said, image is everything - I can live with the above problems if the output rocks, but please consider these factors carefully, the camera is not how you described at all.
 
something tells me the HVX is the key to Panasonic getting P2 Prices to come down enough for Pro users to use them in bundles down the road...
 
I think they have no choice.
If they dont dont get the P2 prices to come down, the camcorder will be seen as a "cinema" only.

...and most producers dont do cinema "that" much.
Who can carry external capture devices on all jobs ?

But if a manufacturer builds a very lightweight capture device fixed on the camcorder, then it is another story, it will be great !
 
mmm said:
Usable form factor - What, a breeze block! IMO this is the worst of the 4 by a mile.

Ease of editing - If you have 4 times the disk space of the HDV options and a well planned backing-up procedure.

Portability - This camera CAN NOT shoot extended runs of HD without:
a) lugging around a laptop and hard drives for downloading from P2 & Firestore
b) Spending a FORTUNE on extra P2 cards and Firestores.
The other 3 cameras can shoot HD ALL DAY with a pocket full of £1.50 tapes (and maybe a few pockets full of batteries for the JVC!).

However, like you said, image is everything - I can live with the above problems if the output rocks, but please consider these factors carefully, the camera is not how you described at all.
Click to expand...

I see the smoke clearing, mmm. Nice reality check.

This is a quote from Tom Kolb off of cow:

The current line of DVC ProHD cameras are exceptional and they maximize the format's image quality, but DVC ProHD does do some subsampling overall, which means that when you quote DVC ProHD as "4:2:2"...it is delivered through SDI that way, but the file on disk or tape actually preserves the subsampled frame at 4:2:2, not the full raster.

HDV 1080:______Frame res 1440x1080, 4:2:0, Y sample: 1440x1080, Cr,Cb Sample 720x540
DVCProHD
1080 30 fps:____Frame res 1920x1080, 4:2:2, Y sample: 1280x1080, Cr,Cb Sample 640x1080
1080 25 fps:____Frame res 1920x1080, 4:2:2, Y sample: 1440x1080, Cr,Cb Sample 720x1080

HDV 720p:______Frame res 1280x720, 4:2:0, Y sample: 1280x720, Cr,Cb Sample 640x360
DVCProHD 720p:_Frame res 1280x720, 4:2:2, Y sample: 960x720, Cr,Cb Sample 480x720


I'm not trying to say that HDV is equal to DVC ProHD here...or that DVC ProHD is "bad", it's great looking stuff in the cases I've observed. It's just that perhaps HDV isn't as "bad" as some may think relative to the other choices out there.
Click to expand...

I did the math, and he is right. The DVCProHD is not the full raster to the P2 drive so there is difference but not tremedously. DVCProHD is MXF (actually DIF once it's unwrapped) and HDV is Mpeg2. There is a difference but JVC's offering has a GOP of 6!. Too bad JVC had to have split screen issues right off the bat. We'll see if it get's straightented out. Canon's HD-SDI out and genlock set it apart but the 15-GOP is not as precise as JVC's 6-GOP.

I didn't hear what audio format was recorded for the Canon. Does anyone know the audio format?
 
Still you do get the option of recording uncompressed 4.2.2 HD to an external device. Just WHAT external device is going to cope with a data rate of nearly 2 Gb/second is yet to be seen but at least Canon aren't stopping you from doing that.
The other HUGE feature with the Canon is being able to control everyone of the zillion image controls from a laptop. I can see this camera selling big time into the broadcast market as a cheap OB camera.
From what I've read so far about the Canon, it's about as far as you can go with HDV and/or 1/3" chips for HiDef. Bigger chips are the only way to get better performance but that is when the cost goes up very quickly. Look like there'll be two choices in this marketplace, the Sony Z1 and the XL H1. The Sony will probably still do well for those who are cost conscious or who don't want to / don't have the time, to spend tweaking the image.
 
robroysyd said:
Still you do get the option of recording uncompressed 4.2.2 HD to an external device. Just WHAT external device is going to cope with a data rate of nearly 2 Gb/second is yet to be seen but at least Canon aren't stopping you from doing that.
The other HUGE feature with the Canon is being able to control everyone of the zillion image controls from a laptop. I can see this camera selling big time into the broadcast market as a cheap OB camera.
From what I've read so far about the Canon, it's about as far as you can go with HDV and/or 1/3" chips for HiDef. Bigger chips are the only way to get better performance but that is when the cost goes up very quickly. Look like there'll be two choices in this marketplace, the Sony Z1 and the XL H1. The Sony will probably still do well for those who are cost conscious or who don't want to / don't have the time, to spend tweaking the image.
Click to expand...

All of them are great but, I really think the JVC has a leg up on everyone for film makers and documentary makers. I wish the HD-100 wouldn't have the split screen issue's that it is having right out of the gate but format wise and to tape capability I think JVC has hit a home run. The only thing's that set the Canon higher are genlock and HD-SDI out. In essence you're paying $3500 more for those two options. It may be worth it if you're doing multicam on some systems. On Liquid, multicam does not require synced timecode so genlock is nice to have but not necessary. I can see in a broadcast situation the need though. Canon has aimed high with the H1. My hat's off to them, but for most bang for the buck I have to give the award to JVC.

Let's see what the next batch of camera's offers, and there is another batch coming....
 
Another batch?!?!
does this mean we need to get wishlists started for: the HVX200A, the XLH1s, the Z2, and the HD200?

..."Great"!

- Mikko
 
stephenlnoe said:
I didn't hear what audio format was recorded for the Canon. Does anyone know the audio format?
Click to expand...


I think I heard a few days ago MPEG-2, 384 kbps, 16 bit, i.e. similar (if not identical) to the GY-HD100. I think that's an important difference when comparing the XL H1 to Panasonic's upcoming HVX.
 
stephenlnoe said:
All of them are great but, I really think the JVC has a leg up on everyone for film makers and documentary makers. I wish the HD-100 wouldn't have the split screen issue's that it is having right out of the gate but format wise and to tape capability I think JVC has hit a home run. The only thing's that set the Canon higher are genlock and HD-SDI out. In essence you're paying $3500 more for those two options. It may be worth it if you're doing multicam on some systems. On Liquid, multicam does not require synced timecode so genlock is nice to have but not necessary. I can see in a broadcast situation the need though. Canon has aimed high with the H1. My hat's off to them, but for most bang for the buck I have to give the award to JVC.

Let's see what the next batch of camera's offers, and there is another batch coming....
Click to expand...


I strongly agree, the JVC, from what I've read and the sample shots I have seen thus far impress the hell out of me, even with the stock lens, I mean they are $5500. $5500 . . .

For $3500 or so more, one would be paying primarily for the HD-SDI and gl, but another difference that I notice is the lens. Canon is calling their lens an 'HD' lens, whereas the Fujinon lens with JVC's is a ProHD lens, and it seems many people are disappointed with this lens. It does come down to seeing the footage, I think a four way test between all cameras would be AWESOME: definitely monumental, because all of these cameras are revolutionary in terms of making higher quality AV affordable for professionals. The release of all these cameras this year is very historical.

In terms of price and applications, I'm sticking with a pair of JVCs and an HVX. I'd be very interested in the Canon in the future, maybe when Optware's line comes out . . . that would more than wow me.
 
goldyprog said:
I think I heard a few days ago MPEG-2, 384 kbps, 16 bit, i.e. similar (if not identical) to the GY-HD100. I think that's an important difference when comparing the XL H1 to Panasonic's upcoming HVX.
Click to expand...

I was thinking this too, but to be honest, at 384Kbps, the quality is so good that it becomes a non-issue IMHO.

For me, there are far greater compromises in any 1/3" camera, that it renders this tiny difference in audio irrelevant.

How do you feel about it?

PS
I just tried comparing 224Kbps against uncompressed on a decent set of speakers, and the difference is just noticeably if play straight after each other. At 384Kbps, I really don't think anyone would ever comment on it in ANY viewing situation what-so-ever. Maybe a sound guy in the mixdown, but that hardly matters. I'll try and find a really clean sample to encode at 384Kbps to see if I notice any difference.
 
Just be careful how you're making the comparison. HDV uses mpeg-1 layer 2 encoding, not mp3 which at 384Kbps is pretty good. I suspect the reason they went for what they did in the HDV spec was to avoid paying licencing fees for mp3.
We've recorded from the same source into digibeta at 24/48 and a Z1 and with complex orchestral material the HDV sounds pretty mudied compared to the DB.
Still in my opinion this isn't an issue, no camera excels at recording audio anyway. HDVs audio is adequate for 90% of the time, mostly all cameras are recording are dialogue. If you needs something better you'll probably be taking along an audio guy who'll have his own field recorder.
 
robroysyd said:
Just be careful how you're making the comparison. HDV uses mpeg-1 layer 2 encoding, not mp3 which at 384Kbps is pretty good. I suspect the reason they went for what they did in the HDV spec was to avoid paying licencing fees for mp3.
We've recorded from the same source into digibeta at 24/48 and a Z1 and with complex orchestral material the HDV sounds pretty mudied compared to the DB.
Still in my opinion this isn't an issue, no camera excels at recording audio anyway. HDVs audio is adequate for 90% of the time, mostly all cameras are recording are dialogue. If you needs something better you'll probably be taking along an audio guy who'll have his own field recorder.
Click to expand...

It was actually .AC3, I don't know where that fits in to things.

I guess the digiBeta would also have better audio electronics, which would make as much of a difference. For an orchestra I wouldn't recommend compressed audio, but like you said, for stuff like that, you aren't going to be recording audio to HDV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top