Yes to both. Right now, making high-res CCDs that read-out fast enough for video is an expensive low-yield process. Also, think of the speed of the electronics that have to process this stream of digital information and THEN encode it to MPEG. The electronics handle 4 or more times the uncompressed data stream of SD DV.

It's not just a faster computer inside...it's something like 4x faster.

Ok, so basically this camera is a Z1 with HD-SDI and a lens which comes off ?(since I wouldn't say interchangeable, because you have no other lens to chnage to) And it cost the double? What am I missing here?

There is also a (theorically) better 24p mode, 4 channels audio... But you are essentially right. That's why I asked which componnet pushed the price so high. It must be the lens...

Why would you say it's a Z1? The chips are native 1440x1080 vs. the Z1s 960x1080. It does real 24P (or so far are told, and I believe). It has SDI out, which for some is a big deal.

It's not very comparable at all to the Z1, if you ask me.

Don't underestimate how good a feature the HD SDI out is. I'm sure a converter will be quite expensive, but if/when someone comes out with a realtime converter to get the files to a harddrive via uncompressed or DVCPro HD, this will be a very, very interesting camera.

THIS is what I was talking about when I said I hoped for something more than HDV. It's not as good as an integrated optional feature (P2 or other), but at least it is "open" enough for a 3rd party to come in and suddenly make this a very good, more pro-leaning camera.

Kevin

Go ahead Michael. Pick me apart line by line. :-)

Good question, Michael. Why are all the other cameras half the price? Slower computers? Cheap HD lenses?

Maybe they should have painted it brown.

Jay

The XL1 and XL2 have always done 4 channels of audio. Can anyone confirm that this is still the same (12bit for 4 channels) or have they changed it to where we can now get 16 bit x 4?

Kevin

Well. . .

First, they had to buy Sony Z1's and remove the CCD's.
Second, they had to remove the HDV cassette mechanism.
Third, they had to rip apart an XL2 and replace all the Sony parts.
Finally, they had to finish it in an automotive black lacquer and clear coat.

See, that's why it's so darned expensive!

yes. sdi is a big deal. going from compressed garbage to
uncompressed HD is a dream come true, even if it's limited
to studio use.

oh ya...and it's 1/6 the price of the pro models.

9k is cheap for what you get, assuming the quality is there.

How is real 24 progressive possible from an interlaced CCD block? I'm having deja vu's of frame movie mode here.

Z-1, fixed non manual lens, 1080i with "frame movie mode", component out.
H1, removable non manual lnes, 1080i with "frame movie mode", HD-SDi out.

I know the H1 has Gnelock and other little improvents. But for the double of the price?

For me th H1 is more comparable to the Z1 than to the HD100. The only thing the HD100 and H1 has in comom is the removable lens. So far, I think the HD100 is a much better buy. If the H1 was the same price or a thousand more, maybe. But for 9K?

So what good is it if the vast majority are not going to be able to use it?

Jay

OK so uh, if the lens is really HD quality (really REALLY HD quality) it has to be at least 2k right? That would bring the body only kit down to something like 7k (recommended asking price) then one could use an ef adapter, or a P+S adapter and from there have a pretty good image, at least in theory right?

With the matrix set up AND if 24F is really as good as 24P this would be comparable to an larger format camera. IF someone can workout a firestore with HD-SDI input well... um... wow.

Might be a real fun camera to rent.

Then this camera may not be the right camera for them. This is no longer 'prosumer' stuff. I think most will base their decision on buying this camera because it DOES have uncompressed output capabilites. As someone else said, true HD uncompressed for $8999 is another price/performance breakthrough. If I was buying this camera I would either already have an HD workflow in place, or budget for the necessary capture card to make use of it. Storage space is no longer much of an issue as hard drives are getting cheaper by the minute.

-gb-

And if they had the camera tomorrow, what would they do with the uncompressed HD? Broadcast? A very, very few... maybe.

Jay

Many have been saying since the Sony camera came out that it makes sense to 'future proof' your work by using HD aquistion even if you only have SD delivery methods at the moment. It's like taking a high res digital still and storing it uncompressed as an archival copy, but printing out a wallet size photo from it. You can print out the poster size version later, if need be.

-gb-

This camera looks like it may well become the HDV workhorse. Looks pretty good, especially the SDI output.

But still 1/3" ccds. Yep this is a problem, not because of low light performance or any of the other usual reasons, but because of the f5 limit before you stop being able to achieve HD definition.

Alan Roberts describes the reasons here
http://forums.dvdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=35244

From what I know, it's possible. Interlacing has more to do with the readout process of the CCD than how it collects light.

If Chris Hurd says it's not a pile o' DSP like the Sonys, then I believe him.

Greg, I understand your analogy, I just don't agree with the philosophy it puts forth. How many times will everything change (formats, equipment, hardward, software, etc.) before we reach that point in time where we can use it for what it is?

Jay

Well sh**, even the Genlock alone makes this a fully funtional Studio camera!

Quick lesson in pro video for those outthere who've never had the pleasure:
In the professional world all yoru camerss are syncronized so that the switcher can switch beteen them..as can any other peice of equipment in teh studio.. Those cheap video mixers that so many of us are yoused to (Panasonic, MX20/50/70, Videonics/Ofucs Mx1/pro/prodv/4, Datavideo SE8000, etc.. (the list goes on) all have a TBC in them that takes the normally out of sync camera feeds and times them up so that you can perform a switch or transition.. ..and they are almost all restricted to only 1 event at time between the A/PGM and the B/Preivew busses ... any of you who have used any of these mixers will know what I talk about ..some of them can "cut" on teh program bus, but there is that delay as teh other camera gets routed to teh Preview TBC for an instant..
Needless to say that sort of (excuse the term) Crap, doens't cut it in the pro world.
That mysticle Genlock input allows you to syncronize the camera into any production system. ..now you coudl take a couple of these cameras and use a few hundred dollar Kramer switcher to cut between them, totally cleanly...
In fact an $800 kramer 12 input switcher could cut 12 of these cameras together, the moment you hit the button! ..find that for the price anywhere else. - In pro world this is normal, but not with MiniDV cameras before..

oh yeah, and it has that HD (and possibly SD?) SDI output.. SDI is THE signal that the pro world uses to connect gear.. SDI can also carry multiple channels of audio emmbedded into the video stream.. Can you image, jsut one BNC cable to connect 2 decks together? That is what SDI is. get on any pro equipment website (and no, i don't mean B&H) ..most all the gear will have SDI.
SDI is what replaced Analog Composite and Component signals in the Professional Production chain years ago when everythign went Digital (except for transmission of course.. that's still going)
SDI is to analog signals as DV is to VHS.
this is a BIG BIG feature in this camera.

Right now a Sony (for example) basic light HD studio camera is around $77,000 ..PLUS lens.
Though the chips are a little smaller, and some of the controls are a little differnet, the XLH1 can be hot switched out for that camera!
That is VERY impressive!
As I mentioned elsewere.. you could now put together a 3-camera LIVE HD system for about $50,000 -compare that to $70k for the camera alone before.

Genlock is somethign i've been wishing for in a DV camera for YEARS.. this camera is allready lookign REALLY promising!

- Mikko

So what would be a good comparision for the price and current camera capability?

And I will need a vote on wether or not I ask my wife to get another job to pay for this...........................I will have to tell her your name if you vote yes. :P

I'm with you Steven... How bad are they going to rape and pillage us for this cam?

far as i know, the tape transport is still interlaced cause that's how the format is. so there's a bunch of conversion of progressive to interlace and back from recording to tape and tape to computer. even the XL2 "24p" will need to record on the miniDV's interlaced tapes.

Yes, it does. And it makes no difference whatsoever.

Even the $100,000 Sony F900 CineAlta has to record its 24p image on interlaced HDCAM tapes. So?

The process of splitting a frame into fields and recording interlaced is transparent and irrelevant -- it doesn't harm the image quality at all.

Where interlaced is "evil" is in how it scans, and the prefiltering and flicker reduction done inside the camera. Recording progressive into an interlaced data stream is a nearly irrelevant factor.

$9,000 for the camera, the lens, the whole d--n thing. (With apologies to "Jaws.")

BTW, please consider testing this camera before buying. Extensively, if possible. I made the mistake of buying the HD10 before any testing and I was VERY disappointed. I have used the HD100 a little bit, but not enough to make me decide to buy one. I'm going to do another test soon.

I used to be so in love with new tech, I blew too much money on it. Maybe this is a good time to remind everyone of my personal golden rule: a better camera doesn't make a better filmmaker/videographer, etc.

heath

Heath, that pretty well says it. It's so easy to get caught up in the lemming syndrome!

Jay

That is one ugly ass camera! Four generations of XL systems and they still only offer that crappy servo lens. What is the point?

uncompressed meaning 4:4:4?
or
is it still out as uncompressed (non-GOPed) HDV at 4:1:1 ?

Uncompressed at 4:2:2, so it says.

Jay

Uncompressed out
 

[QUOTE=Dan Euritt]

"if this camera really does have an uncompressed HD-SDI output that is taken *before* the hdv processing, it's a dream come true for the handheld fast action work that i do... all that's lacking is a firestore or similar that'll record in a better format than that crippled hdv mpeg2."


well, for the real fast action work take the small one chip Sony HDV HVR-A1
or its consumer version. has component output...

best,
ton guiking

Oh, and for the AG HVX 200 from Pana (coming soon) FireStore is developing a harddisk, for less than $2000....

Since the HD100 outputs 1080i 4:2:2 via component, I wonder how the quality will look between the two? Please no assumptions, just real world tests to do.

BTW, there are component to SDI converters out there, many folks in the Home Theater modding world are using them to convert their DVD players, and HomeTheater PCs.

This Canon has got to have Sony running scared more than anybody else (even if they are making the CCDs, though I would guess a popular Korean company is more likely). Good thing Canon isn't into game consoles :).

Panasonic has it's work cut out for it.

I really have to disagree with that. The FX1 and Z1 are very successful products, and the HC1 and A1 are now on the market. The Panasonic is still months away and so is the Canon. And neither of them really competes directly with Sony's products. They will have quite a lot of catching up to do in terms of unit sales.

And the Canon is going to appeal to a smaller market segment than Sony's cameras and costs almost 3x as much as the FX1 and nearly twice as much as a Z1. What exactly would Sony be scared of? I think Canon will be running hard to catch up. And this is not a negative comment on the Canon product at all. I just doubt that it will reach an audience nearly as large as Sony's HDV products and won't generate the kinds of profits Sony is seeing.

Now if/when Canon starts to aggressively introduce HDV cameras at lower price points, then Sony will have some cause for concern. But even then, Sony has taken a strong lead in that market already.

The point is, this camera is only interesting from a Broadcast studio point of view. Sure not so for indie filmmakers. The genlock is pointless for filmmaking. The SDI is very nice, but outputs interlaced only, again not the best solution for filmmaking. Comes with a non manual lens, not the best for filmmaking either. One can use a Mini35, but for those in a budget, the lack of a manual lens will be a bad thing. No real progressive! Even if it's as good as it’ss said to be, it's not real progressive. I'm not doubting Chris Hurd here. He's seen it, but not really tested it. Whatever good it may be, will it be as good as real progressive? I don't see it. I'm mean, can you pull a clean full resolution still from it? How the issue raised by Nate over the pulldown?
I just don't see it. I take real progressive over a pseudo frame mode any day.
So I think Canon has really given up the filmmaking section of the market.. Maybe they just couldn't compete with Panasonic and decided to go studio/broadcast oriented? It really surprised me that Canon, basically the company which pioneered cameras for low budget filmmaking, pulled a "Sony" and released a camera which ignores the indie folks and embraces the news/studio/broadcast group, as Sony has been doing for years.
I know for sure I'm not cancelling my HD100 order. I think the HD100 is much better suited for filmmaking. It's basically fully dedicated to it, since it doesn't even shoots HD interlaced. The only thing the Canon has over the HD100 is resolution, but with that pseudo progressive, I'm not sure it will count as the Z1 doesn't. Besides, resolution is not all and doesn't make a camera. About 1080i, which filmmaker wants that? Yuck! That HD100 gets you real progressive HD, with 24,25,30fps in the same camera. PAL guys will again be ignored, without 24p in the H1 (as with the HVX200). I know some say in PAL land, 25p is good enough, but then again most of those who say that, live in the opposite side of the pond and are not PAL users. So they don’t really know what they are talking about, as they have no first hand experience. I’m a PAL user and I know I want 24p. You can send the H1 in and change it to NTSC. Wow, what an useful solution. Yeah right.
Besides the 24/25/30p, the HD100 records 50p and 60p in 576 or 480 lines to tape and real 720p uncompressed out of the component. Not just interlaced only. I know it's not SDI, but I take progressive component over interlaced SDI any day of the week. Besides, you just add a $1,500 Blackmagic solution and you are capturing uncompressed HD to your system. When added to the cost of a HD100, it's not even scratching the bottom of the 9k price tag for the H1.
You know what else? I'm pretty sure Canon is continuing it's toyish build quality and it's amateurish menus, since I see they kept all the amateur non standard switch placements. That's something the HD100 shines too. The controls are very professional and are laid out like a pro camera. Also, just looking at the manual, it has an extensive amount of image control. It's DSP is one of the most complete and flexible I have seen in a camera in this price. Tops the DV500 and DV5000 for sure. While the XL2 menu is almost like a TV set dsp, with bars instead of numbers and most things accessible via menu only. But that’s not really the grip. It’s still useable. That thing is that it has nothing close to the range the HD100 offers. Maybe the H1 will, but I’m guessing it will be XL2 style.
The HD100 build quality is way superior to the XL2 (which the H1 seems to share the same body). I remember the XL2 I tested had the little plastic foot, where the menu wheel is, come off on my hands. A brand new XL2. After being shooting with pro cameras for so long, it felt so flimsy in my hands.
The HD100 also ships with a fully manual lens. Even if with it's short comings. But we don't know how is the quality in the H1 lens yet. Also, you have no other option for now. IT has a real iris ring too. I hope the H1 doesn’t keep the stupid iris dial wheel from the XL series.
To top it all up, the HD100 cost just a little over one half of the H1. I know the HD100 is having first run issues, but Canon cameras had it too.
So really, unless you have a TV station or is into broadcasting, the H1 is just not your camera. The fact that it records HDV is the least of it’s problems. If the H1 was a real progressive 1080p, with a professional menu and image control options (non XL2 style) and shipped with a manual lens, I would most likely bite the bullet and buy one. Even for the 9k. HDV if in the same level of the HD100, doesn’t bother me at all. But as it is, I’m passing. Not even if it cost the same as the HD100, I would still not buy it. Interlaced + non manual lnes + subpar image control = No thanks.
Having said that, you have to respect Canon for one thing. While Panasonic has been mumbling over the HVX200 for like a whole year and hyping it all over the place, Canon comes quietly and without warning announces a camera and is ready to ship it in a little over a month. Wow, got to handle it to them. Impressive!.

Wow, I can't comment on what the camera has or doesn't have and how the menu structure looks, However...

The list of menu functions is very similar to the list of JVC menu functions and the list of F900 menu functions (of course I'm talking paint menu here) so I don't think it's fair to assume that this will be the same crippled menu setup that the xl2 is accused of having.

Further Canon IS advertising the camera's ability to do 1080x1920 still images. This kinda makes me think that the 24F mode isn't so bad, at least not as much as the Z1.

Further the camera has TC in and out, I think any film maker that's ever used sync sound or a smart slate will really enjoy that feature.

I think that anyone that's going to spend 9000 dollars on this camera is not to worried about renting a mini 35 and some primes for 600 bucks a day when they really NEED manual control.

I guess the JVC and Canon are both good camera's I think if the 24F is as good as 24P then the canon may have an advantage in being the only "HDV" camera to deliver 24"p" in 1080 format. If it stinks then the JVC can do it with 720. IF resolution isn't a big deal to you then, it's not a big deal. If 9k is too much money then don't spend it.

I also don't think it's useless for people who want to shoot cine style, but that's my opinion and I haven't seen anything that's been done with it.

I think it's silly to bash a camera and make assumptions (that are incorrect when the infomation is out there) based purely on speculation. We'll see how the camera looks, we'll see how the JVC looks. My guess is the one with the person behind the camera who knows what they're doing will look better.

Michael,

You have made a few incorrect observations in your post. You don't 'change' the camera over to NTSC or PAL, you 'add' that capability so that you have a camera that does both.

You don't understand about the 30f,25f,24f modes. They are just like when we used to have frame mode on the XL1s. You can scan every other line of the ccd at 60hz or...slow down to half that speed and scan the whole ccd at 30hz, 25hz, or 24hz and pull a full resolution frame out of it. There is NO RESOLUTION LOSS. They technically can't call it 'progressive scan' because the ccd block is native interlaced. They are likely keeping themselves out of legal issues as opposed to sacrificing technical quality. All in all Michael, as with any other new camera introduction, it's quite unfair to write it off until you have seen what it can do. It doesn't matter how it generates 24fps, as long as it looks right coming out of the camera.

-gb-

I agree with Boyd. Sony has nothing to be scared of for the following reasons:

-Canon's 6 to 8 months late.
-Canon's product is 3x more than other high quality products.
-A biggie for Canon has been interchangable lenses. Canon has it with the new XL H1, but as someone else pointed out as well interchangable to what and how much will those be?
-Sony has captured a huge share of HDV users and it's going to be difficult to get them to switch, especially if there's no good reason to and if they are going to have to spend another $6,000 to do so (depending on what they could sell their Z1's for).
-By the time Canon gets some users on this Cam, Sony will be releasing a second generation of HDV cameras with a year+ of experience under their belt.

Those are just a few reasons.

If I had a Z1, I'd be sleeping easy tonight.

Frame movie mode is and was not full resolution. It is and was roughly 360 lines on all the Canons and Panasonics that used it.

I agree totally. Despite the fact that all these cams have the decimal point in the wrong place to be in my budget, I've really enjoyed watching these HD products unfold. And its been quite interesting that none of these products really, well.. compete directly. The HC1 and, to a lesser degree the FX1 have the bottom end wrapped up. In the 5-6K range you've got the Z1 and HD100, which are actually completely different animals. Then the 6-10K bracket is filling out with Pansonic and now Canon delivering also completely different beasts. I think people with 5-10K budgets and a purpose are going to have a good choice of tools by the end of the year.

Now if we could get an HDV cam in the sub 1K price point...

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Oh, ok then. That's different. I think I misread it.
But how much will it cost? I don't think it's free. But why not just ship them all multi-standard then? Makes no sense.


[QUOTE=Greg Boston]You don't understand about the 30f,25f,24f modes. They are just like when we used to have frame mode on the XL1s.

That's why I said I was having Deja vus of frame movie mode. That's what I'm most concerned with. I use to have a XL1 and the FMM was awful compared to real progressive.



[QUOTE=Greg Boston] All in all Michael, as with any other new camera introduction, it's quite unfair to write it off until you have seen what it can do.

Well, I can write it off based it cost 9k, and I don't see any advantage over the HD100 which could justify me paying that for the camera. Not for filmmaking aplications.


Well, yes and no. IF there's no resolution loss and image degradation. No pulldown issues and no interlacing "leftovers", like you are able to pull a clean still frame from the footage, well, I guess you could be right. But the XL1 FMM was crap, the Z1 cine frame is crap. So far only real progressive has worked. So, let's wait and see. I'm not holding my breath and that's not all which is wrong with the camera.

$500 in the US I believe.

Hi Michael,

It's a $500 upgrade. If they included it in the first place, then the price would have been higher than $9K. Plus, I'm willing to bet that well over half of the buyers will never choose this upgrade. It's a good thing, they're not forcing somebody to pay for a feature they might not be not likely to use. If you need the conversion, then send the camera in and get it. If you don't need the conversion, then you never paid for it in the first place.

Also Michael, I can tell you're an intelligent fellow. Perhaps you will agree with me then that the 24F feature shouldn't be judged until it's seen. It is nothing like CineFrame at all.

After you've seen 24F, then feel free to say that I'm full of it, or I'm a cheerleader, or that I don't know what I'm talking about... but please try to reserve judgement until you've seen it for yourself.

I think the HD100 is a great camera and I would love to have one myself.