[QUOTE=Michael Maier]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.




The original XL1 frame mode suffered. The XL1s and certainly the XL2 does not. The XLH1 does not. In fact, the XLH1 has an SD card slot and the DIGIG DV II chip can be processing HDV video to tape and high resolution stills to the card at a rate of about 6 per second at the same time. This frame mode is not at all like what the Sony employs.

You certainly seem most happy with the JVC camera. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not fair to denigrate other cameras in the process. That's why we have different camera forums here. I got to mess with the HD100 at NAB and I liked most of what I saw. But, JVC didn't include a w/t rocker on the top handle which I thought was a design flaw on their part. It's an optional add on now. I find that zoom rocker on top to be indespensible when shooting low angle handheld.

And let's also remember that the XL2 sold for retail at the beginning but didn't stay there very long. So, there is hope that the XLH1 won't be a full $9k for long either. Market demand will dictate what the street price ends up at.

-gb-

[QUOTE=Greg BostonThe original XL1 frame mode suffered. The XL1s and certainly the XL2 does not.
-gb-[/QUOTE]

Greg:

Just a note for clarity.

The XL1s uses the same frame movie mode as the XL1, GL1/2 and various Panny cams. The XL2 is true full resolutions progressive scanning in 24p and 30p modes.

Point taken about it being the same movie mode. But IIRC, the XL1s had higher resolution ccds than the original XL1. That's why I claimed a better result in FMM than the XL1 had.

-gb-

Could 24F be implemented by simultaneously scanning both fields? Technically that is not progressive but would have the same effect wouldn't it. I am no camera engineer though so I am guessing.

Chris, I would like to apologize if I came across as saying you are full of it or don't know what you are talking about. That was never what I meant. I have a great deal of admiration for the way you run this forum and this is the only one I post for the same reasons. I do read others, but never post. I like the clean house feel of your place. I also know you do know your stuff.
What I meant was that you most likely saw an example of a pre-production model hooked to a live feed in a trade show set up. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Really hard to judge with any degree of accuracy. But I did say we need to wait and see I believe. All I said was that even if it's really, really good, it's hard to believe it will be as good as progressive, not being real progressive. That was my line of thought. But I really didn't mean to offend you and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

The PAL/NTSC switch makes sense now. But the HD100 does it without upgrades/extra cost. Although not SD. I wonder if it would cost less if it had gone Canon’s route. An interesting approach from Canon though.

The XL2 is not frame movie mode. It's real progressive.
About the XLH1 (does anybody else think XH1 would have a nicer sounds XLH1 sounds a bit stressful ;) ) we need to wait and see. I already explained why I'm skeptical. But that's right. We will only know when we see it.

Well, I was not really trying to denigrate it. More like comparing features, from a filmmaking point of view. I did say that for broadcast and studio the H1 is good, or at least made the point.
But it's true. A lot of what I said was speculation based on Canon's current products. But then again they might surprise again, as they did now. But many other things I said was based on what we already know. Like, no manual lens, no real progressive, no progressive or frame mode uncompressed, just to mention some.

I realize I may have sounded dire, but I stand by what I said that Sony should be scared, and for the reasons many disagreed with me for, because of the studio.

Get in the thousands of cable access, educational, not for profit studios and that's a lot of sales. Small rural independent news/tv stations too. For even less than 8bit 4:2:2 SD. The post in another thread about using pro switching equipment...that will make a huge difference. And a studio will be perfect for setting up lighting and sound to avoid the limitations of a 1/3 inch chip. SDI? cool and drool for many who've been waiting for the right combo to come along.

Sony is currently used in most of these places (SD), but when it's time to bid on who runs the stations, and with what... I think things will change. Doesn't mean Sony won't be used (especially in the field which they basically own) but in controlled studio situations, this camera could be the 'it' camera.
I can even see a lot of current Canon owners wanting to make low budget studio type features (fan films anyone?) getting this one.


As for being 6 to 8 months ahead? So what. Really, so what? Still plenty of time left before mandatory change over. Now it will be affordable.

At the very least this event will finally get a lot of people off the fence.

And I still want the JVC, for making features, and for puting out true 24p on tape (yes it does)...unless Heath gives it a resounding thumbs down. I"m willing to learn how to use a 'real' lense.

Now just for a change in line of thought. If the 24f thing turns out to actually be indistinguishable from real progressive, in look, motion, quality and resolution, and they would get the H1 to output 24f,25f,30f, plus variable frame rates, or even if only 50f and 60f in 720p via HD-SDI(if they did 1080p, even better, but since nobody not even F900 can, I don't think it's possible for the H1) Then the H1 could cut right through the HVX200 business. Canon would truly steals Panasonic's thunder. Because I'm sure soon or later, somebody would come up with a away to record the uncompressed HD-SDI converted to DVCPROHD in a FS4 type of drive. If Focus is making one for the HVX, all it would take would be a way to compress the uncompressed HD to DVCPROHD for field recording. That could be very interesting.

The things missing for me (but more "wants' than "needs" are:
1) 60p.
2) A manual lens that comes with the camera or at least a "please check box" option that allows you the choice of either an HD 20x or HD manual lens. (Although to some extent I guess this can be done once the "body only" option is implemeted.
More frame rates.
Lower price. I'm not a rich man.
All and all I'm glad Canon did not do the highly rumored 1080i only thing.
24f or 24p, it doesn't matter to me. If it looks right then it is right as far as I'm concerned.
Go, Canon!
But,..I actually do miss the pearly white paint job.

1st impressions
 

I like it BUT .

does anyone know how many mega pixels the CCDs are ?

What the Lenses are going to cost ?

Does the " 24F " mode work in a 2:3 pulldown mode ?

what portable drive solutions there are for 1.4Gbps ?


Looks great anyone wanna buy a XL2 with 4 lenses for $6k ?


James

1080p60 and 1080p24 for me!

heath

If Canon thought about leaving the PAL/NTSC multi-standard out as an option to keep costs down, they could have done the same thing with genlock. How many here need it? I'm sure it's a big chunk of the price tag. They could make two versions, with and without genlock, like JVC did with the DV500. If they thought about it with the multi-standard, why not with the Genlock as well. The fact that this is mainly a studio camera is what bothers me. Why did they choose to go this way? It's not really something you would come to expect from Canon.

1st of all congratulations to Canon. While some have been barking about theire products for ages, Canon shows up from nowhere and steals the show.

I have always been a Canon fan since day one and shot my first shortfilm for gothenburg filmfestival 99 using a Canon XL1. I have also owned XM1 but never jumped on the XL2 as I waited for the HD(V) war to settle a bit. I must say that I, like many others was really dissapointed with Canon for giving us the SD XL2 at a time when others where offering 1080i and 720p. And to my surprise this just shows up out of nowhere right before I was making myself ready to buy a JVC!

I really liked the first 1080i pictures coming out of Sony FX1/Z1 cameras but in the end avoided them both bc they lacked 24p(F). The HVX was highly intresting but for me it fell with the P2 and the fixed lens. JVC on the hand was the most intresting option for me thus far as it offered interchangable lenses and 24p on HDV but it is limited to 720p and has some problems with dead pixels and split screen phenomena.

But up steps Canon with a black stallion, offering 1080i 24P(F) and interchangable lenses. The JVC was what I hoped the Canon would have been but they show up with a better camera and my dream about a black XL looking HD camera shooting 1080i in 24p came true!

All sub 10K HD(V) cameras thus far are good and could be used to make great movies with but the waiting is over for my part at least, thanks Canon!

Ps. I just wished it was a bit cheaper, but the swedes have a saying, "if it tastes, it costs"! ;)

1 interesting thing is that if the recorded image was edited (1920x1080) and outputted without any recompression unto a large hard drive, then projected onto a commercial DLP in a local cinema, would it truly look razor sharp? would it be comparable to somn like star wars ep2&3 that was shot digitally? i mean that's what people wants basically =). i know it's technically "1.5k" but with a bit of scaling during editing, it can be 1920 ("2k").

Every time an HDV camera (or even HD camera like the HVX200) is announced, the specs get better and better.

I joke that Sharp will come out with a CineAlta (F900) that shoots HDV and costs under $500. (We all had a good laugh at that one.)

But, if I were to buy a camera now, with my testing, it would be the FX1. I didn't get much time with the JVC HD100, but I will.

A lot of my friends are wondering what I'll shoot my next film on, and I am now saying, "I just want to shoot my next film. I want to make the darn thing!" The technology will just aid in my storytelling, not take over the whole thing.

heath

SDI Datarate and DTE-Recorders
 

Hello all!

While I'm unaware whether the SDI-stream that the H1 puts out is constantly at 1.4 Gbps, I'd like to do some simple arithmetic here and apply the results to current storage technology. So let's assume that the SDI-stream is 1.4 Gbps (gigabits/second).

1.4 Gbps = 1433.6 Mbps (megabits/second) = 179.2 MBps (megabytes/second)

Portable DTE-recorders such as the Focus FireStore FS-4 employ 2.5" ATA hard drives at rotational speeds of 5400 rpm. These devices can be written to at maximum sustained datarates of around 40 MBps. Clearly, these drives won't cut it for uncompressed recording.

Server-grade SCSI-drives with 15000 rpm are the fastest the magnetic mass storage currently available. These drives top out around 80 MBps, and consume a lot of power and dissipate lots of heat while doing so. But even these drives won't do it to record the SDI data stream.

So off we go in to even more serious server-territory: RAIDs or Redundant Arrais of Inexpensive/Independent Drives. What would do the job to capture the SDI stream would be a multi-drive RAID-0 or RAID-5 array - serious hardware, and definitely not portable and far from silent.

All of the above serves as an illustration that uncompressed SDI recording is not for mobile applications at this point. But there may be light at the end of the tunnel in the shape of solid state storage units that are portable, extremely fast, have a low thermal signature, consume little power and are - at least currently - wickedly expensive. These devices are currently mainly used in the defense and aerospace sector, but maybe the popularization of HD and the ever increasing computing power of NLE-systems will drive down prices in due time. I sure hope so!

In the meantime, I enjoy watching the HD-market unfold while happily holding on to my XL-1s... :-)

Cheers,

Ron

Yeah...I'm not sad at all, I bought 2 xl2's for less than the price of one H1. Although Im seriously diggn' the black, man is that cool!

kinda a shame about the camera though, I mean its not really a consumer cam, anyone think we'll see a XL3HDV consumer cam to replace the XL2?
Perhaps in a year or so...?

Any news on the GLH1 or GL3?

Where does this put something like the reel-stream modded dvx-100.
And how long do you think this cam has been in the works?

Cheers,
Ben Gurvich

6 to 8 months of people buying Sony and JVC HDV solutions is a lot of market share to loose. Not to mention how many people were let down by Canon's sloth like pace to get into this market. If I had a dollar for every complaint I've seen for the length of time it was taking for them to provide a HDV solution, I could buy a... XL H1 (if I wanted one).

And into the store buying XL2's, FX1's, Z1's & HD100's. I know the XL2 is not HDV, but I think quite a few people who were considering a XL2 will now go ahead with acquiring one since Canon's XL H1 is well over twice the cost of a XL2 AND really NOT anything all that great.

I agree with you on this, from what I've seen over the past few months, it seems like JVC is the manufacturer that has really been listening to what the dv community wants and has been making true efforts since the very beginning (they were the first). If I was going to buy an HDV camcorder today, it would be a HD100 or Z1. I could keep my XL2 and have an HDV solution for the same price as the Canon XL H1. I no longer feel "brand loyal" to Canon. Of course part of that may have to do with the continued hassle I've gotten over the stupid $500 rebate that I have yet to get from buying my XL2 and 16x manual lens BACK IN JUNE.

With the real-stream there is still the issue of dynamic range.

Much of the percieved dynamic range of the Canon will deal with where they put the white-clip. Just because you're getting HD-SDI out of the camera doesn't mean that you're getting the full dynamic range of the chips before the information is manipulated in the DSP (i.e., straight of the A/D converter like the reel-stream).

For instance, in those comparsion clips with the reel-stream, you're seeing clouds and a lot of highlight detail that are typically clipped off in the post-A/D converter/DV stream. Most likely with the Canon's HD-SDI stream you're going to see the same amount of highlight detail as the HDV mode, only no compression artifacts. Typically most camera manufacturers clip off the top 400% of over-exposure dynamic range, or they hypercompress the information in the very top of the knee.

Knee adjustments aren't the solution to this problem either, because typically a knee circuit is not gamma corrected, so you get a break in the tangency of the curve between the "normal" exposure range and the highlight knee when you start pushing an agressive knee. This typically shows up as color banding or mis-coloration in the highlights right before clipping. So instead of a "smooth" highlight, like you might see on film where the highlights slowly desaturate, you'll see a "harsh" gradient of super-saturated reds and yellows (or something similar) into the highlight clip, which tends to be a very "video-y" artifact-i.e., not very organic.

So there is still space for products like the reel-stream if you're looking for that "un-electronic" look to your pictures, i.e., where the DSP hasn't been overprocessing, over-sharpening, etc., your picture information from the A/D converter, giving you a very "smooth" look to your pictures.

Of course I've never seen the Canon pictures, so who knows ;)

Data Rates
 

The SDI data rate is a little imposing, isn't it? If you do the math 1920 x 1080 x 30 x 8 x 2 = .995 Gbit (the last 2 in there is 1 for the luma + 1 for the chroma) and there isn't much you can do with that in the field. What's sorely needed here is the JPEG compression to get this down to a manageable 100 mbps as is done with DVCPRO HD. I see no mention of that anywhere and that dampens my initial enthusiasm somewhat. With DVCPRO you could put 15 minutes on a casette and that would be OK with me for the ability to get hi res pictures.

Perhaps a third party will offer a HD/compressor combination. A German company has such a device for SD which gets 2:1 by simple (and lossless) Huffman encoding.

If projected digitally, it could surpass the "sharpness" of a Star Wars 35mm print. I doubt it would look near as nice, but then again, the CineAlta setup they use is $100,000s.

The 1440x1080 recording is very common, even HDCAM does it! DVCPROHD uses 1280x1080 which is lower still. HDCAM SR uses full 1920x1080, but is very much high end.

In terms of portable solutions, the HD-SDI out really offers a market for essentially a "codec drive" that takes HD-SDI in, and hardware compresses it to something more managable that can be written to disk. For example, this is what HDCAM SR really is - the (dual link) HD-SDI plugs in the HDCAM SR deck, which then compresses the stream to the 440/880 Mbps HDCAM SR format.

There are already a number of very editing/acquisition codecs out there, (esp. IMHO the Cineform codec), that could potentially be very well implemented on such a system relatively cheaply.

It would be really cool if companies replaced the whole solid-state memory trend and tape drives with essentially a slot for an iPod'ish device that you could buy - with hardware chips for your codec of choice. S-ATA hard drives are enough for sustained rates around 40-80 MBps in RAID mode - and that's pretty modest compression from a 1.4 Gbps stream (2:1 ish).

Surely Firestone would be well placed for this kind of application... but a company like Apple might be very close as well... to the point of it being a hardware complement to FCP.

-Steve

Well, yeah, but it sure doesn't look half as attractive as it did when it was proposed. The more they wait, the less interesting it will look. With all the new stuff coming to market, if they don't start selling it soon, they will lose all their R&D money, because few and any will buy it.

>>So off we go in to even more serious server-territory: RAIDs or Redundant Arrais of Inexpensive/Independent Drives. What would do the job to capture the SDI stream would be a multi-drive RAID-0 or RAID-5 array - serious hardware, and definitely not portable and far from silent.
<<

Ron, unless I'm mistaken, SDI cable can run up to 300'. So the issue of noise should be relatively easy to overcome. And putting a video village on wheels will probably be a favorite way to do things.

I'm pretty sure that companies like Cineform and others will have an adequate capture solution not long after release since they store in a very affordable pc friendly lossless compression mode. Don't forget BMD has existing solutions around high data rates too.

Wow... Derek, I think you just pointed out what has ticked me off in this whole affair. I am, and always have been, a "loyal" person to those whom I have felt have earned my loyalty. I guess I feel that Canon has dumped me; stepped over me; ignored me--however you want to put it--as a "loyal DV user" with this camera.

Right now, if I were to buy an HD camera it would be the JVC HD100.

In my opinion, Canon has ignored the majority of those who put the XL series where it is. The H1 is not a "run-and-gun" camera. It's a studio camera.

I strongly disagree with another forum member who is of the opinion that is the HD camera to end all HD cameras. And I think Canon will suffer in the long run as a result of it.

Jay

Yeah,

Way back in my "researching days" before purchasing the XL2 the only drawback that I could see to JVC (if I was to go the HDV route) was the fact that I had never had any experience with a JVC product. And really, that's not a fair drawback, as it's not JVC's fault that I've never owned one of their products.

Canon...Raising the Bar...Over our Heads...
 

I agree with Derek & Jay,

I mean I love my XL2 but I don't do any studio work (not yet anyway); I was really looking forward to something HD even HDV (even though the MPEG2 sucks) that was run & gun; I suppose this could be that camera, but not at $9k! I saw the JVC at NAB and was highly impressed, heck its got a pull out screen along with a switchable color/monochrome viewfinder, interchangable fujinon manual lens..24P...etc..

For my Canon I had to dish out more cash for a good viewfinder (fu-1000), and now I don't have a color viewfinder/LCD... (hey, let's dish out more cash for a 16:9 LCD color field monitor and batteries find a place to mount the damn thing!).

I don't know JVC, and that is what scares me...but if I were buying all over again and going HDV Id take the chance and get the 6K JVC way over the XLH1 and probably the XL2 despite the cost.

Although that said, if they made a cheeper version of the XLH without all the studio crap that is supposidly so expensive and so SWEET, I'd have to consider it...That is what I was hoping for...HECK...lets not get our hopes up on any GLH series cam, their will either be NONE anytime soon, or if there is it will cost 6K and be HDV 24F if were lucky, Canon may try to fill the gap between the XL1h and the XL2 with a HDV GL cam. Canon...Raising the Bar...Over our Heads...

Ever since I decided that it was time to get a new camera over my beloved 1998 XL1 (hey, sounds like a "classic" car), I decided that my new camera would be the DVX100A but then I waited because Sony announced the HDV FX1. I changed my mind and said, "this will be my new camera", but... the Z1 was on its way so I decided to wait for it. Then JVC surprised us with the announcement of the HD100 and I said "Oh man! This is what I was looking for". But then, PANASONIC announced the P2 1080p, variable frame rate, etc. and decided that I was going to wait for Panasonic. Yesterday I learned about the XL-H1 and guess what... I was really excited about it, but then... $9000?

Hey, I can buy 3 FX1 for that price! or 3 DVX100A or 2 XL2, or 1 HD100 and a FX1. And then I started thinking and thinking and the more I think about market considerations, the price of oil going up, and the inflation of economy making people sacrifice quality vs. price, and the fact that down here nobody has ever asked me for hi definition yet... Now I think I'm back where I started: I'll keep my classic 1998 XL1 and buy either a PANASONIC DVX100A or a SONY FX1.

As you can see, I was spec driven toward the colapse of my financial stability and perhaps my company because I WAS SEDUCED BY FEATURES, BUT WHAT IS IT I REALLY NEED... WHO WILL PAY FOR IT?

I felt really sad about drawing to this conclusion because I really liked the PANASONIC HVX200, the JVC HD100 and the CANON XL H1 but one has to be responsible for everything one does - my kids need food, clothing, education, and that amount of money does make a difference in a market like mine.

Not me, I think the Xl2 was a perfectly smart development and end to the SD line.

The vast majority of work being done with cameras in the XL2 price range, and for that matter more expensive SD cameras, is for the event, documentary, regional broadcast, DVD distribution markets. In other words, most of the day to day production outside of high end film making and broadcasting.

A native 16:9, 24p camera with the image control and lens of the XL2 for under $5k was ground breaking and provides a level of quality and funcionality that just rocks for the majority of creative needs that you could ask of a camera at this and most any SD level.

SD is still today and will be for a while. Having an affordable world class way to produce for the now is what the XL2 is all about to me.

HD is becoming. If you're in a line of work that requires or can fully utilize HD production and delivery, then it's likely that a $9k XLH1 will have a similar attraction and impact.

As far as the argument about aquiring for future HD use for SD clients, I suppose it's logical, but we very rarely go back to older footage for new productions for the same client. Pretty much every porject I work on requires new aquisition, but when I'm doing work that utilizes different periods (like a recent film mixing 16:9 24p with original 1" ABC Olympic footage) the reults of mixing formats is part of the proces and style.

That said, if you're doing work that would benefit from being shot in HD or HDV, for future reuseage, then the additional cost of a $9k camera isn't much of a consideration either.

If I didn't have an XL2 then I'd probably see this as the ideal situation because it looks to be about the same lens and image and audio sophistication as the XL2 except with HDV and HD SDI quality and so could achieve the best of both worlds.

But having the XL2, I think I'm comfortable waiting for things to evolve on the HD aquisition front as it does on the HD delivery front. But if I had the need to deiver a specific HD project by the first of the year (and I may) then I'd probably grab the H1 as well.

If the XLH1 is in essence an HD XL2 then it will be pretty amazing for the money.

the XL H1 has just been created to boost XL2 sales...

I have absolutely no idea why you choose to feel this way. Even though I can't feel an emotional attachment to a piece of equipment or its manufacturer, I guess I can sympathize with somebody who does have that attachment... but what I don't get is how you can feel snubbed by this camera. Did you really expect them to discontinue (that is, replace) the XL2 after one short year? Canon has done you a favor... they've insured that your XL2 is still very much a viable tool for digital media creation... as Giroud points out above, if anything, XL2 sales will *increase* as a result of the XL H1 announcement.

Geez, these are just tools, and this is a practical community. DV Info Net is all about usability. I'm not trying to "sell" you anything. If you choose not to use a particular tool, that's your business, but why waste your time lamenting about it when you should be out shooting with what you've got.

This is just hardware, after all. Let's spend more time talk about what you're *doing* with it, and less time talking about what you're choosing not to do. Thanks in advance,

Chris, you are so right. Remember all the bashing when the XL-2 first came out? It ain't so much how good the equipment is, it is how good you are with the equipment. Bob

True, true, which is why I don't run out and buy the next best thing. Anymore.

heath

If somebody chooses to whine and moan about a camera that wasn't built to their exact personal specifications, then they're certainly entitled to vent their perceived frustrations... but not in my living room, though. There are other places on the internet where you can bash things that you've had no personal experience with.

So far, from all I've been reading, this looks like a great piece of equipment for the money. I don't know why people are saying they don't want the studio stuff. I've done lots of location shooting where genlock is used, including athletic events, documentary shooting and corporate stuff. That capability can only create more sales, especially to smaller TV stations and production houses.

I hate to say this because I've always used 2/3" chip cameras, but the absolute best documentary footage I've seen came from an XL1 (or it could have been an XL1s) PAL camera. The film was a documentary titled "Death in Gaza." It was made up mostly of footage shot by that famous British documentary filmmaker whose name escapes me at the moment. He was doing a film about Palestinian children who become religious fanatics, and when that film was finished he was planning to go do the same thing on the Israeli side. He was killed by Israeli soldiers. His partner finished the film. If I hadn't seen all the still photos of him holding an XL1, I wouldn't have believed he had shot with a 1/3" chip camera. There were no blown out highlights, no bad focus, no bad hand held stuff. The guy was a real pro and knew how to use the tools he had available.

Obviously I haven't seen any footage from Canon's HDV camera yet, but I have seen quite a bit from the Z1, and I was very impressed. About 5 years or so ago my aging BVW300 was in need of yet another head job as well as a new viewfinder, for a total of about $5K in maintenance. We decided to get a new camera and convert to DVCAM at that time. If I were in that same position today, ie., if the DSR500WS was 12 years old and on its last legs, I seriously doubt if I would run out and spend the money for a 570, which would be well over $25K with a decent lens.

Just for the heck of it, we were kicking around that issue today...for instance, what might we buy in, say, 3 years. For the work we do, the DSR500 has been great. We shoot lots of 16:9, so we'd want a camera with 16:9 chips. With HDV appearing to be positioning itself as DVCAM did a few years ago (a replacement for Betacam SP) as a replacement for DVCAM/DVCPRO in the lower echelon of professional production, it's likely that we would go for HDV. The P2 won't cut it for us because we archive tapes for many years, and there's no way we'd dump our original to hard drives and consider that safe. So that leaves HDV.

And, from what I've seen of the Z1, I could live with it or something else equivalent, such as the new Canon, for most of what I shoot. The only serious thing I would really lose by going to a smaller chip camera would be depth of field control. And that is a big issue because everybody likes it when I shoot wide open and keep the depth of field shallow, especially for the doc-style interviews and things like that.

So, I thought about the P+S Technik adapter. A complete package would be around $10K or less, and I could use Nikon or Canon 35mm lenses. The adapter provides back focus. Basically, for less money than a DSR570 package would cost, I could be into the new Canon, the Sony deck, and the adapter, which would give me even better depth of field control than with a 2/3" chip camera.

A very interesting thought.

I haven't seen the Canon yet and I haven't seen the JVC. I have seen the Z1. Just based on very superficial knowledge, the Canon is starting to look to me like perhaps the best of that group.

I am a big fan of the FX1 and Z1, but as always, I'm very curious about this camera. I smell a short film coming on to use this camera with to test.

heath

Hands down
 

Well I have to say hands down I think this is the going to be the best cam on the market. But the question is if this camera will meet its November deliveries or not. When we start seeing HD SDI Portable Arrays or large flash drives like the Viper and Genesis in the next few years, everyone will be switching to this cam, although it doesn't have true 24P its still the best damn alternative for the money. You guys who still want an XL2 I have one with 4 lenses 4 batteries , 2 chargers, and a bogen 501 tripod for $6000.00 for $6500.00 I have a Shotwatcher wireless video system for you as well as a few extras. ;)

[QUOTE=Bill Pryor]

So, I thought about the P+S Technik adapter. A complete package would be around $10K or less, and I could use Nikon or Canon 35mm lenses. The adapter provides back focus. Basically, for less money than a DSR570 package would cost, I could be into the new Canon, the Sony deck, and the adapter, which would give me even better depth of field control than with a 2/3" chip camera.



The P&S Mini35 (got one of the first generations) with a HD stream off of the SDI port on the Xl H1 would be something to see.

Then I guess I'd better leave. Don't want to rain on your living room rug. Excuse me for voice my thoughts (whine) and opinions (moan) and excuse me for not thinking like you think or feeling about everything the way you feel.

So you've built your own little community and expect everyone to march in lockstep to what you think should be. Well not me. I don't believe in no do I want to be a part of any dictatorship, real or virtual.

Jay