"Humm. Interesting. How well do you guys think HDV will work for chroma keying? Blue/greenscreening, ya know."

My guess, it will probably be no better, and possibly worse, than DV. Then again, that's just a guess.

The spec is 4:2:0, and although it is a 25mb/s format, the compression is higher than DV (if I'm not mistaken). I would also guess that the use of GOPs would make it more difficult to get clean edges on shots involving much motion. So there doesn't seem to be any reason to think it will be better than DV. But, we'll have to see some HDV footage to know for sure.

"I do visual effects in college, and we are probably going to get the next generation Canon HDV camera."

And how do you know the next generation Canon will be an HDV camera?
:)

-Luis

No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film.

Laurence, I have to disagree. With the right project, even lowly DV is "acceptable" for blowup to film. The footage that's come out of the HD-10 is frankly incredible for a $3,000 camera, and far superior to DV in terms of pure image quality. It's too bad that it was hobbled for professionals. If the HD-10 had indpendent control over shutter and iris, and a PAL version that could shoot at 25fps progressive, I'm willing to bet we would aready be seeing indie features being shot on that camera and shot well. Even 720p HDV would be similar to Super16 - not the best, but certainly acceptable. I'm not saying that HDV is equal to Super 16, just that the type of projects that would have shot Super 16 could now consider HDV as an alternative, and still be viable for commercial distribution.

Now, if Canon or Sony would dedicate the full 25Mb/s (or more) to a 1080, 24p HDV signal, then things would really get interesting. Sony has already stated the new cam will be 1080, 60i. It would only make sense that 1080 24p would actually require less raw data, and allow more headroom for MPEG compression. A nice, tight 6-frame GOP could allow for really stunning images. A camera with those specs could do for independent filmmaking what the VX-1000 did for independent video production.

As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.

<<As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.>>

good news! sony already has that camera it's called the HDW-F900, and you're right it is a great camera, unfortunately it's out of most of our price ranges.
;)

How about a 16x9 cam with 2/3 chips and 24p? We've got that too!

It's the sdx900 and it's 25 grand.

Any 5k cam is going to be hobbled in some respect, I imagine. Canon has no "high" line of video products to protect, but they do sell lenses. And they have to buy the same chips as everyone else, so if they were to come out with an ubercam for 5k they might piss off their chip suppliers.

Hello everyone, I'm new to this site, So let me kick off by letting you know that I tried to book a Seminar on the XL1s last month at Birns and Sawyer in Hollywood and had an e-mail back stating that they are not holding anymore until September when the replacement model will be available. I would say thats pretty much a confirmation?

Regards
Paul

Interesting information, Paul.

aaaahhhhh... between apple's new product releases and Canon's "damn upgrade it already" I'm wearing thin...

Birns and sawyer is also the major canon retailer out here as well, I would trust them pretty readily. (they told me the same thing)

You know, I went to Gluskin's today and tried to see if they had any new info on the new camera. On display was a slightly altered GL2, a new revision I guess, which looked a little less round and more rugged. But besides the slightly altered version of the GL2 (which it was, I'm not saying it was the GL3 or anything, all it was was a more square GL2), I asked the guy about the new Canon videocamera coming in a few weeks and he said that all he knew was that it was supposed to be HD and that it was coming in a few weeks. Other than that, he said it was all supposed to be "big surprise" according to what the Canon guys told'em. So, I'm still in the dark, but anybody try this new revision of the GL2 or is that old news?

Hi Jack, thats probably the GL1 you saw, its a bit more boxy than the GL2... The GL1 came out before the GL2.

Did it look like this: http://www.gl1universe.com/images/gl1-ds.jpg

No, no, no, no, you misuderstand. I should know what a GL1 looks like in comparison to the GL2, because I've got a GL1 ;). But no, this GL2 was SERIOUSLY different then the other GL2's I've seen. Like I said, it was physically less rounded than the regular GL2's. But yes, it was a GL2, NOT a rumored GL3 or anything. But who knows, I could be seeing things. Has anybody been to their local camera shops lately? Look at their GL2's if they got'em. But in any case, the GL2 is of little concern at the moment, I WANT MY XL2!!! =D

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film. -->>>

Funny how the SD Dvx won the Cinematography award at Sundance.. blown up :)

I've seen a lot of stuff shot on DV, and I will agree that most of it is not acceptable for blow up to film. Of course, that has nothing to do with the quality of the format, but with the lack of quality in the content.

As far as I'm concerned, if we can finally get a DV camera that is not handicapped in some way, I'll be thrilled.
By not handicapped, I mean true 16X9, 24p, XLR inputs, and interchangable lenses all on one camera.

That camera would be more than good enough for most of the things I"ve seen people do with their DV cameras, myself included.
Good content can be made with any camera, and bad content shot in HD is just as unengaging as bad content shot in DV.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the format doesn't matter at all. I'm only saying that it's been incredibly rare for me to watch a short film or feature shot on DV and think, "wow, if that were only shot on HD I would have thought it was great."

-Luis

Jarred is referring to Nancy Schreiber's Sundance entry, "November." Read about it at this page at Digital Producer Magazine (http://www.digitalproducer.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=23629). There are numerous examples of DV blown up to 35mm, among them is last year's "28 Days Later," shot on the aging XL1 (not XL1S). I think it's been clearly established that there are plenty of succesful case studies for DV to 35mm.

I agree Chris.. and like in 28 days later when they hit the limits of DV, they shot in 35mm. Alot of people couldnt tell when they switched from Digital to 35mm for the wide shots, even when they watched it in the theaters.

As long as you can make out what the hell is going on and you have a good story your audience wont complain too much, they will forget it was shot on DV pretty quickly if its a good script. Remember Blair Witch?

I haven't seen the DVD of "28 Days Later", perhaps there is more information in there than what I read when it was theatrically released, but I was under the impression that the only section that was 35mm were the scenes at the end out in the country. For the wide city shots earlier on, I understood that multiple XL1's were used and "stitched" together.

My feeling about "Blair Witch" was the degraded image and shakiness was appropriate because it was "real", and the audience was aware of the technology used. I do find it distracting to have bad handheld and video artifacts present in a most narrative films, however. Even some of the images in "28 Days" pulled me out of the movie when I saw it in the theatre, and I was very involved in that film.

I amit to being a tough customer. I've felt that way about watching HD features also, including ones I've worked on!

yeah there was alot of info floating around. Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35.

You can tell if not by resolution by the increased latitude in those scenes.

they didnt shoot on the XL1 to save money.. they had boatloads of that, it was an expirement in the director's artistic design to use a lower format for a lower point in life, when everything was flat and bleek.. and it kinda worked, however I dont think it was as big as a difference as he may of wished.

"Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35.

Are you saying that the opening was shot in 35?
That wasn't my understanding. Like Charles I understood that only the ending was 35mm, everything else was DV.

By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like "poo" they reach for the Canon XL1?

:)

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the camera.

Let's hope that isn't the case with the XL2 (or whatever it's called).

-Luis

<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : "
By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like [i]"poo" they reach for the Canon XL1?

-Luis -->>>

You are reading me wrong.. When I said everything going to poo I mean the virus was out and all hell breaks loose. Poo being a enviroment.

Jarred, I wasn't reading you wrong, just joking around.

Seriously, which scenes in the opening do you think were shot in 35mm? The movie opens with the monkey's in the lab, right? From there we go to the hospital.

I'm pretty sure that was all XL1 footage.
I have to agree with Charles, the difference between the 35mm and the DV footage was like night and day to me at the end of the film. And, although the gritty look of DV worked for the style of the film, it did work against it at points (for me), pulling me out of the movie. Then again, that may just be the nature of the beast due to the work that I do. Many of the people I was with didn't think twice about what the film was shot on, and a few didn't even notice that it switched to 35mm at the end.

Either way, we agree, content is the key.
The eyes will adjust to the format, as long as the viewer is engaged (which of course should be the goal regardless of the format we are shooting on).

-Luis

ps.
Hopefully this won't be an issue with the new XL.
I guess we'll know in 6 more days.

(just trying to keep this thread on topic somewhat)
:)

as for the 35mm.. There is a long road to the production of Film.. They tried first to shoot the ending on DV but the cost of the Jets etc. they didnt want to mess around, so they shot the ending on 35mm, and pinned the Artistic change to it.

Thats the time the story was given to the press, so most things you read will show the above, minus the attempt at trying to do it in DV.

Then, later on Fox coughed up some more cash after production to do reshoots in 35mm for some scenes that just didnt work on DV. Some of these where at the beggining, and if you watch the DVD you can even tell the changes.

There is no question though that the majority of the movie was 35mm.

The company that produced "November" - InDigEnt - seems to be on the right track as a model for indie features. Name talent and/or directors+compelling stories=profit, regardless of format.

www.indigent.net/

The common flaws that people associate with "video" have everything to do with sloppy production and nearly nothing to do with the limits of the medium. I've only seen one of their productions "Tadpole", but it was a fairly straightforward narrative film and the fact that it was shot on a PAL PD-150 never took me out of the story. It was shot like a decent low budget feature, and I responded to it as one. The fact that Sundence awarded cinematography prizes to “Personal Velocity” and "November" tells me the walls are already broken down. More speculative films will be shot than ever before, and the cost of 35mm transfer loaded into the distribution deal afterwards. Moviess don't even need "film out" for the major festivals anymore. I can't help but see this as good news for filmmakers everywhere, and this includes cinematographers.

I'm curious if you folks have seen any of the InDigEnt productions, and care to comment. It seems that HDV or some flavor of low-cost HD will go a long way to being a nail in the coffin for film-based production outside of Hollywood. No new info here, it's just that I'm happy to see the tide turning.

Ive seen them all.. and the stories have all been so good, that even I forgot about the whole DV thing.

Pieces of April was great, and Personal Velocity everyone should buy because it has a pretty good DV primer in the special features section that shows how they adapter for Video.

Gary Winick of Indigent (Tadpole) is now directing 50 million dollar studio features. The end game always seems to be to get out of video onto film.


However, if you have a great script, you could shoot in Fisher Pixelvision and still advance your career at a festival.

Of course, that's a big "if". Lot's of people have scripts, some people have scripts that are 85% there, but very very few have a script with the talent and massive rewrites necessary to get them to them to 100%.

Gives you something to do while waiting for new cams *L*

I was at my local camera store and they were in a tizzy about the XL2. Funny, since I had been hunting for news all over the net about this cam on and off for years, and now it just fallls in my lap without me lifting a finger.

My dealer said they talked to their Canon rep yesterday?.

The "XL2" (that's what the referred to it, but I would not be surprised if that's more by habit than accuracy) will announced Monday in NY at DV Expo.

It will have "for sure" according to the store:

(1) 24p (24fps full progressive)
(2) Different Lens (wider but with extended telephoto though their were fuzzy on actual numbers)
(3) A "vastly extended feature set" whatever that means.
(4) List price to be "$700-800" higher than current XL1 pricing
(5) Interchangeable lenses

The other details were more sketchy as it was the store talking to Canon yesterday via phone according to the conversation.

(1) 16:9 - probably but not sure if that's stretched or native
(2) HD/HDV - Store was pretty sure HD was "assumed" to be part of the package but I got the sense they forgot to ask about this so it's a big unknown.

So I guess DV Expo will be a blast for Canon watchers after all. Have fun - I'm going on vacation on Saturday for a week, so I'm sure DVInfo will be staggering under the weight of discussion.

Very cool. And very exciting.

HD is automatically 16x9 native, is it not?

Hmmm, let's see...about 4500 bucks list price. Sounds reasonable, I think that HD chips are only 500 bucks each...Plus a grand for a lens...(can you get an HD lense for a grand?)....a couple hundred for batteries...

Let's say 6 geees. Oh yeah, the microphone...7 gees.

I'm still sold if they changed the form factor to make it balance better.

<---------- rubbing hands together.

HD is automatically 16:9. However, 16:9 is not automatically HD. Some people get confused on that point.

I don't want to be the barer of bad news but HD glass isn't going to be a grand. It won't be two or even three, think in the teen's as a LOW price point.

I went to the DVX users group in L.A. where they screened NOvember and had a querstion answer section with the DP. Personally I wans't a huge fan of the movie, but that's my personal preference. They still hadn't done a blow up of it at the time I watched it I believe we were the first to see it blown up to HD (anyone else who was there feel free to correct me on that)

But maybe we're all being a little too hopeful for HDV. I mean won't the motion artifacting be pretty awful? Has anyone seen DVX footage on an HD TV it don't look that bad, better then broadcast SD. Even IF sony releases their balsa cam in January, it would still just be 1080i which would effectively be 540 lines of resolution and that's just 60 more then the dvx 100 (xl2?) Then factor in the lack of interchangeable glass for it and suddenly the sony doesn't look so hot.

I"m not keen on the whole 800 bucks more as I think this would be the first time I bought a NEW xl1 instead of buting off ebay. (I want a warreenty darnit!)

Michael, I think 1 gee for a mic is still alittle high, (unless you're thinking something like the MKH416) which is something you'd probably just want to purchase after the fact and wouldn't be included with the camera.

I wonder if the vastly different feature set means you'll eb able to do some digital painting, or oh better yet they'll have a mini 35 like adapter built in so you won't have to spend an extra 8 grand (at least) to get decent DOF off the camera. Or maybe it means you'll be able to Jam timecode, so you could have in effect a real "film" camera at your disposel. My only question will be how long before they replace the standard lens for a manual one.

Chris, if this "XL2" is released next week, can we count on you for the best info out there about it? And if so, what day will you be giving us this accurate info?

Also, just to save us time, can you confirm or deny the existance of the Canon XL2? (ha ha, that wasn't subtle at all, was it?)

I hate NDAs. :-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Daniel Broadway : Chris, if this "XL2" is released next week, can we count on you for the best info out there about it? And if so, what day will you be giving us this accurate info?

Also, just to save us time, can you confirm or deny the existance of the Canon XL2? (ha ha, that wasn't subtle at all, was it?)

I hate NDAs. :-) -->>>


This area 51 - nothing can be confirmed or denied :)

NDA's are actually an extremely useful item, having signed a number myself in my corporate computer years. Yes, people bug you like crap (Chris is a real trouper for putting up with all of us - I really think he should be getting fabuously rich off running this bad boy) but it really helps a company get input and feedback outside while retaining their competitive advantages in new products.

While Panasonic and Sony like to announce cams way before hand, they may have both tipped the hand of Canon early enough in Canon's development cycle than Canon gets the upper hand as the "best prosumer/low-end pro cam".

As popular and well-designed as the DVX100 series is, there are way more XL1 and XL1s out there. If the XL2 or whatever it's called in a "DVX-killer", Panasonic's reign in the sun could be in doubt.

Panasonic did do a great job with the DVX100a - a bunch of improvements in a very short cycle, maybe they can do that again once the XL2 is out. Maybe not. It's an interesting time for sure.

Yes, I understand NDAs are helpful. I was just joking. I hope I didn't annoy Chris. I was just messin with him.

this Monday?

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Brusin : this Monday? -->>>

yep. DV Expo is next week.

so I'm expecting a 24p camera? 3 chip.... 16:9 native necessitating new lenses all together? $5500ish

If the rumors are true......yes.

ok... deeep breath.
Holding....







HOLDING>>>

Guess I'll ask this question again, since nobody really ponied up to answer last time I posed the question:

Who is actually ready to purchase -and- How much exactly are you prepared/ willing to invest?

Just curious,

- don

I am - I had to sell my two DVX100's over a year ago due a loss in a financial scam. I've finally picked up an Optura 40 for fun, but really miss have a cam though I've had fun with motordrive still footage and Twixtor.

I will have to go into debt but I'm hoping for a camera and balanced kits of extra (batteries, wide angle adaptor and/or lens) to run around $5-$6K. If it's usuable HD, more, because I could get work to cover the diference. But still well under $10 for HDV 3-chip.

Okay, it's driving me crazy.

Canon doesn't release new cams as frequently or have short cycles the way Panasonic has recently with DVX100A showing up on the scene only a year or so after debuting the 100...

So when Canon originally said last fall they were part of this HDV thing, I said to myself, okay, the XL1s will have to last till 2005 or so until Canon gets this 3-chip HDV thing figured out.

But now it seems a new cam is imminent.

From a long-term point of view, IF indeed there is now a camera coming out next week from Canon, how can they afford to NOT have it be HDV? You mean introduce a new kick-ass SD cam when HDV is just around the corner? So what? Would you sell off your DVX100 to get it?

I'm not buying the "price of the glass" argument either, folks. Let's face it. Technology is getting cheap(er). If the price of the glass was a limiting factor, why bother developing HDV at all? Why would JVC have bothered to put out their cam and Sony bother previewing their new balsa cam? I just happened across an old ad I had from a few years back when the Sony PD100A was first introduced and priced at more than what you can get the DVX100A for now. And look at Panasonic's 3-chip palmcorders like the GS200 and now the just-announced GS400. Amazing bang for your buck. Look at all those pixels. The GS200 is selling like hotcakes...

Why would Canon be a part of this HDV thing and not put out a cam? With all those patents to their name, they're not exactly dullards. I'm sure they could figure out a way to bring 3-chip HDV to the masses if they really wanted to... I guess we'll be finding out next week if they really want to.

Say the new cam is a 24p, 16:9, interchangeable lens SD DVX100 killah everyone now speculates it to be. So what? Canon will be the leader till next spring when Sony puts out the 3-CCD HDV balsa baby? Then what?

The timing of this camera is weird. I know there have been arguments made here that for Canon, prosumer mini-dv isn't as key as it has been or as it is to Sony or Panasonic but let's face it, Canon introduced the most revolutionary cam in mini-dv history with the interchangeable lenses - Canon did in fact show a great deal of leadership in the past introducing something very revolutionary that set a new benchmark for the format.

Don't tell me Canon wasn't all over HDV the minute JVC put out the cam if not before, well in advance to the official announcement of the consortium. They've had time to work on things. If not now, then when? Next year? After Sony puts out theirs?

So maybe Canon is going to wow us again?

I mean if JVC can put out a 1-chip HDV over a year ago and Sony can preview their thing, isn't it time for mighty Canon to step up to the plate and take a swing?

Or is Canon going to stay in the shadows? I think there's a bit of a "it's-now-or-never" for Canon with this new cam.

Heck, this IS the year after all that Panavision introduced a digital camera - so ANYTHING is possible.

"Guess I'll ask this question again, since nobody really ponied up to answer last time I posed the question:

Who is actually ready to purchase -and- How much exactly are you prepared/ willing to invest?

Just curious,

- don"

Don, if it's SD, I'd wait till the price drops, people realize the first batch of lenses has a backfocus problem and it gets recalled, etc. and just twidle my thumbs till next spring when Sony does their thing.

But if next week there's an H in front of the D and the V, I'd sell my car, my wife's car, her mother's car and my neighbour's car if that's what it took to get it NOW.

"How much are you prepared/willing to invest?"
-----------------------------------

I wouldn't give you a nickel for it. If I had to use it myself, that is. Of course, if I could sell it at a profit to
one of you, whose money is as a red-hot
coal in the pocket, then that's another matter.

I propose that a good model designation for the phantom camera is: XL1sX.

Steve McDonald

if it's a true 24p I'll get one sooner or later... unless it involves some $3000 piece of metal adapter for my mini35... then likely later... if it's HDV and 24p then it'll be sooner. I think I could market the service a bit higher to offset the cost. Most clients 'get' HD. 24p is a sell. They'll see it and get it but it involves the 'see it' sell in.

I'll bet within 60 days of the Canon announcement Panasonic announces the HDVX100.

Any bets?

Naw. Panasonic's probably still cleaning up the blood-stained carpets from their rapid-fire 24P burst.

No, it might be someone out of the blue that might poop in Canon and Pana's punch bowl. Someone like Hitachi or Sanyo or Casio.

Or Samsung or Sharp. Heh.

Wait a sec, this question just hit me. When everyone says that they want 24p and HDV, do they mean both at the same time? Or, is everyone talking about wanting the camera to have seperate modes, like 24p mode, DV mode, and HDV modes (720p and 1080i)? I don't know, any of those will do for Canon's next camera. Any o' that would be better than what my GL1 can do ;-). I'm sold no matter what! =D

I don't know Scott, I mean your enthusiasm is great, but 25 Mbps just isn't gonna cut it for blowup unless you have an intentionally "stylized" film like Blair Witch, and it's popularity was quite a fluke. Every indie filmmaker (accept for one lucky one a year) that shoots at 25Mbps will be unaccepted by distributors for blowup because it looks like what it is . . . a cheap movie. Now I'm not saying cheap-looking movies can't be great, I'm just saying they won't be picked up very often. And the ones that do get picked up from now on will more increasingly be films from so called "indie" filmmakers like Soderbergh or the guy that made 28 DAYS LATER. These guys can do it because they'e in the door and can flaunt it as "artistic choice".

In general, shooting a movie that looks like video instead of film is the kiss of death, as far as what I've learned in my festival and acquisition rounds.

Of course, if you could have Juan modify the new XL-2 to get uncompressed 4:4:4 out of it . . . now then we may be talking.

I just figured out that I'm to young to go to DV Expo East(I'm 15). My brother said he'll go and I was wondering whetheror not your allowed to bring your own cams there. I'm assuminging not but I figure I would ask anyway.