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.
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.

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

Jay

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-

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

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

How is real 24 progressive possible from an interlaced CCD block?

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.

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-
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.

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

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, 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?

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.
-gb-

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

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

[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.

This Canon has got to have Sony running scared

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.

Michael,

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.

-gb-

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.

<snip>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.<snip>

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

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.

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.


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.


[QUOTE=Greg Boston]It doesn't matter how it generates 24fps, as long as it looks right coming out of the camera.
-gb-

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.

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.


$500 in the US I believe.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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 original XL1 frame mode suffered. The XL1s and certainly the XL2 does not. -

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.

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.
-gb-

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.

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

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

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

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.

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).


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

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.

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.
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 ;)