Only connected to a fast computer and ultra fast raidsytem makes it possible to bypass the in-camera compression. So in the non-studio world or remote world this is no option. All that is on tape first is compressed and to output that by component is no better than what is on tape originally.

Fast computer, yes...but that is just a standard computer today...nothing special. RAID array, no. Cineform or equivalent compresses to levels managable by one disk.

...and JVC uses a shorter GOP. We're in the realm here not even of apples to oranges, but one whole fruit basket full of variables compared to another, when we don't even know what fruits are in the middle of the baskets.

The title of this lengthy thread is "What bothers me about 24F." The original post was long ago answered by several people, and now we're rehashing old measurebating discussions...to what end? Stats and measurements certainly have their uses, but what part of looking at well-shot, gorgeous 24F footage bothers anyone? If you want to know how the sum total of lenses, sensors, signal processing, and recording format measure up, compare IMAGES produced by the cameras instead of isolated statistics.

The general consensus of many people who have had the opportunity to actually use many or most of the new affordable HD cameras is that they are all amazing by the standards of just a couple years ago and each has particular strengths and weaknesses. It is much more a matter of picking the one that happens to suit your needs and style than trying to label one better than another because of a particular statistic. If 24F doesn't suit you for some reason, find another camera to do your 24 fps videos.

I kept on seeing this thread at the top of the XH-A1 forum and had to pop in from V1 land. :)

It has absolutely no value whatsoever to obsess over numbers at all. Even if you could work out how much compression per pixel any one format was applying what does that really tell you? Nothing.

The vast library of clips hosted by Chris on this site shows without question that HDV cameras are capable of stunning results. By being fixated by numbers you are playing into the hands of marketing people who've probably never even picked up the camera their BS is written for. There is no better tool for evaluating the quality of a camera than using the mark one eyeball as _nothing_ else matters. If it doesn't look crap then it isn't crap no matter who's marketing BS you are reading that says the contrary. All questions regarding the quality of HDV recordings can be simply answered by downloading the many and varied clips that are available. If you think you can better quality in one camera than the other then purchase that camera! :)

Unfortunately much of the 24F/P and general uncertainty regarding HDV stems from a concerted marketing push, by A.N.Other company who chose not to go down the HDV route, to sow the seeds of doubt about the format.

In the Xh-A1 and HVR-V1 (and any JVC) we have two fantastic cameras that have their own strengths but both are exceptional tools and in competent hands capable of producing results exceeding the quality of cameras far more expensive.

The only thing that one needs to know about MPEG is that the people who devised the compression scheme know far more about motion imaging than many web pundits give them credit for.

Purchase any one of the current HDV cameras, go out, shoot and be happy. Happy new year...

TT

Talking uncompressd. If you want to see the camera output without the MPEG compression you tether the signal uncompressed to the ultra fast (and big) diskRaid. If you are using other compression like cineform or other intermediates, sure that is changing the rules.

Try to seek contents here, not words.

In Reply to Chris and Tony,

I agree that the "measurebating" which occurs in the video (and film) world and on these discussion boards is counter-intuitive. I base my opinions of a camera on how the image "feels" and how comfortable I am using the camera. I am not one to measurebate.... (really, whoever came up with that word is a genius)

However, as Tony pointed out, there are some unfounded, nasty oppinions of HDV out there. I believe many of them are unfounded, and a result of people scruitinizing the numbers and not looking at the pictures.

24F (to get back on topic) is another casualty of word-of-mouth. I have recently lost quite a bit of money on my purchase of a Canon A1 due to 24F and HDV putting prospective clients off. Instead, they have asked me to shoot on HVX or even DVX over the Canon A1.

I mean, come on... a DVX 100 over a Canon A1. I know that it is the story and substance that make an image, not a camera, but I have become quite snippy and actually offended by people not wanting to use Canon's HDV formats simply because they have HEARD that Panasonic is better.

I even had one client prefer to shoot SD on a rented HVX to tape instead of saving 1/2 his money by renting my camera (I was DP as well) and being able to shoot HD. The Director also had to then invest $500 in cineform to edit the DVCproHD in premiere instead of a free upgrade to edit 24F from adobe.

Don't get me wrong, the HVX is a fantastic camera... but I don't get where all this "anti-canon" and "anti-HDV" sentiment comes from.

Anyway, I am just frustrated and am a staunch supporter (not out of brand loyalty mind you) of Canon and it's 24F HDV format. As an artist, I use whatever works, aand to any doubters out there, this camera really REALLY works.

Just tell them it shoots 24 frames per second progressive at a higher resolution than the HVX. Which is true. It is 24p; Canon chose to use the "frame" designation because they get progressive from interlaced chips.

Recently a friend of mine shot some TV spots for our festival, and the agency producer wanted to use the HVX200, but he had a Z1 and pointed out that the HVX would cost the agency the rental fee, so they reluctantly went with the Z1. Then they saw the footage and were blown away. And...the XH A1 looks better, in my opinion. Not hugely better, just has a nicer look, and you don't really have to do anything to the footage after the fact to get rid of the "video look." And, the people who rant about HDV obviously haven't seen any professionally-shot HDV footage. They did the same thing in the early days of DV.

I agree Bill,

Not to start an Anti-HVX rally here, but I have often thought of the DV-HDV comparison.

I find the difference between HDV and DVCpro HD is similar to the difference between DV and DVCpro.

Much like their "H" counterparts, DV was shunned at first while DVCpro quickly gained broadcast approval by the masses. But, in my limited oppinion, I think that DV can look just as good, if not better.

I really hope HDV starts getting some appreciation soon. It needs to be used on some huge movie, like DV was for 28 Days Later....

Several films have already been shot HDV. I've seen one, "Mojave Phone Booth." It was making the festival rounds earlier in the year and may have some limited distribution now. It had a great look, and I was surprised to find out after I'd seen it that it was shot with the Z1.

Nick Hiltgen used an XL H1 to shoot a movie that, if I recall correctly, has got 5 screenings at the upcoming Sundance. Not too shabby, and I'd bet a buck it'll get picked up for some kind of distribution.

Sounds interesting Phil...

Still, even the mighty Canon XL2 had difficulty taking a piece of the DVX's nieche.

I think that the Canon, Panasonic divide runs deep in the indie film/videography world with professionals favouring Panny's out of habit. (I understand Panasonic makes MANY more professional cameras than Canon, while Canon makes Many more lenses...)

Still, many DP's I know refuse to work with Canon's without even having tried them. Even when they can get them cheaper or more easily

That's a real bummer. Maybe you could put together a small DVD with some outstanding sample footage and give it to them? Some well shot footage from an Xh A1 on a 42"+ TV is mighty impressive...

Heck, tell them its an HVX200 at first :)