I have a 23" and haven't experienced a pink tint at all, however... I did have something similar when running two monitors and on the second monitor (the apple 21" CRT) there was a pink shift. turns out upgrading the video card to a 9800 solved all my problems.

But more to the point, Do a lot of people color correct off of the LCD displays? I was under the impression that it might be better to color correct off of a CRT.

Also, I think that this HD- Uncompressed price problem is kind of a rediculous debate.

It sounds like you want an uncompressed editing suite and scoff at paying 23,000 for it. Um, check out some prices for an avid nitris or an HDW-500F or a D5 deck etc. If you look at it as just setting up an uncompressed set-up then you're still getting a good deal at anything less then 100k. The 23,000 system would allow you to do HDCAM on-line editing. (we've done it with the same set up only a dual 2ghz processor) If you're just editing HDV your current setup is fine, you don't need to purchase anything. Heck I've edited HDV on my dual 800 g4, it was slow but it could be done and only cost me the price of imovie. (this was pre final cut pro 5)

I think the strong advantage of HDV is only there is you don't go out and spend the extra cash on new gear. If you're going to feel obligated to buy all the newest toys then I think the advantage of HDV is lost.

Thanks for the advice, Patrick, but I don't compromise.

Jay

Filmmaking is the art of compromise... :)

Maybe for you, not for me.

Jay

You must be a cameraman... That's sounds like a 1st AC talking...?

Can't be a director or producer... :)

All of the above!

Mike, I've been doing this for over 30 years. Let's just leave it at that.

Jay

... and never compromised. I would like to see a director go 30 minutes without having to compromise.

In technical roles it is possible to an extent, but not directing.

I take it from your site that you shoot DV - that is a compromise in price and quality.

I am not having a dig, I just think the ability to make wise compromises is ESSENTIAL to filmmaking. Striving for the highest possible standards is great, but never compromising is impossible.

Sorry for going OT, oh well ;-)

I'm also not having a dig (and I've been at this significantly under 30 years). I think the ability to adapt to ever-changing situations - aforementioned wise compromises - is far more important nowadays in filmmaking (as well as most avenues of life). The ability to compromise and adjust as needed allows a modern filmmaker to raise their standards far beyond what they would otherwise have if dictated solely by budget, crew, etc - simply by harnessing non-traditional methods or means (not illicit).

Creative ingenuity is a blessing, not a liability.


*edit* Perhaps compromise is the wrong word - gives the wrong idea of having to sacrifice, maybe adapt/consensus would be better as those are more literally about attaining your goal. All still involve adaptation though.

I'm not sure if this was for me or not, but if it was that's fine, BUT I really don't "scoff at paying" for anything as long as I can afford it and if it's worth it. I've already got a good start on a quality editing suite with a Mac G5 DP 2.7, Dual 22' Cinema monitors, FCP 5, Adobe AE, GenArts Sapphire, etc. etc., not including my video equipment .

The bigger factor here, for me at least is -

Is it worth the money AND hassle to go the HDV route for on-line video?

If the XL H1 was available today and you were to somehow mount it side-by-side with a XL2 to take the same footage. And then edited each the exact same way, then compressed them so each one looked it's best regardless of file size, then finally posted them side-by-side on-line -

Will a 90 meg XL H1 two-minute long video look that much better than the same movie shot, edited, compressed and posted XL2 video?

If someone can post a quality video on-line that's 30 meg in size and looks really great, how much better will the 90 meg version of that same movie be? Would it even be noticable and if so, by how much? Would it be enough, that an on-line user would want to wait to download an extra 60 megs?

Canon's on-line presentation of the XL H1 looks nice and everything, but if their HDV solution is so much better, why don't they show us with shots of comparisons with the two cameras? Maybe they have, and I just have not seen them yet.

And personally, I'm not looking at this as a debate at all - just a friendly discussion between XL2 users.

I think yes, particularly since you can deliver HD via web (DivX, WMV or H264).

Just this morning I watched some beautifully shot video (XL2) on a HD television. It was simply amazing.

From what I've seen thus far of HD, it simply isn't worth the expense, not for me or my clients (so far). And, as I've said before, web delivery is a not an option, so it can't be taken seriously as an alternative to DVDs.

As I can clearly see that I've reached the point of repeating myself in these discussions, I have, obviously, nothing else to say on the matter.

Ya'all have fun!

Jay

Thanks Stephen. I've seen some nice footage in WMV and H264 from regular DV., but all day a question I posted earlier in the thread has gone unanswered with the exception of Steve's post with his movie link, and Kevin Dooley's helpful comment about how most people are posting in raw footage formats that can be looked at in NLE's -

*** Where's all of the great edited HDV footage that everybody's getting?
In Quicktime, Windows Media Player or Flash formats that is.

OR, is this the point where one can say, the HDV solution is good for HDTV's but not for the web?

Yes HD can be delivered via the Internet, but how's it look after it's been compressed in Sorneson, Compressor or any other web compression software? Even if you compress it so it looks good and is 3 times the file size of SD footage?

Once it's gone through the compression can you even tell a difference between HD and SD - on the Internet?

You're welcome. Browse on over to www.DivX.com and there are some HD trailers you can download. You're in for a treat.

Just thought i'd post a link to some great HDV footage over on Apple's site. I couldn't see any previous replies in this thread mentioning this footage so I hope I'm not repeating anything.

Firstly however I should mention that this footage can only be viewed with Quicktime 7 (it's H.264) for either Windows or Mac (which seems to have now been officially released for Windows). I know that some people had compatability problems with Premiere and the pre-release versions of Quicktime 7, so be wary, but I figured I'd bite the bullet and go for it and have experienced NO problems at all.

HDV Gallery of Footage:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

Particularly good Music Video:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide...bymacgone.html

I think the footage looks pretty incredible, and the music video even in the lower quality format is unbelievably sharp and crisp, and at 76mb is pretty impressive compression.

As for the whole XL2 vs XL H1, I recently bought an XL2, and am not disapointed at all with this news. I don't personally think that HDV is going to take off, I think by the time consumers have caught up in order to justify the widespread use of HDV then a new format will have arrived which will utterly trounce it, and consumers will buy that. It's a bit like BetaMax in a way, or Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. One day there will be a winner, but it wont be for another five years at least, and ultimately the average consumer will decide.

Thanks Andrew and Steve. I'm looking forward to seeing these, and will give a totally unbiased opinion when I return to this thread.

And you can leave Microsoft out. Their wmv codec is great as well.

Click here for content

Derek my point was just that given your setup if you decided to go HDV there would be no need to spend any extra cash outside of the cost of the camera, your current system could support it.

I think the SD 24p vs HDV is going to be a subjective issue for you. If you're clients don't care and you're broadcasting on the web and you don't see a need for it what specifications or head to head shots are going to make a difference? If you feel the need to go HD then this is a great product for you, if not then you have the best prosumer SD camera on the market. I think the market is moving toward HD but that might not effect you until the next round of camera's come out. Either way teh xl2 is still a good camera, and only you know what needs will serve you best.

Steve, I had to go the apple site first, just because I'm familiar with it, but will be visiting your link next.

Andrew,

So far I've watched the BBC Africa and Aimee Mann videos. Both had very nice detail. I was a little dissapointed with the saturation of color on the Africa video although the detail was excellent.

Then, I hit the Aimee Mann Video and any concerns I had about HDV displaying nice full, saturated colors were gone.

This is very nice. I'm going to keep watching them. But now, my big question would be -

Were these shot with prosumer level Sony or JVC HD cam's?
Is that known?
And then followed up with -
What kind of editing suites were used?

Not that I expect you to know Andrew, just posting these questions for anyone, or if you know that would be great.

Basically, I just want to figure out if these were shot and just as important, edited with affordable (affordable for most people that is) equipment that I could set my sights on eventually acquiring? Or were they shot using $50,000 to $100,000 HD cams and edited in $40,000 to $50,000 suites.

Please know that I'm just talking equipment here. I realize this footage was shot and edited by people whose skills are highly superior to mine... for now.

Nick,

Thanks for your comments above. If I can edit with my current set up and don't need to add anything else to it and can shoot the quality of footage as displayed in the above links (shooting and editing skills aside, as I know I'm not a professional) with a currently available HDV camera then I'll have to look at aquiring a HD100 or Z1 before the end of the year.

Andrew,

Yeah, so far the Toby Mac video has been the best out of the three. It was good to see the wide range of colors and how effects could be added in.

Steve,

I'm downloading some of the movies you posted links to now.

Derek,

This following video is not canned. It was shot by Nate Weaver on an HD-100 (JVC) and edited by me on Liquid 6.1.Click here (wmv)

Here is the iso of the same footage that will burn to a DVD so you can check it out on a TV.

I've worked a lot with HDV over the last year and the new cameras have really upped the ante for content producers being able to get broadcast quality.

One more for the road Click here (wmv). This one was shot once again by Nate Weaver and edited by me. These are just examples of straight video.

good luck

Andrew,

I could be wrong, but I don't think the footage available on the Apple site is from consumer HDV video cameras. At least I see no mention at all regarding HDV. I'm pretty sure the sources of those videos are film and full blown HD cameras. I don't think that footage is indicative of what you'll get with an under $10,000 video camera.

Stephen,

I'll check it out right now. Looking forward to it and thanks for going to the trouble to make the .wmv's. I know time is money to everyone here. I'm sure several others will watch it as well.

"edited on Liquid 6.1"

Is that around the same price range with the same features as Final Cut Pro 5?

- - - -

Off Topic - Stephen, any relation to Brett Noe?

OT: Noe ;-)

On Topic: I don't know what FCP is going for these days, I'd heard $999. Either way FCP, Liquid 6.1 and soon Avid XpressPro are native HDV editors so the editing is fast and smooth.

Click here for Liquid 6.1 turnkey details or you can go to www.pinnaclesys.com to check out Liquid.

good luck..

"Noe" , that's good ;)

(downloading your movie now).

Stephen,

I'm sure I'm doing something wrong here, but I tried to download it by clicking the link you posted and got a white screen. So then I right-clicked and saved the link to my desktop. After the movie loaded (around 21k or so), I clicked it to play. It played, but still only with the white screen. I made a screen shot for you and posted it here, for your reference:

http://www.thisis24p.com/movie.html

I could hear it. It sounded like some water, perhaps rain or a stream or river, but I could not see it.

If it's not a quick fix with something I may be doing wrong, please don't go to any trouble trying to fix it. I don't want you to spend any extra time on it just for me. Thank you though.

Oh, was using Quicktime. The first time was 7.0.1 then I did an update to 7.0.2. I'm on a Mac G5 with OSX 10.4.2.

HD (h.264 codec from QT7.0) for windows
 

Hey Derek,

If your are using qtime under windows. You need to dowload the latest player that can handle the h.264 codec. Head over to this link

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html

and click the standalone player link to the right of the page (kind of hidden) to update quicktime for HD (h.264) playback...... Worth the upgrade. Video clarity for this codec is impressive...... GOOD LUCK.

Thanks, but I can see this H264 file just fine:

Some footage from a soon to be released tour DVD of Hawaii's Big Island. Enjoy: http://www.hdvd2go.com/BigIsland_h264.html

(This was posted by Kalani Prince in another thread)

Also, I don't have my FCP 5 box or instructions with me, but I thought it came with the right version of Quicktime to view h.264????

... and I'm using a Mac.

Appreciate your effort though.

No problem Derek.

Mac user huh? You take her of any swwweeettt jumps<Napaleon Dynamite Quote>.

Thanks for the link though, it was a treat. Do you have any info on the production..... Primarly the camer setup they used......


Thanks

Eli,

Napaleon Dynamite - That's a GREAT movie. Here's a link where Kalani's movie was discussed. It was shot with a XL2.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47777

You'll need Media Player to view wmv's.

Click here and get it for OSX

To play media player files you'll need media player.

Stephen,

Thanks for the link to the OSX version of Windows Media Player, but I've opened several .wmv files within Quicktime using Flip4Mac. I'd prefer not to download Windows Media Player at this time, so I'll try to find a PC with Windows Media Player on it Friday.

You probably can't view them in QT because they are encoded high definition files not SD. Until Friday, I've posted some DivX AVI's over on cow for another user. You should be able to open them up if you have DivX codec installed.

Here's the link

good luck

[QUOTE=Nick Hiltgen]

But more to the point, Do a lot of people color correct off of the LCD displays? I was under the impression that it might be better to color correct off of a CRT.


Most likely, as nice as the panel Mac monitors are I liked my CRT cinema displays better for "viewing angle" purposes. They were just too old and bulky and, heh... they didn't look as cool as my flat panels!
But being a professional artist who works in Photoshop, Iluustrator, etc...accurate color is important in the monitor(s) I use.
Truly sad I could not seem to find a 23" without that pinkish cast. And this was only two weeks ago.
The 20"s will serve me fine for now.

[QUOTE=Eric Brown]Yes you need to correct from a monitor or a very good TV that can be blue balanced. Now Sony's Xbrite HS94P and others like it mimic the phosphors of a CRT and you can blue balance them. Also you do most of your correction from the wave form, vector, histogram, lighning and cube in your color corrector and then check it against the monitor (and then back and forth). Same thing in photoshop using Histograph and other color graphs or using spot colors and pantone mixes in Quark or Illustrator. In this case you're usually legalizing the image against specified IRE settings as well as adjusting colors between cameras.

It's quite expensive schooling to learn all the ins and outs of color ;-)

Stephen,

I think you make a good point, but also, I wonder if maybe you make another as well. When i paint a camera (uh, digitally that is) I use chroma dumonde chip chart (french for really expensive) and a waveform and a vectorscope. Which leads me to believe, if you're going to color correct something and you have access to a waveform, a vectorscope and the other items you spoke of (I'm not familiar with those sorry) how neccessary is it to have a great 5000 dollar (or if you get into the HD world 10,000 dollar) monitor? Does the monitor ever become something of just a reference to what your client will really see on thier home TV?

You hit the nail on the head my brother. It's only reference to the output.

If you're looking at the camera output in the wave form you can get your skin tones right on the IRE you wish and other elements as well. You can make sure the whites aren't blown out and the blacks aren't crushed. Basically you can broadcast legalize the entire image or fix an image in post production just using the waveform. You can color correct off the different scopes and color match using either a histomatch routine or do it manually with a 3 point white balance adjustment. Sound's BIG but it's not that hard to understand once you see it done a few times.

I decided to download the Windows Player, it was not long ago that you had to have Flip4Mac to watch .wmv files on a Mac, but the continued competition between Windows Media Player and Quicktime has eliminated that.

In the Past:
Quicktime = Mac
Media Player = Windows

Now it's wide open and I think that's great, as each one can keep the other in check. And PC and Mac users can use the players they like most. This will keep each one wanting to stay on top with the most (and best) features so they can have more people using it. The speed of progress continues to amaze me.

I would say that's a gross over simplification.

Jay

Downloaded Windows Media Player Version 9.

Went to play the movie and got this message:

http://www.thisis24p.com/movie2.html

Played the movie anyway, and running into basically the same thing except this time it's a black screen. I can hear sound, just can't see anything.

http://www.thisis24p.com/movie3.html

I'll go to Microsoft's site and make sure that there is not a more advanced player I can load. When I was given a choice I loaded Version 9 for OSX 10+, which looked to be the most advanced choice possible. But maybe I overlooked a better player. Will any updates here.

- - - - -

It looks like there's only one version higher, it's version 10, but it appears that it's only for Windows XP at this point.

Has anyone else viewing this thread using a Mac been able to see the movie that Stephen has posted? Boyd, can you see them?