1st year film student with an F950 or Tarantino with a domestic VHS camera, which movie would you go and watch?

"At the 30 Frame rate, broadcasters can capture high motion, like sports with confidence that each frame is captured individually and completely."

Anyone who has shot 30p kmows thus is utter nonsense! Shooting with 30p yields painful to watch strobing from the double images from the well known "eye tracking artifacts."

Whoever wrote this is writing fiction which casts doubt on on everything else Canon claims about the camera.

FOX originally wanted to go DTV via 480p30 until they say what sports looked like. They then when to 720p60 because it is the best for sports.

If Kill Bill 2 is anything to go by I'll take the 1st year film students work thanks.

best camera for...
 

I love the soft and warm image quality of my 1997 PAL XL1 in frame mode. I don't like the rugged and cold quality of PAL Sonys I've tried. (VXs, etc.)

(To some people it might be the complete opposite in terms of warmth)

Now I want to get the best HD camera for shooting a small live action feature with a small crew, having 2TB of LaCie FW storage and a PB G4, thinking in a 35 transfer later on. What would be the best below $10,000? I do want the best possible definition to tell a best possible story.

Are the image qualities (looks, feels, styles of what you end up seeing in the monitor) sustained by the different camera brands in their evolutions to HD? If I love the XL1 feel, will I find it in the XLH1?

The HVX200 + FireStore seems the most appropriate overall, but will it shoot as "beautiful" as the XL1 shoots in DV?

The Ultimate Solution
 

After reading this thread up to this point and seeing all of the debates, differing opinions and specifications on the latest gear, here is the answer. This is the latest device and some say the must have accessory for all complex gear. It is the solution to ALL of your questions, issues, discrepancies, etc., costs only $4.99 and most importantly, works on all formats, makes and models worldwide!

www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51321

Good Morning, Folks.

After taking several days to read and digest the contents of this thread, it appears to me to be nothing but the same old same, that was posted prior to the release of the XL-1s, and the XL-2.

Kennelmaster, which way to the fire plug??!

Haha, you got in there before me Simon!

I bought an XL2 in May of this year. With all the accessories, a wide angle lense, matte box, follow focus, dual BP 945s, charger, ETC, It cost me about $13,000 Canadian (So like $20 american), anyhoo, I love it. I have used DVx 100a's, All the sony and JVC cams you can shake a stick at (including their HDV offerings, though the HD100 is incredibly nice), but I still love my SD XL2. I am modern guy, I live in a big house, have a nice computer for editing, can afford a camera package liek this, and my Dad is one of the highest-ups at the CBC (canadian broadcasting Corp.), But we don't own a sinlge HD TV, Infact, I only have one friend with an HDTV, and he doesnt get any HDTV channels!

Short story, I think Mandatory HD is still a ways away, and the added resolution doesn't mean squat if the picture is bad. You cant deny it.

If you want to get your nature documentary aired (or even considered)
on National Geo or Discovery now you have to shoot in HD. So,
for my work, equipment and image quality do indeed matter a lot.

James Emory:
That Easy Button is dynamite! I'll take two!

Steve Connor:
I guess don't see a 1st year film student with an F950 vs Tarantino with VHS as being apples-to-apples...that's more like, oh, grapes vs papaya. If you want apples-to-apples, it is any filmmaker with VHS vs that same filmmaker with a Cinealta. (Scientifically speaking -- sorry, I AM a scientist! -- to evaluate a variable, you must have constants).

Steve Crisdale:
Two admin points:
- I've got thick skin, so personal derision has little effect on me. However, see the DVinfo.net Policy. Even if you disagree, please don't make it personal with other members.
- Selecting particular sentences, rearranging them, and then displaying them as a continuous quote would be "misquoting" and is potentially libelous behavior most anywhere. Don't do it.

Please clarify the following points on which I am confused:
- Where did I say that because I personally find a camera affordable, that any other person should also? We're just here in this particular thread discussing a newly-announced camera.
- Why is your HDV camera "lesser?" I'm shooting with an SD camera presently (XL2). I don't see where I accused you of being indifferent to the tools of your craft and wouldn't think you are...after all, you have a higher rez camera than do I and you're posting in a thread about an upcoming camera that lots of folks are excited to learn more about and discuss, whether or not they'll be buying it. I think my generic comment about people being interested in the tools of their hobbies or professions is self-evident, as your alternative example of an artist desiring sable brushes, etc. also illustrates.

A reminder to everyone else, including myself:
DVinfo is not keen to see people camp out in a camera forum just to make disparaging comments about it, or most especially the people posting about it. If you have something constructive to say -- whether it be a new on-topic fact, comments in agreement, or a polite counterpoint -- that's what the forum is here for. I hope that this is the end of the acrimony that has plagued this thread...it was started by someone who is enthusiastic to explore how this might be a great indie camera. Let's discuss that.

WANK ON!
;-)

I have same kind of thoughts.

For me the new XL H1 raises immediately couple questions. At first, is the DV image of XL H1 as good as that of XL2? If so, the option to capture also in HDV is pretty tempting.

Second, is there anybody who could say something realiable on the HDV images? In shooting landscapes the HDV will quite likely be stunning and clearly an improvement compared to DV. But, what about taking footages of moving objects such as flying birds?

Having technical background, can't avoid sceptical thoughts that HDV is bit like putting a basket ball through the eye of a needle. There must be some price for the increased resolution. My assumption is that it should show up in pan and tilt, and when something moves.

At the Canon Global Expo last week, Canon Inc. displayed some HDV video from the H1 which was shot in Florence, Italy. It was a mix of static shots and moving images. As you might suspect the camera was locked down for most of this, but there were a few slow, careful pans. Those are the best kind of pans anyway.

Glad to help! I think everything should have an easy button!


As for Discovery, did you hear this first hand? If so, is it for certain types of content such as what you described or for ALL new recent content. I have shot for a couple of Discovery networks recently and HD was not a requirement. There is alot of DV, Beta SP and Digibeta still being shot. Now, with that being said, I did work on a show where they shot 16x9 for future syndication when 16x9 sets will eventually dominate but at the time, it aired in 4:3. Most of the shows that I have shot were 4:3 though. The budgets for most of these reality shows are tight for SD, not to mention HD. I would think HD would be reserved for nature documentaries and special features where the bugdets are larger and the photography could be appreciated more. The rates that I have seen for an HD EFP package are around $2000 per day and that's just for the gear wheras a complete beta package with crew is around $1300-$1500 and a DV crew with gear is around $1000-1200 per day with all of these before OT on labor.

I wish I could comment on the H1, but on the JVC HD100 I was surprised to see so few issues on pans of varying speeds after all that I had heard about the HDV format--in fact, I was unable to duplicate any of these issues, all the pans I did were fine, within the parameters of 24 frame panning "rules" (which are applicable to film also).

Ha! Good one.

The funny thing about breaking HDV is that by the time you do it, even if the picture was perfect, you wouldn't be able to see what they heck was going on because you'd be panning, shaking, zooming, and jumping up and down like you were having a seizure (read: The Bourne Supremacy).

Any half-watchable camera work will come through the HDV format admirably. However, subjectively, no matter how hard I've tried, I cannot get HDV to look worse than DV... the codec is just too smart.

It isn't the best format for post - we all know that. But DV users talk like HDV is a step backwards - in reality it's the kind of step forwards we should consider at all levels of acquisition. You could have 4:4:4 4k resolution at the data rates of HDCAM SR.

-Steve

Charles,

That's good to hear. When the HD10 came out, you couldn't go handheld, and they said it was HDV, but in fact it was the one ccd (non-CMOS) that did it.

heath

"Scant" is relative too. Scant is a long time to some of the readers around here. Some are under 20 years old! NOT me... ;)

Typo? Did you mean 'Just as DV won't be as good,' etc? Because you then say "I suspect that HDV would also be as good."

???

I don't think there's any "could" about it. They are successfully used for feature motion pictures and in other professional contexts already, in increasing numbers!

:)

Steve, thanks a lot for your comment. Coming from the cold north (the first snow came already last Saturday) I appreciate your calm and justified comments free of unnecessary fuzz.

Since I'm in wildlife filming, any kind of HD format would guarantee longer life span for the material which often cannot be retaken. Hearing the HDV format is a real step forward makes the new XL H1 very tempting. Especially, for sooner or later portable recording devices will replace the miniDV tape completely, and then, the HD-SDI output will become a real asset.

I have had exactly the same experience with HDV- ignore the merchants of doom who only look at the tech specs and not the pictures!

Just about all the HDV footage I've seen, including the 15 GOP clips from the FX1/Z1 has been technically pretty impressive. I doubt any DV footage blown up to HD resolutions would compete.

I think maybe the problem a lot of people have with HDV is they don't understand codecs. You know, if you compressed the same video twice, once into a late 90s cinepack codec based quicktime movie and again into a quicktime movie using the latest Sorenson codec, what would we find? The cinepack file would be relatively huge and look awful. The Sorenson version would have a relatively tiny file size and look fantastic. No one would argue the results, yet if we apply the same reasoning to 25mbps HDV and DV people suddenly just say "You can't fit quality HD into the same data rate".
I've seen huge threads on other sites based pretty much on that premise. Otherwise perfectly intelligent videographers that probably have not even used HDV denouncing it like they're in a holy war. All because "you can't fit HD into the same bandwith as DV SD video".

Oh well.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Lauri-

I also produce wildlife films. I will seriously consider the XLX1 when available however my main concern is all the long prime lenses that may look a bit soft with the XLX1. As it is now with my XL2 using the 4:3 aspect and a 9.6 factor, I cannot hardly use my 600mm anymore due to distortion. I wonder what multiplication factor the HD will be?

Hi Bill, it'll be 7.8x with the XL H1.

Thanks Chris-

I kind of thought that since the XL2 in 16:9 is also 7.8. At the show, did any of the booths try out an EF lense?

Hi Bill,

At no time during the show did I see an H1 with an EOS lens attached, but the EF adapter is listed as a fully compatible accessory.

If you read one of my earlier posts you will note I mentioned we have filmed fast moving aircraft (probably going faster than birds!!) with no problems at all.

Oops, I was thinking EF...didn't realize I wrote EOS. Thanks.

Bill, I use the 600 mm all the time with XL2 in 16:9 mode, and the image is just perfect. However, since the magnification is huge, warm moving air causes distortion. Knowing that the possibility to attach EF lenses to XL camcorders is a major factor for many users, I suspect Canon will not take a risk by making the situation worse. Instead, it's likely that Canon's main business is to sell lenses, and filming wildlife must be a pretty important marketing area for those long (profitable) lenses.

I´m looking foreward to see some footage, but I don´t think this camera is such an allrounder as they claim.
Great for reality TV, personally I think not. Cameras this size are to small to shoot with for a day straight, a full size camera is much more steady and ergonomical to work with.
And auto focus, no fixed focus ring, won´t work well.

They would be great for multi camera work though.

I´ve done music promos and drama with the XL2 with decent results, so I think XLH could be a usefull tool here.

Time will show

Being an 'indie' myself.....I hope I was correct about my own original post!

- ShannonRawls.com

Yeah, why waste time with an expensive tape-based deck using a compromised recording format when you could capture directly to a more affordable editing workstation using a full-raster, minimally compressed codec like Avid DNxHD or Cineform Prospect HD? That sounds like a pretty useful thing to be able to do from a sub-$10K camera, and not so easily done using the component outputs on the other cameras in this price range. So for $9K you get a camera with interchangeable HD lenses, a true 1440x1080 sensor, uncompressed HD-SDI outputs and the convenience of affordable HDV recording when you need it? Okay, it's a shame they didn't use a 1/2" or 2/3" sensor, but other than that this seems like a clever way to produce theater-quality HD video for under $20K including the capture/editing setup.

And how is it people have been making acceptable movies with 50-year-old SD technology, but we're not sure whether uncompressed 1080i video is good enough? What's that about?!?

SLAM DUNK!!!!

*say it again and again and again and again and again so the newbies who are *confused as to what to buy* can understand that perfect statement.

- Shan

Actually you can capture directly to a computer that costs around 4k.

Chris, at Birns & Sawyer last week I filmed all sorts fast motion and normal as well. We put the footage on their big HD projection screen and it was beautiful. No issues at all, and I recorded all of that on HDV tape @ 24f.


Shannon, I hope your filming with your new baby today.

Your pics are up at the link below.

Also, there are a few photos from the HVX200/ 35mm film screening the other night at Laser Pacific.
http://www.pbase.com/arrfilms

pappas

My only thought is, it's expensive to wheel around a RAID and a bit of money to rent an HD deck a day. For probably the same price, a VariCam might be just as well.

Though component out, the Z1 can do uncompressed HD, too. And half the price. Again, it's component, not digital like the XL H1.

One last thing, a "great camera" doth not make a great filmmaker. Or even an adequate one.

heath

The bit rate for the Avid DNxHD format is a modest 220 Mbps or 27.5 MB/sec, which is theoretically sustainable on any decent single hard drive, and should be easily sustainable on a two-drive SATA RAID. And the Cineform/Wafian recorder will use the Prospect HD codec on similar hardware to capture "visually lossless" HD at full 1920x1080 4:2:2 resolution, something I don't think the Varicam can do.

True, but then how do you capture that component signal? There's an apparent lack of devices which can accept a component HD input and record it to a computer hard drive: if anyone knows of a good one please provide information about that. Otherwise you have to get an adapter to convert component connectors to HD-SDI, and that's a nuisance. Plus the image on the Z1U is pixel-shifted from a 960x1080 sensor, while the Canon has a 1440x1080 sensor. Not that the Z1U image isn't nice, but if you're trying to capture maximum-quality HD it just seems like the Canon is better designed for that purpose.

We all agree on that, but I don't see too many people using Hi-8 cameras lately...

True, of course. But equally true is that a great filmmaker can make better footage on a great camera than they could on a middle-of-the-road camera.

I agree--a DVX100a in 60i looks better than my old XL1 in 60i.

heath

>>
True, but then how do you capture that component signal? There's an apparent lack of devices which can accept a component HD input and record it to a computer hard drive<<

Kevin, I thought BlackMagicDesigns has HD component capture cards for under 1K US.

Of course an SDI cable can run up to 300 feet which makes keeping your video village out of the way a lot easier.

I'm looking at the BlackMagic site now and it seems like their component connectors are analog out only, not analog in. I haven't seen any product (computer-based or standalone) which can definitely capture and record an analog component HD input. If someone knows of something a web reference would be much appreciated.