Me too... pain in the arse IMO.

So HDV or spend a whole loada £££ on P2 is basically my option..hmmm...

I think every one is getting far too wound up by formats anyway.

These are 1/3" cameras! There is no point in capturing on some ridiculous quality, because there are so many other weaker links in the chain.

Aim to make all your links about the same size, that way you'll get the best compromise between quality and cost - which is the aim for EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD.

HDV is good enough for all these camera in most situations. However, I would have liked to have seen at least one of these manufacturers come up with a built in archive method of shooting a 50Mbps interframe at this price range. I though Canon would be the one because they have no higher end cameras to protect, but again, this very obvious path has been ignored!

If you need to blue screen etc, you can use the ridiculous quality of HD-SDI for that small, controlled part of you film. If you are planning on making an Indie Sin City, the XL-H1 is perfect.

The cost is still going to be a problem but the HD7000 comming from JVC should have a few more options than just HDV.

JVC really don't have a high end to protect, but they don't seem very interested in creating anything more than HDV in this price range either.

Sending reps to push an agenda is not at all, not even 'basically,' defamation. To defame something is to damage its reputation, character, or good name.

To do it cheap, maybe in 2 years or so. You could always go 4:4:4 with the F950 or the Viper FilmStream.

heath

Whew! Not just this thread. I've been reading avidly (not an endorsement for anyone's NLE) the posts on this new Canon. People really need to stop vacillating and form opinions. Yes, sarcasm is a blunt weapon. Sorry.

I find it very interesting that on some threads there are some people raving about how this camera sucks, and on other threads saying it's for them. I mean even the same people. More to the point, for myself, it's the PICTURE that is created, the IMAGE that is captured that's the ultimate concern. I've heard very few people speak to this. Perhaps not having seen what this camera produces, as I haven't, people would rather go on and on ad ifinitum on gearwhore comparisons. I will note that the XL series from Canon has been roundly dissed since before I first got an XL-1. Hearing all the knowledgeable damning of it, I'm just amazed anyone would want to use one. Or an XL-1s, or the XL-2, or the newest member of the family, the XL H1, subject of this thread. Yet, more than a few have been made, sold, used and some amazingly creative motion pictures have been produced with them.

There are a lot of different cameras out there, both SD and HD. A lot I've had the pleasure of using were good, albeit in different ways. More of both will come. This and that are important (I, for one, find the dismissal of SMPTE syncing as a gimmick ludicrous- It is important). What really counts, above all: The PICTURE. As to the high-hatting 'professionals' posting that this is somehow the latest version of the Fisher-Price camcorder, well. Do you ever SEE some of the quality broadcast television on the air? No, no, on your air right now. Go look. It's not all 'Six Feet Under'. I'm talking about network programming, too. Lots of poorly lit crap that may have been shot on a camera big enough that the cameraman felt secure in his masculinity. And yet it looks bad. The PICTURE. By the way, long ago in the medieval ages when I worked at a TV station they had REAL he-man cameras. And huge wide video tape running on open reels at what looked like mach 1 in the booth. Things are better in this modern world, and don't you forget it.

Now I'll stop ranting, in my culmination of an hour reading posts. I want to see what this camera outputs. I really do. Anyone who thinks HD resolution, of any stripe, is comparable side by side with NTSC or PAL is kidding themselves. It's, how do I put this, Higher Resolution. What the camera is pointing at, how it's pointed, how the subject is lit, what glass captures and reveals the framed image- Those aren't all easily reduced to numeric distortion analogs.

I don't know when I'll jump to HD, but this camera pushes me closer. Resolution for the revolution. Or something catchy like that. Now everyone can yell at me.

Totally unrelated, but your sig had me in stitches.

Thanks, the signature is the only part that should be taken seriously.

<<<Heck even the HDCAM SR deck records the uncompressed dual port 4:4:4 as a mpeg4 2:1 compression.>>>

Right. Most pros will tell you that they cannot tell the difference between
uncompressed and 2:1. Even 4:1 HD using a modern I frame compression
codec should rock.

As I always say, test and make a decision. Especially with a $9,000 price tag.

heath

Hooray! If I could give awards for Post of the Day, this would be it. Well done!

Quad is dead! Long live the Quad,

But the image quality has to do with a lot of things, such as the resolution and manual control.

Who would want a F900 in auto mode and 60i to make a movie?

True, but if you can't communicate a story in the first place, all the manual knobs in the world won't change that.

All this focus on specs this, manual that - it's all just wankery that avoids actually doing something w/ the gear :). If you can make a movie, tell a story, share something - that ability doesn't depend on the hardware you use.

Don't turn the #s on the hardware into a crutch.

$.02

Yes, yes, YES! IMHO picture quality in the indie film sector is about 10% of the equation. No indie film is going to rise or fall just because it was shot on an FX1 or a F900

All ye shall be sainted.

Now if I could just work this message into our registration page somehow...

The first part I agree with; truer words were never written. The second part I don't. If any of us believed that, we'd be out shooting with a cheap ol' VHS camcorder we got at a garage sale rather than with the best equipment we can afford, while debating the merits of the latest technologies. A good camera with a great feature-set doesn't give you talent, but allows you to better express your talent -- or at least increase the challenge -- as compared to a cheap-o or yesterday's technology.

Sports example: Would Lance Armstrong still be a great cyclist if he rode on a $200 mountain bike? Yep. Could he win the Tour de France once, let alone seven times, if he believed that computer-modeled low-drag titanium bike frames, etc, etc, was wankery? (Do I need to answer that?)
;-)

Besides, it is hard for me to understand how someone could have a passion for creating cinema and not care about cameras. Whatever someone's hobby or beloved vocation, an enthusiasm for the stuff that makes it possible seems an innate part of the equation.

The art of filmmaking isn't just in the mind's eye; it is what the mind's eye can do to express itself with the tools available. If there is an affordable but better tool to help me both challenge my skill and present broadened creative opportunities, you can bet I'll be after it. If that's wankery, well, WANK ON!