Format Agnostic...but how?
 

Okay, after initially being disappointed with the release info, I'm really liking this camera the more I've learned about it. I can't wait to see some footage, especially to put our 24F vs 24P fears to rest. That is probably my biggest concern about spending this much money. I'm also curious to hear some audio reviews IF using 4 channels at 16 bit/196.

I love (on paper) the new viewfinder, though I'm disappointed to see the information spread across/over the screen. I love Panny's idea of putting the information in the letterboxed area. I spend half my shoots clicking the display button on and off! I LOVE that Canon has planned that people will use a 35mm adapter for shallower DOF and they have put in the "flip switch" for the viewfinder! Killer. No staring at upside down images...anyone know if the output to a monitor can be flipped? Doubt it, but worth asking I guess.

Okay, now my question. If the camera is format agnostic and can output DVCPro HD, umm...how does that work? They didn't put the actual converter/codec in the camera, did they? I'm assuming not, but this would open the door to going straight out firewire to a firestore device...and thus really setting the camera in competition with the HVX200. So, how does it do DVCPro HD, if not in camera? Very curious about this, because while we're all excited to hear the words "uncompressed," it's probably less than 1% of us that will shoot that way. However, if I can use DVCPro HD, I'm putting my name on a list soon for this camera.

Thanks for any replies!

Kevin

I think the whole format agnostic, HDCAM, DVCPRO 50 is because you can run the HD SDI out to a deck for any of those formats... I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what everyone is talking about...

Wouldn't that apply to the FX1 and Z1 as well?... they output via component video which is evidently uncompressed.

True in that sense Boyd. The only thing is, component out is analog, and then it would get converted back to digital via component input which could impact image quality. The HD-SDI which is unique to the Canon (when compared to other HDV offerings) would keep the uncompressed signal in the digital form all the way to the recording medium. But that's the only difference I can see.

It's great that we are getting so many choices. "Choose your weapon and go shoot something with it", I say.

-gb-

Hmmm, a deck would cost a bit. It's too bad they don't make cheaper DVCPROHD decks, then everyone would get this camera. I guess it's good that you can work with HDV until you can get up to buying a deck or find a facility that has one already. All we need now is some footage. But either way, I think I'm going HVX200.

I think the "format agnostic" thing is a bit of a misnomer. I mean, you can either call it a camcorder (meaning a camera/recorder) or just a camera head (which is a camera without any sort of recording mechanism).

If you want to call it a camcorder, then it must inherently be called an HDV camcorder, since that is all it records.

If you want to use it as a live camera head, then yes you could say it's format agnostic, but not really any more so than any other camera, since all camera heads are inherently format agnostic.

Therefore, when used in a format-agnostic application, the Canon offers the same functionality as the others (not a we-can-and-you-can't type of situation), but it does have an additional connector (HD-SDI) which the others lack; therefore it can make a theoretically better recording than the non-HD-SDI cameras could. One could always get an analog component-to-HD-SDI converter, but that wouldn't carry as clean or pure a signal as a real, straight-from-the-DSP HD-SDI connector like the Canon offers.

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet:

People keep talking about how useless the SDI port is because uncompressed HD takes up too much space and bandwidth. Why would you need uncompressed when you could capture to a codec and still have higher than HDV quality?

Take the Decklink products on a Final Cut Pro system. $600.00 for the SDI card.

1. You can capture to DVCPRO HD at only 14 MB/S which any off the shelf hard drive could handle.

2. You could get the bitjazz codec which you can capture to in realtime and the uncompressed file size gets cut roughly in half. In my case it may be even better for bluescreen work where most of the screen stays the same color. This is the only option to get any level of compression but still keep 10bit video on the mac. While you will still need a raid for this you may be able to get by with just a 2 disk raid 0 setup inside of your mac.

3. PhotoJpg can be even higher quality than DVCPROHD and it is full 1920x1080 resolution. The only problem is currently I think you can only capture in realtime at 25% quality which isn't the best. With faster systems however hopefully that will be back up to 75% like it is with SD.

4. Lacie is coming out with an external SATA 2 tower for only $2000.00 that could allow you to capture uncompressed HD. While still not dirt cheap it is a lot cheaper than other HD uncompressed storage.

5. You could always build a raid array with the cheapest smallest hard drives for $50.00 a piece or less to just make a capture drive. 4X 80GB SATA 2 drives = 320 GB for $200.00 It wouldn't fit a lot of video (20-30 minutes) but once you have your FX shots captured you convert them to photojpg at 75%.

I think many users at first would be happy with capturing to DVCPROHD for FX work until they could invest in some large storage system. I personally do not like DVCPROHD for 720p but it's 1080 format is much better. You get almost the same resolution as HDV but 4:2:2 color and much less compression.

On the PC side you could get a Cineform Prospect system although those are not cheap. Once you have it though almost any hard drive would work to capture 1920x1080 at 4:2:2 in 10bits in the Cineform format for I think around 24 MB/S. Or you could do the small cheap capture raid thing listed above and convert to the Cineform codec to make the files smaller and easier to edit.

For those who do want a higher quality capturing method for live FX work remember that even though the XLH1 costs about 3-4 grand more than other current HDV cameras you save 1.5-2.5 grand by not needing an analog to SDI HD converter.

It is format agnostic because it doesn't matter what deck you choose to record to... it could be HDCAM one day and DVCPRO HD the next. That's the advantage of uncompressed HD over HD-SDI out.

What this camera is, is two things in one. It is an HD camera head. You supply the recorder. Don't buy an HD deck; rent one as you need it. It's also an HDV camcorder, but that's a secondary thing. That's why I couldn't put this forum in our HDV section. The XL H1 is not "just an HDV camcorder." It's first and foremost an HD camera head. That feature is far more important than the HDV feature.

But Chris, couldn't you say the same about the HVX200? I realize the lens and such may be better, but circuitry-wise, why is this any better? I still think this will be a tough competition between the two unless a device comes out that will do better-than-HDV to a drive for the H1. I think DVCPro HD is a very good format that still has reasonable file sizes and obviously, solutions very soon to Firestore drives via FireWire.

I really hope someone comes out with a field-based solution so we can utilize the full quality level that this camera offers.

Canon is oh so close to having a real professional offering...I'm not saying you cannot do professional work with this, but that it is still listed under "Consumer" on their website and I'm assuming it is still coming out of their consumer division of products.

Kevin

I'm a big fan of the HVX200... I run the *second* largest forum on the internet for that camera. But no it does not send uncompressed HD at 1.485Gbps out to HD-SDI. There is no HD-SDI terminal connector on the HVX.

Serial Digital Interface is a big deal. It is not the same as component analog out.

Without question the big challenge to the XL H1 is that it is definitely not ideal for field recording unless you're going to tape on HDV. And why would you want to shoot HDV with this thing when you can buy into HDV at less than half the price. Obviously the H1 is not targeted at people who are in the HVX200 market or the Sony Z1 market.

I don't know of any portable hard disk recorders capable of taking HD-SDI out of any video camera. Yes it's coming from the Canon Video division, maker of the dirt-cheap ZR100. Believe me, I'm not saying it's right for everybody; clearly it's a specific market they're going for with *this particular* camera. Who is to say the next one won't be a GL2 replacement, you know?

Yup, I agree. But I hope they are missing out on a huge market of people like me who would just LOVE to stay Canon. I'm still not decided where my money will go this Winter. I really hope we'll at least have an announcement of a device that can take advantage of the higher rez imaging that this camera can do.

I just sent the link to a producer who doesn't roam these boards and it was very odd sending them to http://consumer.usa.canon.com and telling them to click on "camcorders." It would be VERY wise for Canon to change this and future "prosumer" cameras to a new area, in my opinion. A $9,000 camcorder, eh? But it's professional, really! Just don't look at where they put it on their site! :-)

Thanks.

Kevin

We should probably start a new thread somewhere about what's wrong with Canon's DV site.It would be an, er, ahh... *intense* discussion with *many* replies.

Well Kevin, just send them to http://www.canondv.com. Same place without the 'consumer' connotation.

-gb-

I guess, but it's still above the Optura's and Eluras. :-) Same deal.

Kevin

Exactly. Also for the HD100. Actually that would apply to basically any camera. Every camera outputs some type of signal which can be recorded as any format. This sounds like a market gimmick. The DSR500 outputs DVCAM via SDI. Have you heard Sony claiming it is SD format agnostic because it can be recorded as DVCAM, DVCPRO etc? Or have you heard Sony claiming th F900 is format agnostic? Is also outputs HD via SDI.

Exactly. Barry just nails in in the head here.
The format agnostic thing is a market gimmick in my opinion.

Well, so if JVC adds HD-SDI to the HD100(really, how much would it cost? Is just a port), that would make the HD100 a HD camera first and foremost and HDV camcorder second? I just can't see this line of reasoning. I'm sorry, but I must be dumb or something. Or I'm just not buying the marketing mambo-jambo from Canon.

The beauty of a free market economy is that you don't have to buy it, Michael.

This site is set up so that you have other forums to explore and discuss now that you've determined that the XL H1 is not for you. And that's the beauty of DV Info Net.

Actually Barry in a way it is true to call this a format agnostic camera. While other HDV cameras have uncompressed analog component output this is useless without buying a converter to be able to use it. With the XLH1 you now do not need a converter so as is out of the box you can capture live to whatever you want to. All other current HDV cameras need a 3rd party converter so the camera in itself cannot do it out of the box. While part of it might be a marketing thing it is also true that it is the only current HDV camera that can do this out of the box.

**********EDITED TO ADD*************

I just read Chris's article, and found this:
"the HD-SDI output carries uncompressed video and sync data only "

So forget everything I wrote below.... it's apparently all wrong and I jumped the gun.

WOW, that's dissapointing. For a minute I thought this was a much bigger deal.

Does the camera have XLR audio outputs?

*************************************


While I'll agree with Barry that calling this camera "format agnostic" is pretty ridiculous, I would also like to mention something that no one seems to have mentioned.

The addition of SDI on this camera is a huge deal, given that you can now output both your VIDEO and AUDIO in uncompressed form.

Sure, you could use a converter with the HVX, or with the HD100, but that would only give you the Video (from an uncompressed ANALOG source). Then what woudl you do? Run a tape in the camera and sync up in post?
I dont' think any of those cameras offer XLR outputs for audio.

If I"m reading the specs on the Canon correctly, the HDSDI output should give you both Uncompressed Video and audio. That's something that's not offerred on any other camera I can think of at that price.

Granted, I still think it's going way too far into 'marketing speak' to call it 'format agnostic' But that doesn't mean the inclusion of HDSDI output isn't a huge deal. It's an incredibly huge deal.

BUT... then there is the cost of deck rental...and tape stock... or if you're going to shoot HDV there is the cost of an HDV deck. So, the price will definitely add it. Not sure if it's worth it yet for me....I've got to see footage, but my initial reaction is that it's a really nice camera for someone else...but probably doesn't fit my needs.


OH...Shannon (Rawls).....
You were right, I was wrong - sort of.
I thought they would wait longer to release something, but you definitely called it. Though I did say, if they released an HD camera this year, it wouldn't replace the XL2, it would be a new line. And I think the price point definitely shows that they are planning on keeping the XL2 alive for a while.
But....yes, enjoy your moment in the sun....you called this one.

True, but unless there is a way for users to access that feature, then it's almost moot to discuss its' advantages. In my opinion, it's a half-baked feature today because using it would be prohibitively resource intensive. You know, a lot like how P2 is half baked and resource intensive!

The manufacturers are sending us a strong message that Spring 2006 will be a good time to buy the latest gear because they've designed it so it will last a while. They show us this by including features we can't affordably access today, but could definitely access in a couple of years. For Panasonic, it's flash cards. For Canon, it's uncompressed high definition serial digital interface.

For me, it's actually comforting to think I could get a few good years of use from any of these cameras. I feel safer buying when I believe my investment won't be outdated in six months. Both models provide enough of that "security" for me.

Rosendahl's Bonzai drive currently does this (uncompressed 4:2:2 SD to hard drive) for standard definition SDI. Best part about it is the low price. (Roughly the same as an 80GB Firestore FS-4Pro!)

...Sure would be nice if there were an HD-SDI version for the Canon XL-H1!

BW

I have a DSR500. There is no SDI port.

>Well, so if JVC adds HD-SDI to the HD100
>(really, how much would it cost? Is just a port),
>that would make the HD100 a HD camera first
>and foremost and HDV camcorder second?
>I just can't see this line of reasoning.

At NAB, JVC did show a test model of HD100 that had
the tape transport REMOVED and in its place was a
HD-SDI encoder that offered two HD-SDI jacks in addtion
to to the analog output. A TRUE studio model. That said,
Canon has BOTH the HD-SDI output AND a tape transport.

And no, it isn't 'just a jack' :)

I guess that means JVC will have a "Format Agnostic" camera for a few thousand cheaper than the XLH1.

Well, not to be pedantic about it, but yes, that would be completely format agnostic, because it would no longer be a camcorder. It wouldn't be able to record anything to itself, it is strictly a camera head.

The XL H1 is an HDV camcorder with an HD-SDI output port. The JVC would be a camera head with an HD-SDI output port. The existing JVC is an HDV camcorder with no HD-SDI output, just analog component.

As a camcorder, the XL H1 is not format-agnostic, it is HDV. As a camera head, it is completely format agnostic, as all camera heads are. If JVC produces a recorder-less HD1xx camera, it would fall in that same category, yes.

I guess my sarcasm didn't exactly come across.

I agree with you 500% Barry.
All this "format agnostic" talk seems to be no more than marketing double speak to me. It's almost as if no one wants to call this an HDV camera, which is essentially what it is. Yes, I admit, it has some great features for an HDV camera, and HDSDI is a huge deal... but why ignore the fact that it's an HDV camera?

Chris's own article on the camera doesn't even mention HDV:

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxlh1/watchdog.php


When I first read it, I was a bit confused because I wasn't even sure what format the camera recorded.


Strange.

If and when JVC produces a studio model, it may not be thousands
less than the Canon. I would hope it would be, but the JVC
saleman manning the booth had no answer when questioned
about the possible price and you have NO inexpensive tape capture,
albeit in a highly compressed format.

For old XL1 owners who have invested thousands in accessories that
will still function with this new HD1 camera, like the EOS adapter and
35mm glass, the few thousand saved by purchasing JVC will turn into
many many thousands more investment for comparable glass.
The optional 'good' lens is $12K alone!!! You can buy a PS and
35mm kit for that.

Honestly, I can see why some people are complaining, but we are
all individuals with our specific situations. For me, *HD-SDI is
a major leap forward*. This signal can also be hot switched. Try that
with HDV or even analog component HD. I believe you will find
that HD-SDI has far more solutions available right now and will
be cheaper than dealing with analog HD in the future.

Someone else said that HD-SDI could be the next firewire.
I hope they are right and that other manufacturers follow Canon's
lead making HD-SDI cheap. It is already EASY, ROBUST, FAST and
FLEXIBLE.