The producer in the company that I am dealing with used to work in the Bristol wildlife unit and is going to do some research himself. I am trying to gather all the information I can to either support the use of the Canon or not as the case may be.

Andrew,
For what it's worth, I shot ten docs last year in SD (four for BBC Wales and six for S4C) all on the Z1 with no problems from the broadcasters. They knew what they were getting anyway.
I'm just wondering in your case whether the company just doesn't want to intercut Digibeta with the Canon, though if it's "separate" wildlife material, I don't see the problem...

Robin

This question is one of the most frustrating things about dealing with television and theatrical distribution - often flat rules are adopted by these organizations because (to be perfectly honest - and in their defence) there are a lot of bozos out there shooting a lot of crap - and these "guidlines" give the networks an easy way to say "Thanks but no thanks!"...

I have dealt with it since the early days of super16 (1972), through U-Matic (early '80s), Mini-DV (late '90s) and now HDV... Since I make documentaries, these "accessable" formats have always appealed to me...

I've had to literally yell at tech-types to get them to "stop watching the scope and start watching the picture"... I've fought, successfully, to have films blown up to 35 that were shot on a Bolex, a doc shot on B&W reel-to-reel VHS (1978) televised nationally, and archival footage (from the Nat'l Archive) with blanking problems aired on PBS..

There is no easy answer. If you can get a special dispensation in advance that will certainly help... but sometimes/oftentimes the hardest part of filmmaking is fighting to get your show past the Blue Book and into the heads of people that really don't care about all that stuff...

In the case of the H1, which I am using daily and loving, I have personally never seen any footage in a documentary that is so much better that it would cause me to spend an additional 100 gs for it... In SD it is certainly better than BetaSP, which had been the standard for over 20 years, and in HDV it is stunning.. But the cutting edge isn't always a safe place to be...

all this talk of is the XLH1 been good enough for broadcast has given me the jitters, After reading all these forums and speaking to alot of people who had nothing but praise for the camera i shelled out £5000 on th camera,

The reason! because i do wildlife films and i have a project comming this summer which i hope to get broadcasters interested in but now with all this iam begining to wonder why i bothered and just kept my XL2

But i will tell you why, people told me that i would stand a better chance of getting it broadcast if it was in HDV!

To sum up i think we are going to far with this will it be or won't it be, i think that if it was shot in hi8 but shot well and interesting broadcasters would snap it up

So come on instead of debating it get out and shoot some stunning stuff with the XLH1 and then see the broadcasters snap your hand off

Well if it's any help, the Pappas broadcast network of 22 stations located throughout the US has just setup and opened an awesome all digital jewel of a broadcast studio - there are actually 2 channels served KREN and KZAR - they broadcast in both SD and HD - and guess what -

The 3 In-Studio floor cams are all H1 cameras! They take the HD-SDI feed off the floor cameras.

And for their field kits they use H1 cameras and use the HDV tapes. The results of the broadcast are awesome and outshine anything else in their market.

Here is a link to an article describing the operation. And if you are ever in the Reno, NV area be sure to check out their studio - the whole thing is located behind glass and fully available for the public to view the operations. When I saw the 3 Canon H1's rigged out for floor cameras in a studio - well it brought tears to my eyes.

http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv...h1-hd-cameras/

A major producer of nature and history films here in Canada will be buying wildlife footage from me shot with the XLH1 after viewing it on a large HD monitor. They shoot on large Sony HDCAM cameras and after viewing and comparing footage all day I must say they were very impressed how tack sharp and rich it was. The footage was on grizzlies, moose, caribou, birds and other things of nature. They also said how their big cameras are too heavy to backpack in rugged and steep country where I film. For myself a weeks worth of gear carried on your back is a lot of weight, so the XLH1 is the heaviest camera I care to pack along. I plan on using mine until a better camera comes along and is no heavier.

If any film is well shot, well told and tack sharp it will be still enjoyable to watch 50 years from now regardless of the latest formatt.

Leon Lorenz
www.wildlifevideos.ca

I am also a bit uneasy about jumping into the XLH1. I think the real question is- will the broadcast look about as good as the first generation HDV tape image?

Couldn't agree more, Leon!

There seems to be a general agreement that the canon XL H1 has the best resolution and colours when compared to other cameras in its price range. When one compares the XL H1 to a 2/3 ccd HD camcorder, what are the evident differences.

P.S. It would be great if someone could post footage of a side by side comparison. (XL H1 vs. 2/3 ccd HD camcorder)

With a 2/3" camera, you can control your depth of field better without resorting to 35mm adapters.

It is assumed that the Canon XL H1 is an 8 bit camera, while 2/3" cameras may have more than 8 bits of color depth.

There's that H1 confusion for me again - is it truly 8 bit or 10 bit?
All the literature claims the SDI output is 10 bit ... but then some very knowledgeable people report that is actually is only 8 bit. Have asked numerous Canon reps and can't seemed to get an answer. The SMPTE spec noted in all the literature is for a 10 bit signal.

I have not tested the HD-SDI output signal with a signal analyzer.

From posts on this site, it seems clear that HD-SDI is 10 bits.

From posts on this site, it appears from at least one post that the signal is actual 8 bits in a 10 bit format, thus two bits are always 0.

If this is true, then the bit depth is 8 bits or 256 levels per color or 24 bits total, giving 16.7 million colors.

Now, with only 8 bits it is possible to have "banding" of delicately shaded images.

To me, it this was a true 10 bit camera, then Canon would say so!

However, the proof is in the image.

As we all know, the Canon XL H1 produces stunning images!

I have not seem any banding in any images that I have produced.

So that is why I stated "It is assumed that the Canon XL H1 is an 8 bit camera." I do not want to mislead anyone.

I would like for a definative answer from Canon. This is a very simple question in which we should be able to get a simple answer.

Personally, I am very pleased with the images, more than pleased!

Thanks Dan - sounds like you and I are in the same boat.
I'm extremely happy with the the HDV and DV coming off the H1.

My only concern is I don't want to mislead a client that I provide HD-SDI (or SD-SDI for that matter) files for into thinking that he is getting 10bit data.
If they are intending on using the 10bit data for green screening or some heavy effects compositing and are expecting to use the 10bits of data - then I don't want to mislead them.

As for our firm, we are still working in 8bits - and the product looks awesome. Right now our editing machines aren't even beginning to be up to 10bit snuff. Too much realtime hit for us trying to work in 10 bit for the quality difference for the most part.

It does seem like a simple answer to obtain - but maybe there's a reason why they can not give it?

This is from another post on this site:

Scott Billups tested the H1 vs. the Cinealta and said the Canon keys better than the Sony.

Jim Martin
Birns & Sawyer

I believe that this was when the Canon was HD SDI out and the F900 was recording to HDCAM, which isn't a good format for keying from.