Its also worth noting that the XL-H1 has true 4-channel audio... i can not, for the life of me, understand why everyone overlooks that critical feature when comparing cameras!

It has also been discussed quite frequently that Discovery airs many shows shot entirely on HDV... the rules about which cameras are acceptable is not set in stone.

Can't speak for anyone else, but for me, I record my audio separately to a better recorder than my camera. I suspect any pro would do the same and with better gear than mine.

Maybe not, but need some pretty compelling footage to get them to buy off, or so I am told.

Perhaps because 12 bit 32Khz 4 channel audio doesn't meet the quality rates of a lot of shooters who are used to the 16 bit 48Khz standard. 12 bit 32Khz is fine for the spoken word but I wouldn't want to record a symphony with that setting and expect it to sound good. Having said that, I record 4 channel audio with my XL2 all the time when I need to use multiple radio mics.

Just for the sake of others who may not know it, the XL-H1 does record 16 bit 48K as well but is restricted to 2 channels.

- Don

4-channel audio with HDV is not the same as 4-channel audio with DV... With HDV the sampling rate and quality is exactly the same, it just switches to MPEG2 audio compression, which is more efficient, and therefore takes up less space!

Is it uncompressed? How valuable is that for most people? The fact the EX has uncompressed audio?

Also, Discovery told me they only allow 20% HDV material per show. But if you have 45 minutes of real UFO's firing death rays on major cities, I doubt they hold to that rule.

The manual for the XL-H1 seems to tell a different story. In HDV mode only two channels are available for 16 bit 48Khz recording and there's no option at all to use 4 channels. In DV mode there are two or four channels available depending on whether the bit and sample rate is set to 16/48 or 12/32.

However, when outputting via the SDI port there's an option to imbed the audio with the video (XL-H1s) and the audio sample rate will be output @16 bit 48 Khz regardless of what the recorded bit/sample rate is set to. Was this what you were referring to?

Unless I'm reading the manual wrong somehow.

- Don

According to canons website:

AUDIO
HDV Recording 2 channel MPEG1 Audio Layer II (48kHz, 384kbps), 4 channel MPEG2 Audio Layer II (48kHz, 384kbps)

SD Recording 2 channel PCM (48kHz, 16 bit or 32kHz, 12 bit), 4 channel PCM (32 kHz, 12 bit)

John, would you mind providing a link to the Canon page where this is stated, please? The last thing I want to do is spread mis-information about these cameras. Here are the audio specs stated for all 3 XH H1 series cameras from the Canon website.

XL H1

Audio Recording system
DV: PCM digital recording: 16 bits (48 kHz/2 channels), 12 bits (32 kHz//2 channels) selectable. 12 bit/synchronous (32 kHz/4 channels) is possible HDV: MPEG1 Audio Layer II: (Sampling frequency 48 kHz, bit rate 384 kbps/2 channels);

XL H1A

Audio Recording system
HDV: 2-channel recording MPEG1 Audio Layer II: (bit rate 384 kbps);
DV: 2-channel recording PCM digital recording: 16 bits (48 kHz), 12 bits (32 kHz, 12 bits selectable)

XL H1S

Audio Recording system
HDV: 2-channel recording MPEG1 Audio Layer II: (bit rate 384 kbps);
DV: 2-channel recording PCM digital recording: 16 bits (48 kHz), 12 bits (32 kHz, 12 bits selectable)

- Don

Even if it does 4 channels at 32 khz the quality of 32 khz audio is going to be pretty poor, certainly no good for broadcast or any serious audio applications which kind of makes having 4 channels pointless.

Did you even read the specs from my post Alister... it says CLEARLY 48khz for four channel HDV!!!

Discovery will take 100% HDV under their Bronze standard, EX is acceptable to Silver standard which opens a lot more doors.

One of the reasons I sold my Canon XL-H1 was because it had so many non-standard modes that the only thing that could play the tapes back was the camera itself. Canons HDV extended audio modes, progressive and 24fps are all non-standard modes. For some this may not be an issue, but I still have tapes sitting on my shelves that I can't play back because, while I do have a couple of HDV decks I don't have the H1 anymore.
I also found the H1 viewfinder far to small and the lens mount design where the zoom control stays attached to the camera really restricts the range of lenses you can use.

Where are you all getting this information on what Discovery will accept and the info on the different levels? I would love to read more about it. Is there a website with this info?

Thanks.

The Discovery documentation is only available to accredited production companies or those with a Discovery commission and it's distribution is not allowed.

Alister...do you mean it restircts the 35mm lenses you can use...if so do you know which ones?

I've noticed some people using cheap Canon HV20s or HV30s as their decks to avoid wear on the XL-H1, although I'm not sure how that works with the different modes you mentioned. Also I believe there are HD and Flash memory solutions for the XL-H1a around now.

Most 35mm lenses should mount OK on the XL cameras, it's just broadcast lenses with their grips that'll get in the way. The biggest frustration I'd think would be the lens that comes with the camera and its lack of proper focus and zoom controls, hence why it would be nice to able to replace it with a proper broadcast lens.
Steve

This info is on another thread here about the Discovery bronze/silver/gold... not sure the source or if it's up to date or not but it has been discussed here.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/general-h...ide-lines.html

The OP seems to be a Canon shooter. The convenience of using the 5DII at this time far outweighs the negatives. By the time he really knows what he's doing Canon will be out with a more appropriate video camera (manual control, no 4gb limit).

Video head and sticks he's ready to go. 38 mbs of H264 should be good enough. Long Canon glass with image stabilization. Good high ASA/ISO performance.

As far as tape v file. In general tape still has an advantage for archival. But in wildlife so much time is spent recording hoping something happens, there's little reason to save 75% of what's shot. The faster response time of a non-tape camera doesn't matter much.

To start today I would buy RED. 4K with Nikon glass. The overhead of time and money to shoot wildlife is enough that 4K makes sense. One of those Scarlets would be ideal, but that's probably 2010.

I don't have an EX3, but the clarity is outstanding - as you guys know. I can't believe Discovery could have the slightest problem with the footage.

I don't think any of the current crop of DSLR's with video are suited to wildlife filming. They all have very big skew issues so following any moving animals or pans with long lenses are going to produce issues. Now I'm not a wildlife shooter and perhaps Steve will add to this but I would image you get 2 types of wildlife shot. The set up, sit and wait shot in which case a DSLR would be fine and the grab it quick before it runs away shot and in those scenarios a DSLR might not be so good.se

The OP was looking at the H1 where, like the EX if you use stills lenses you gain extra focal length over a DSLR. This can be a big advantage with wildlife.

Don, don't forget that even with tape cameras you often get cache recording now so that you can just wait for the action then hit the button and you've captured it. Not that I think tape is a good choice, I think it's pretty much dead as a medium of choice.
I've not been in the slightest impressed with the DSLRs for video - common sense just tells you that there must be issues or Sony would have bought one out instead of the PDW700 or the EX cameras - why not have a very small, very high resolution camera for a fraction of the price? I'll tell you why, because it isn't going to do the job as well as the dedicated video camera. This is also why pro DSLRs haven't had video modes upto now and yet cheapy compact cameras have, because the video you'll get is OK for home movies of your kids etc., that the folks with the £300 digital compact want to shoot, whereas a pro with a £2000 DSLR wouldn't get pro video so why bother to include it.
The RED also has big issues for wildlife, not least of which is the fact that it takes 90 seconds to boot it up each time - oh, the bird's flown away! Also 4k is not quite 4k once you've gone through de-bayering etc., and for slomo you have to use 2k, which again after processing probably looks less good than a Varicam. Also the files take quite a bit of work to get them looking good from what I've seen - some stuff from RED looks excellent (on web only) while some looks muddy and horrible, I think it's a lot to do with the way they are post-processed. Other big problem is that it's such a new thing for the post houses and broadcasters that they're scared to death of it and know that it'll add so much to their tried and tested workflows that the amount of extra budget for post production will be unmanageable. I'm sure it'll get there eventually. Check out agb films, Andrew Graham Brown is using RED with cameraman Robin Cox for wildlife at the moment. I met up with him when I had my RED reservation and we talked it through, but then I found lots of issues for my type of work (plus an overnight 4 month delivery setback) and cancelled my reservation.
Steve

There's a ton of outdated information and misinformation in this assessment. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

Watch some of these instead...

. - you need to click this highlighted dot - for some reason, DVinfo is not printing the full website name

Mammoth HD - RED 4K and 2K Footage Library

The new SCARLET is going to be the ultimate wildlife film camera. Two second start-up, four pounds, the mount will accept Nikon/Canon, better battery life. All the things that make RED a challenge for wildlife (mostly start up time, batt life, and weight) will be solved. And then some.

That doesn't help people shooting now to choose a new camera, but I've used Canon cameras forever, and, having played with an EX-1, I'd choose the Sony EX-3, if I had to buy something right now.

Meryem, yes I realise that's it's a bit out-dated. I do follow the RED news and look forward to the new products as I said. But as they're not ready yet, maybe the post's not so out-dated after all - all we have for now is still the RED One.
If we can have a camera that's light, takes different lenses and shoots 120fps then that would be a good bit of wildlife kit, and it would be nice to get away from broadcast-type cameras which were never intended for our sort of shooting. This is the great strength with RED, and especially with the new line-up, the modularity of it means you can build the camera that best suits your needs.
Steve

As for the Canons and even the EX cameras, there's no point shooting something the broadcasters won't use, and for many high-end docs and nature work the Canon is definitely out and the EX cameras are not at all favoured by BBC etc., it's got to be 35mm film or at least Varicam, HDCam or just about XDCam 422. Even Super 16 doesn't get the thumbs up any more.
Steve

I agree - but the Varicams and HDCams are another price point entirely - and since this was an EX v. Canon thread, I just thought I'd weigh in...SCARLET will compete in the EX/Canon category.

I think Canon, typically late to the party, will release something really great. If they're smart, they make something that works well with their existing L lenses, without adapters. A true 35mm video camera that handles motion well - unlike the 5D - at an H1 price point, that can handle the L lens electronics to their fullest extent, would be a true competitor...

It would take a miracle for Canon, or anyone else for that matter, to create a camera that took true 35mm lenses, and put them onto a single sensor 35mm sensor at anywhere near the price point of their competitors.

Now if you are talking about doing this onto a small sensor, then maybe. But it's still a reach. Something will have to give. And my bet is on price or codec.

I agree Perrone, there's a lot of ideas that would nice in theory but if they were that easy to do then Sony/Panasonic or whoever would have done them already. The very expensive broadcast HD cameras do leave a lot to be desired and we can all see where we'd like improvments but for what they need to do they've been made as good as they can be made. So when someone comes along with something "revolutionary" like RED, the 5D MkII or the Ikonscop camera (or even the EX cameras) that look amazing on paper and are relatively inexpensive alarm bells must ring to tell you that compromises have been made somewhere along the line.
As for Scarlet competing with the Canon and EX, by the time it gets here who knows how things will have moved on. And I thought RED would be touting it as competing much higher up than that?
Steve

With a fixed lens, how can they? 2/3" sensors are old news.

If we look at his statement and parse out what's in that market, things become clear:

35mm lenses
At least 1080p
Big sensor

Let's see who plays in that league:

Sony F23/F35
Panny Genesis
TGV Viper
RED


Let's see who's not:

Pana. Varicam (2/3")
Sony F900R (2/3")
Silicon Imaging (2/3")


So one camera under $100k fits. All the major players under $100k don't. How the heck is Canon going to get there at an EX/HPX price point? Even if we allow the 2/3" sensor, the ballpark is still north of $50k.

[QUOTE=Perrone Ford;984680]With a fixed lens, how can they? 2/3" sensors are old news.

That's what Meryem was saying though, things have changed - a lot!
Sacrlet now no longer has a fixed lens, and it can gave a 35mm sensor if you want! Check the link RED DIGITAL CINEMA - EPIC & SCARLET REVEALED if you haven't already, it's an amazing read - whether we'll ever get it is another matter, but if it was here now I'd go straight out and look at it - with my chequebook!!!
Steve

I disagree - they have already done this with a stills camera, and unlike Sony or Panny, they don't have top-line broadcast equipment price points to protect. On the contrary, they are perfectly positioned to do this - they've already done it, they just need to make a true video camera, rather than a stills cam that does a little video.

They don't sell tons of video cameras, which is not a big market for them, but they do sell tons of lenses - that's an exponentially bigger business for them, and as this hybridization movement gains traction, why not capitalize on the lens end?

People are falling all over themselves to find solutions to mount Canon's electronic lenses on RED cameras, why not a Canon lens on a Canon camera?

But if Canon could do it then Sony or Panasonic could, so why haven't they? 'Cos they can't upto the quality and operational standards their users require.

Steve

see above...canon is not similarly encumbered...

I'm sure Sony and Panna do want to protect their other high price product lines, but that's not the whole story. If they could do it they would do, you surely can't be thinking that the managers at Canon would read this thread and think "yeah, a high spec, industry-leading camera at a fraction of the price of its competitors, damn, I wish we'd thought of that sooner, 'cos we can do it no problem".
Steve

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with Canon's upper end.. They produce the front ends for a great many studio camreas. They don't do the VTR sections, but those front ends approach 6 figures.

I don't think people are falling over themselves to mount Canon glass on REDs. I get the impression that Cookes, Arris, and Zeiss glass is serving the need pretty well.

As far as what "Canon have already done", I haven't seen it. Yes, they have a digital still camera that shoots at movie speed, but that doesn't make it a movie camera any more than it makes my EX1 a stills camera. Where's my sound? And if we're going to be forced to shoot MOS (which is fine) where's my genlock and timecode?

If you want to compare this camera to an EX1 and an HPX, that's one thing. But when you start talking about it playing in the league of 35mm sensor cameras, it's not playing with a full deck. And if you want to even compare it to the handycam market, you better put sound on it. And some reasonable frame rates too. Might be nice to hook a monitor to it so we could get critical focus on moving subjects.

That's what I'm saying, six figure front ends are one thing but we're talking about industry-leading kit for 4 figure sums here - that's what some folks are saying about the 5d Mkii and I just don't think it's possible, you can get some good specs but only by cutting corners - how serious those cut corner are depend on the sort of work and market you have.
Steve

If NOTHING else, you are going to cut corners on the glass. Let's be honest, in under $10k cameras the two biggest letdowns are the glass and the codec. No full raster 4:2:2 codecs in anything in this price range, and no really good glass either. Making a cinema class zoom for under $10k is unattainable at this point. So we KNOW that's the letdown. Maybe if Canon could get away with not putting a lens on the thing, and licensing Cineform RAW they'd be onto something. Hopefully, they'll be smart and put HD-SDI on it too.

Not sure that's really true, not in terms of sharpness etc anyway, pretty sure Canon or Nikon top-grade stills lenses would be in at least the same ballpark as Zeiss/Cookes etc., it's focus breathing etc., where they fall down. I've used Nikon on the Phantom HD and they look top-notch, and haven't there been some features shot where Nikons were used a lot I seem to recall?
Steve

Yes, if you use them as locked down PRIMES that's fine. It's what happens when you need to use them like you would a film camera, that they start to fall down. Pull focusing, rack focusing, etc. Stuff that no one sees on stills.

I've shot canon and nikon still. Back before they recorded to cards. Canon pissed me off enough with the mount changes from my AE1 to my T70, to my EOS10s, that I abandoned the entire lot and went to a Nikon F4s.

I'm happy to buy Nikon glass, but I'll leave Canon to those who haven't been burned. And both need to stay out of the cinema camera business as far as I'm concerned.

What is "front ends" - is that a euphemism for "lenses"? If so, I'm fairly familiar with their line-up, and I don't really see where your point is actually making a point...lenses are not cameras. The distribution of more recording devices (a euphemism for "cameras"...) works to their advantage and does not cannibalize their top line, on the contrary, more "recording devices" in the field works to their advantage.

There is nothing in a full sensor prosumer program that would cannibalize their top line lenses - on the contrary, they would probably open up the market to a broader audience.

Just as RED has enticed users into paying more for lenses than for cameras. Just as Canon broadcast lenses are being used on far less expensive RED camera systems. Recording devices are getting better and cheaper. Lens technology still maintains its value (though this too may change, as RED is starting the process of deflating price points in the lens space as well...).

But Canon can actually be the beneficiary of all of these innovations in cheaper recording devices. Because lenses are much more of a core business for Canon than cameras -- at every level, consumer, prosumer, and professional, this is true. I had a conversation with a Canon developer at NAB who made this quite clear.

Lenses are where they make their money, and cameras are really a vehicle for them to sell more lenses. That's their model - that's what the Canon rep told me. For every cheapie Rebel they sell, as a f'r instance, 3 expensive lenses fly off the shelf.

As for your comment that people are not falling all over themselves to mount Canon glass on RED cameras, well that is just flat-out wrong. Actually, there is an enormous demand for a device which will permit the use of L lenses on RED cameras - not everyone can afford Cooke, Arri, or Zeiss glass, and Canon L lenses are considered a very desirable alternative. Also, there are quite a few applications where L lens electronics capabilities are very desirable - there is an underwater housing manufacturer who has based his product line on the marriage of L glass with RED systems.

There are many situations where L glass would be preferable to cine glass, for weight reduction, price, electronics...many documentary situations make these lenses a desirable alternative. These Canon adapters have already traveled around the world with Rodney Charters...

reelshow

I own a set of Arri Master Primes, and they are not always the right tool for the job, not matter how outstanding the image. They are very sensitive pieces of equipment. You can't throw them in a backpack and take them around the world. You can't screw on filters on the fly, and they require the additional weight of a mattebox.

There are very good reasons why these are not the only lenses that I own or use on a RED camera, and I know the user base pretty well by now. Nikon, RED lenses, and Canon lenses are probably being used more than Zeiss, Arri, or Cooke, on a day-to-day basis because of the reasons listed above.

Anyway, this is getting off topic. I don't know what Canon will come out with - I didn't say their 5D Mark II was a *good* video camera, its shortcomings for video production are fairly obvious, but I do think it is a pointer towards future prospects of what Canon could possibly bring to the prosumer space, if they wanted to.

SCARLET will be the camera to compete with, in that future space. In fact, they are making a full frame SCARLET that will only window my expensive S35 Arri lenses. The sensor will *only* be covered by full frame 35mm lenses, such as Canon L glass.

And my primary point, which you seem to have missed, was that Canon is the best-positioned company to compete with them, not Sony nor Panny, because lenses are their strong suit and recording devices are a lower margin, lower volume sales product for them. They do not make a $250,000 recording device, like Sony. They can afford to make a $10,000 full frame prosumer camera and then sell their L lenses like fiends...

The full frame SCARLET will have a Canon-adaptable mount built into it - it won't be restricted to a PL mount that is adaptable to other lenses, as RED ONE does. The future RED products will be more lens-agnostic than the current RED ONE. So Canon stands to sell more of these lenses, upon SCARLET's release, anyway. Whether or how they choose to compete with SCARLET at the "recording device" level, remains to be seen.

The PL mount on the RED One is not "adaptable" to others, it comes off and is replaced by the Nikon, so no reason why you couldn't put an EOS front on it is there? Just the lack of iris control. That was always my understanding, or am I mistaken?
Steve

well, "just lack of iris control" has meant that the original 3rd-party mount has remained elusive and in development for about two years...and been the source of much controversy over its impact on voiding RED's warranty. So the Nikon mount, with no such problems, became available about six months after RED's release, while the Canon (Birger) mount is still only shipping in limited quantities, two years later. Another 3rd-party developer is shipping a Canon dumb mount, but that means that you can only set the aperture by having on-site a Canon camera, setting the aperture, and then switching the lens to the RED camera. Doable but certainly inconvenient.

So, no, the path to Canon L glass on RED cameras has been anything but easy...

Anyway, this is veering really off-topic, so I think that anymore questions about how RED works and how 3rd party accessories work with it, should be re-directed to the RED forum, and leave this thread to the Canon H1 v. Sony EX-1 debate. I only brought up RED because I think Canon is well-suited to surpass the EX-1 and compete with SCARLET in the same prosumer space -- but that's futuristic thinking, and this thread is about right now...