Is the xhal capeable of full HD at 1920X1080 if I record to a hard drive as opposed to tape?

When I record onto my DN-60, the resulting files are 1920x1080.

What device are you wanting to record onto?

Hi

You can't get full HD 1920x1080 from the XH-A1 as the CCD chip is 1440x1080. If you somehow manage to get 1920x1080 with an external recorder, it's the recorder that converts the 1440x1080 signal to full HD. The chip itself is not capable to do that.


Regards,

/Bo

I think XH-A1 is just like HV20/HV30/HV40 sensor is capable of full HD 1920x1080. It's the HDV compression makes it 1440x1080. So if you can bypass storing to tape (record directly through HDMI), you can get 1920x1080 resolution.

I'm pretty sure the XHA1 does not have HDMI out. If you record via the Firewire output then I believe the HDV compression has already taken place, but the recorder might be reinterpreting it. When I record the uncompressed signal from the SDI out of the XLH1 the nanoflash certainly produces 1920 x 1080.

When I work with HDV clips in post they are always 1440x1080 to begin with, but this is 1.333 anamorphic so the ratio (16:9) is essentially still the same as 1920x1080 (also 16:9 because 1.333 x 1440 = 1920).

When you output in post with the result will be 1920 x 1080.

Oh I might have confused it with HV30 HDMI out. ... sorry

Is the xhal capeable of full HD at 1920X1080 if I record to a hard drive as opposed to tape?

No.

When I record onto my DN-60, the resulting files are 1920x1080.

Actually, they are HDV 1440x1080, but they are played back with a 1.33 PAR (pixel aspect ratio) to give a 1920x1080 image.

it's the recorder that converts the 1440x1080 signal to full HD. The chip itself is not capable to do that.


The XH-A1 will de-squeeze the 1440x1080 to 1920x1080 for the component video out, but it of course still has less resolution than if the sensor were actually 1920x1080.

I record the XH-A1 video out with a BlackMagic Design Intensity Shuttle.

Yep it's 1440x1080. Pixel's are a different aspect ratio, what is the issue with 1440 though? HDCAM is 1440.... You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two.

Okay,

I'm a bit confused. Some are saying, "Yes while other are saying, "No". Which answer is correct? I can say that I have recorded to both my MacBook Pro hard drive as well as both HDV HD and Mini DV tapes. Per my observation, the footage does tend to look better from the hard drive. Having the XHA1s, I can confirm that the camera has what I refer to as a non-traditional HDMI out. But what does that really mean. Isn't 720P considered HD as well. Also, if the video that's being captured isn't being burned to a blue ray DVD, what difference if any will it make? I'm just asking because like many here, I'm just learning.

Having the XHA1s, I can confirm that the camera has what I refer to as a non-traditional HDMI out .

Er, hello, hold the phone, when did it aquire that? News to Canon, they deny all knowledge.


Isn't 720P considered HD as well.

Certainly it is, but the Canon doesn't O/P or record it, so it's a totall red herring in this discussion.


the footage does tend to look better from the hard drive.

If the footage was recorded live to a system directly via the IEEE 1394 port, it would, as it hasn't undergone the compression necessary to cram that data onto a MiniDV tape.

Once the data stream has been compressed, data in excess of the bandwidth limit of the tape is simply tossed overboard and is lost forever. It is exceedingly easy to blow this bandwidth limit in HDV by simply panning/ tilting too fast, which causes the well known HDV "smear" as the background turns to mush.

This explains the popularity of "on camera" HD recorders which bypass this compression by taking the uncompressed data stream from the IEEE 1394 port, exactly the same as recording directly to your PC/ Mac.

I'm a bit confused

If the designers of HDV had tried to use 1920 X 1080 sensors and data streams, the HDV compression would have had to throw so much data away, the picture would have been unusable.

Hence why they decided on 1440 X 1080, it's not a camera limitation, purely a mini DV tape limitation, which was the only game in town when the format was being hammered out.

Does that make things any clearer?


CS

My apologies, it looks like I am mistaken. It is an HD component out.

If the footage was recorded live to a system directly via the IEEE 1394 port, it would, as it hasn't undergone the compression necessary to cram that data onto a MiniDV tape.

I hesitate to question the Oracle, but are you sure about this? Isn't the compression done before it reaches the Firewire output? Is it not reduced to 25 Mb/s for both tape and Firewire?

These coal-fired cameras are wonderful (I still swear by mine) but one begins to forget ...

FireWire output is indeed compressed. You get 25Mbps HDV 1440x1080 from FireWire.

On the A1 / A1S sister camera, that is the XH G1 or XH G1S, you have uncompressed output over SDI.

Huh! About 5 minutes after I posted, I started thinking, "are you sure about that, there's alarm bells going off for some reason?".

Guess that 'ol senior moment struck yet again, dang.

Better go back to dropping that V8 into my Zimmer frame, it's safer!


CS

@ Chris Hurd: What does the 25 Mbps do for me using my XHA1 and/or XHA1s. Also, are you saying that it does shoot in the 1080P or is it just between 720P and 1080P; if there is such a display? This is all new to me so I can appreciate any help that you or anyone else in this forum can provide.

The NTSC XH-A1s video recording system is:
HDV (High Definition Video 1080i (which as noted above is 1.33 pixel aspect ratio 1440x1080)
DVC (Consumer Digital Video) in SD (which has non-square pixels in 4:3 or 16:9 screen aspect, 720x480 pixels)

The television system is either HDV at 1080/60i or SD EIA standard at 525/60 fields.

The CCDs have about 1.56 megapixels effective, and use horizontal pixel shift (FWIW: first document by Canon with the XL1) to obtain 1920x1080 output and 1920x1080 stills on the memory card.

It also has a 30P and 24P mode.

It does not record or output 1080P or 720P.

25 Mbps is the data rate recorded to tape, and sets the pragmatic limit on signal bandwidth and thus resoluton, color depth, audio bandwidth, etc. While both SD (DVC) and HDV use the same bandwidth on tape, the compression used is different, thus the roughly 4x higher resolution HDV signal fits into the older DVC standard bandwidth on tape.

As a point of reference, the highest quality AVCHD found on common prosumer camcorders is often 1920x1080 pixels with a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio. Data rates depend on the level of compression selected. The Canon XA-10 allows selection of several data rates up to 24 Mbps. However, rates of 12 Mbps and lower are 1440x1080 with non-square pixels.

Needless it gets complicated as one considers all the options and then factors in the Blu-ray standards just for kicks. (What happened to the simple days of S-VHS, Hi-8, and even MiniDV when the only option was a somewhat lame widescreen 16x9.)

This gets more complicated for me as I continue to read but I really appreciate the thoroughness of the responses. In the most recent post, it was said that the XA-10 records at 24 mbps which seems to be slower than the XHA1s which was said to record at 25 Mbps. Am I to assume that the faster the Mbps the better quality of the video.

Hi Maurice,

The XH series cameras record HDV while the XA10 records AVCHD. You have to take into account that HDV and AVCHD are two completely different codecs. You just can't make a 1:1 comparison between them based on bit rate alone as that does not give you any insight as to what is really happening with regard to image quality.

They way they actually stack up to each other is that AVCHD at 24 Mbps is better than HDV at 25 Mbps. I can't recall the AVCHD data rate that roughly equals HDV -- keep in mind that HDV is fixed at 25 Mbps while AVCHD is usually offered at a choice of bit rates -- but I believe it's AVCHD at 17 Mbps that is the most direct comparison to HDV.

The key thing to understand is that bite rate alone doesn't determine image quality. You have to factor in a number of variables, chief among them being how efficient the codec is. That said, the primary advantage of HDV over AVCHD is that it's easier to edit, especially on slightly older NLE systems. With AVCHD, you're going to need a newer, faster computer (unless you've just recently bought one).

Hope this helps,

This is great!

Thanks Chris, I'll shoot some footage using the two formats as I have both HDV and non Tape based HD cameras to compare the two sometime later today.

Sounds good, Maurice... you might have to look closely though, as many people (myself included) cannot visually discern any difference between identical scenes shot in HDV vs. AVCHD.

Workflow (in post, tape vs. flash) is the most notable difference.

Okay with that being said, I'm sure from my posts you can tell that I am not as experience as some of the others on here nor is my understanding as thorough. I am currently shooting weddings, church functions and so on. I charge a somewhat modest rate for my services but have been struggling with thoughts of upgrading to the XF100 x2 and an XF300. I am currently shooting with an XHA1s an XHA1 and an HF-s20. If a trained eye can't necessarily see the difference, is it sensible to even consider an upgrade at this point. I welcome the feedback from everyone.

Thanks again Chris!

At last with the Canon XA10, 24 Mbps and 17 Mbps are 1920x1080 resolution, while 12 Mbps and lower are 1440x1080 resolution. On the basis of resolution only the 25 Mbps HDV corresponds to 12 Mbps on AVCHD. These would probably be a resonable quality match under good shooting conditions.
However, as Chris notes image quality is more than just bit rate or resolution. A higher bit rate will allow higher image quality, other things being equal, but they rarely are.

A lot of visual image quality is how the camcorder is setup and the viewing system used. It is always best to shoot/edit/produce with the final use inmind.