Hi Barry, no 720p at all, sorry.

I'd like quite a few more technical details on the SDI interface. Yes I know others have asked, but this is the standout feature.

I won't repeat the myriad questions.

What I've read so far indicates the viewfinder will be 2.4" 16:9 with ~215,000 pixels.

That is not enough at all. Not even for SD 16:9 in my opinion.

Is this accurate, and will Canon or others of whom Canon is aware be providing higher end viewfinders ?

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but the thread is long and I might have missed it.

Why a servo zoom with no way to over-ride that function? The servo prevents so many things from being possible - a fast rack focus is one. We can not call a camera "professional" unless it allows such a staple function. Other than that, it looks like a great camera although the $9k is a tad much to pay for interchangeable lenses - of course if they could be made manual...

Hi Ozzie, good to hear from you. There is a focus preset function on the 20x HD lens for performing rack moves, with a choice of focus speeds (fast, faster, and fastest).

Chris,
Does the FU-1000 monchrome viefinder work with it? Any advantages if it does? I seemed to notice the 'lower port' for the FU-1000 viewfinder plug on the body.

Chris,

Maybe I'm just "old school" but a simple manual focus and manual zoom always works and at whatever speed I want it to work, and I can even change speed in the middle. The presets are great, as is the ability to over-ride the "all auto all the time" functions, but still, I have never understood why not just go all the way with the over-ride functions. Presets are great in the studio where we have the time and need to be right all the time, but in the field where conditions change and we need all the versatility we need, presets can often be a hindrance.

The reason this camera has attracted my attention is because the time has come for HD - all the clients are asking for it, an in 9x16. The camera is the cheapest part of the HD system - the decks, the monitors - that's where the money goes.

ask him/her to visit these forums everyweek (like Jan)

Believe me, I have been hammering on Canon about this for years now.

Jan sets a tough standard for others to follow. The only one who comes close is Ken Freed from JVC. He is a hell of a good guy to know. My only complaint about Ken is that we can't get enough of him.
How sad that you'd have to beg a rep from a manufacturer to be here in a forum that does not even cost Canon any money or resources.

Kudos to Panasonic and JCV. May not have the XL2 next to my signature after my next equipment purchase.

If I was head of marketing for a video manufacturer, it would be a full-time job for someone to be in this forum and others for 8 hours a day.

ALL these people, BUYING all these products, in one very well organized place. About the only place you'd find such a finely tuned target audience is at any of the yearly conventions for this kind of stuff.

Hello Richard,

yes, the Monochrome Viewfinder FU-1000 will be compatible - just have a look here: http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=SNAModelSuppliesAct&fcategoryid=818&modelid=12152.

Maybe I'm wrong on this but I thought I read somewhere in another thread on this forum that the XL-H1 viewfinder is capable of doing color/monochrome switching, not just reduced color like the XL2.

... XL-H1 viewfinder is capable of doing color/monochrome switching, not just reduced color like the XL2.The color EVF has a B/W mode, I'm unaware of how it technically achieves it.

I may be the exception but I had the XL1 and the XL2 and had both 16x and 20x prime lenses and bought the 3x WA (Wide Angle) lenses. The XL1 was a disaster as the viewfinder was nothing short of useless. The XL2 was far better but I had reservations from my XL1 days and that was the interchangable lens. My fear was always getting dust onto the protective glass just behind the lens flange on the camera, therefore I very rarely used the 3x WA lens. My point to all this is that not everyone likes to remove the lens and Canon should have brought out a 20x lens which had a better WA. Everyone without exception likes a WA lens perspective but not everyone is keen to keep removing the 20x lens and anyway this lens is not practicle in a lot of live events where you can't or don't have the time to swap lenses so could Canon produce a 16x WA lens for the H1 please.

Everyone without exception likes a WA lens perspective but not everyone is keen to keep removing the 20x lens and anyway this lens is not practicle in a lot of live events where you can't or don't have the time to swap lenses so could Canon produce a 16x WA lens for the H1 please.

Well, I like the idea, but I'd vote for a 20x 3.5-70mm lens f1.6/2.6. I hope that this might be acheivable in a full manual HD lens. Also, I'd like to see a real iris control, not stepped digital control.

That would be an excellent standard lens. That is a lens that I might never need to take off the camera.

I'd also like a selection of high performance prime XL HD lenses. These should mostly be in the wide angle range, like ~2.5mm

Further, I'd love to see the XL-EOS adapter reduced in price some so I could use EOS primes for my telephoto range. I've only seen EOS lenses used with the XL-1S (not mine- this is pure envy at work) and they produced nice sharp images.

It could be a real alternative to all those mini-35 rigs if done properly.

One thing I question considering the direction the XL H1 is taking is why Canon didn't simply use a 1/3" bayonet mount compatible with the JVC camera.

It seems both Canon and JVC would benefit from such an arrangement because of economies of scale.

My guess is that features like autofocus aren't practical with that arrangement, but I don't know. I'd like to see the professional mounting systems extended to provide that sort of functionality. Canon could certainly drive this.

Autofocus is going to be very important to HD shooters. It is very hard to judge focus with viewfinders even from high end cameras. Even on the Panavision HDCAM's you can misjudge.

Inexperienced camera people will need help.

My point to all this is that not everyone likes to remove the lens and Canon should have brought out a 20x lens which had a better WA. Everyone without exception likes a WA lens perspective but not everyone is keen to keep removing the 20x lens.
I recently sold my XL1 and kept my XL1s. The XL1 went with the "standard" zoom and I kept the WA with the XL1s. I kept the wide angle because I found myself using it more often in interior shoots. I hardly ever needed to change lenses, although often I wished I had a longer zoom. I agree that Canon really needs to bring out a high quality 20x zoom with a reasonable wide angle end. (Especially true since Canon takes pride on the quality of its optics.) I wish they stopped using the "#x" and just publish the wide and long focal lengths. This might be confusing for beginners but then the H1 is not being marketed to beginners.

Regarding auto focus - as long as the view finder is not hires it is a good thing, but a hires VF that "sizzles" when an image is in focus would be a better idea. This is common in most high end cameras. Okay, hires b&w VF cost a lot but they are worth it especially in this market.

BTW, which camera do I use most often? My Sony TRV900 - easy to carry, easy to shoot, and the picture is almost "intercutable" with the Canon. For down and dirty shooting there is no better camera.

While it would be nice to see an actual canon rep on the boards, I do think that they are watching anyone take a look at the xl2 wish list, all of the wildest requests (HD, interchangable lenses. TC in and out a switchable viewfinder for 35 adapters even 24p -ish and greater still camera abilities) have been incoporated into the xl-h1. I think that says something about canon's concern with what the dvinfo users have to say.

I think a 3.5mm 20x wide lens may be a little difficult, I mean a legitmiate 4.7x11 lens for 2/3 inch camera's is 30k+. It would be great to have a wide angle (specificlally a manual one) but I think a 20x wide is a pretty tall order.

Also I think it would probably be cheaper to buy mini35 setup and film primes then a set of hd primes built specfically for this camera.

I do have a question, if someone were to buy this camera and want to use it only for cine style shoots how much do you think they could get for the lens to put toward a mini 35 adapter? Oh and what's the deal on my fa-200? can I use it with this camera or not?

Oh I can guarantee that they watch DV Info Net closely. Not posting or participating is strictly a matter of internal corporate policy. Perhaps we should organize a petition on behalf of the Watchdog? Maybe there would be some sort of response to that.

chris, there could be a direct line of communication between DVI pros using the gear on a frequent basis and Canon themselves. it doesn't have to be everyday but once every year, half year isn't so hard to ask. monthly is stretching it. i think every 1/2 year. and this ain't just canon but Sony, Panasonic, JVC or any other manufactures. i mean us DVI'ers are pretty much a big part of the market. after awhile, consumers around the internet will realize DVI is one of the sole sources directly in touch with the R&D dept of those companies and will come onboard and signup. of course, it also means competitor boards can do similar things =).

HD wide lens is a must. so hopefully, they'll have their own 3x-like HD lens with the wazoo included.

this makes me wanna go back with XL2.

Is there an equivalent 2X extender for the XL H1 as for the XL-1/2?

I think you mean the Canon XL 1.6x Extender... and no this is not recommended for the XL H1 because its optical elements are made to SD specs, not HD.

You are right, the XL extender is a 1.6X.

I am only interested if there is an HD extender for the 20X HD lense that comes with the HD unit. Do you know? I wouldn't expect the XL-1 extender to work. Thanks for your help.

Dean

Why did Canon not build in cheap progressive recording CCDs (e.g. for native 720p) and then use pixel shifting to get 1080p?

Still wondering if anyone knows if there will be an HD extender for the 20X lens that comes with the XL H1. Anyone know?

Thanks, Dean

For Dean, no announcement has been made regarding an HD extender, but I would be surprised if one is not in the works!

Chris, any word on footage?

Of course like everyone its the 24F footage I'm interested in?

Hi Gary,

I have a movie clip from my digicam in which I shot the XL H1 image right off the monitor. I'll have it available here shortly, just as soon as I can work out the bugs...

If you want an extender, I would suggest buying an EOS adapter and
using 35mm glass. All extenders have a tendency to soften the image.
Sometimes that is okay (faces), sometimes it isn't (detail). The 7.2X
factor provided by EOS/35mm glass will give you the telephoto
you really want.

Okay Canon, get on this one. We want you to license and deliver this
technology in a battery powered porta pack (or on board a camcorder).

http://videosystems.com/e-newsletters/HD_Disc_Contenders092205/

Okay Canon, get on this one. We want you to license and deliver this
technology in a battery powered porta pack (or on board a camcorder).

http://videosystems.com/e-newsletters/HD_Disc_Contenders092205/

For those too lazy too read the link, it refers to a Holographic optical disk.

It could store up to 3.9 TBytes, and access it at 1Gbps.

I've actually used a 100GB version of this type of technology. I got ~250Mbps sustained from the drive in read mode. Writes were slower at about 100Mbps.

Despite the hoopla this type of media suffers routinely from reliability issues.

See the way they get all that data and bandwidth out of these systems is by writing more than one bit at a time (per laser pulse... its all in the article.) This system writes 60,000 bits per laser pulse.

While VERY cool, the problem is that the media is about 1000 times more sensitive to vibration than DVD, HD DVD or Blue Ray. They can solve this pretty well for systems that are intended for stationary use. It helps if the system has processing power to do lots of ECC calculations really fast.

As you may know, camcorders are rarely stationary. (Yes yes- GALACTIC understatement.)

The biggest problem with holographic storage research though is that they keep aiming for ever loftier goals and never release. For proof check out the BYTE magazine archives from the late 1980's. You can see claims for 50GB holographic media that's coming out in a few years.

Like I said above these things actually exist right now. THe 39GB version in the article is the size of a credit card, but what really rocks is that the actual media is about as big as an SD flah drive, or a US stamp.

I would like to see a 200GB blue laser version for desktop machines, if they can release it now. That would derail the HD DVD format war rather nicely.

Especially if it could read the big HD DVD formats. That's why I want BLUE LASER.

If Blue Ray and HD DVD are allowed to mature before a release of holographic storage then they'll need vastly improved storage to displace those media. 500GB+

Whatever, just RELEASE SOMETHING NOW because it will never be perfect.

I've read this entire post, and I just want to add, just like others have done, that we need more lenses. I'm hesitant to sell my XL2 (which I just bought -- sorry for me) and get the XL H1 because there isn't more than one HD lens availalbe.

I love my 16x servo, and 3x wide angle, and rarely use the 20x lens that came with the camera. But I'm not going to use SD lenses on an HDV camera.

Also, what's the deal with 35mm lenses? They're standard def, right? So why the heck would I use SD lenses on a HDV camera? Does anyone know if any of the 35mm lenses are considered "HD"?

Hello, is anyone listening? :) I REALLY hope that the 16x Servo is the next lens on the list to be "HD-ified." And I must say that LONGER lenses are important to everyone in the wildlife filmmaking industry. So many of us use this camera. I'd love to see a 500mm HD prime. :) (or at least a zoom that goes out to this length).

But the real question is, do we just wait for REAL HD... that's what I was hoping Canon would do, skip over HDV and go right to HD. Sony is currently making their HD cams smaller - heck the HD 900 will be put in a casing the size of the 730s now. It's coming fast, and I'm anticipating a XL-HD in a year or two --wishful thinking :)

Can I just say I love this board?

Also, what's the deal with 35mm lenses? They're standard def, right? So why the heck would I use SD lenses on a HDV camera? Does anyone know if any of the 35mm lenses are considered "HD"?35mm still photo lenses already resolve to higher-than-HD standards, so they're all considered "HD." Just make sure that you're not using the cheap glass like the throw-away lenses given away with inexpensive SLR's like the old 35mm Canon Rebel G. If you stick with Canon "L" series glass (with the red ring around the lens barrel), you'll have more than enough optical quality for HD.

And I must say that LONGER lenses are important to everyone in the wildlife filmmaking industry. So many of us use this camera. I'd love to see a 500mm HD prime. :) (or at least a zoom that goes out to this length).You can always use 35mm EF lenses for this purpose, and besides, the stock 20x HD lens on the XL H1 gives you more than 700mm.

But the real question is, do we just wait for REAL HD... that's what I was hoping Canon would do, skip over HDV and go right to HD.HDV recording on the XL H1 should not have come as a surprise since it's no secret that Canon has been part of the HDV consortium from the beginning. And HDV is real HD, just ask the people that have been using it. Any other HD tape recording format would have just about tripled the price of the XL H1... for example a DVCPRO HD tape transport costs about $16,000 all by itself. It's highly doubtful that Panasonic or Sony would have allowed Canon to put one of their HD formats on the XL H1 anyway. But you do have uncompressed HD out from the XL H1 as it is, through the HD-SDI connection, so you can record to any HD format you choose onto whatever High Definition VTR you've rented for your shoot. So you can say that Canon did in fact "go right to HD." It's whatever HD flavor you want it to be, whatever you've budgeted for. Rent an HDCAM deck for a week and bypass HDV completely if you want.

chris brings up an interesting point that i'd like to see more examples on. been browsing the HD editing sections lately and i'd love to see more HDV footages, raw vs. SD. i think just a few seconds of it is good enough (won't take up 2much space). just make the footages have some details (cloth, fabric/texture). why are people bashing HDV? i've seen some footages of the JVC HD cam and it looks pretty good on a 40+ samsung HDTV.

The vast majority of those who "bash HDV" are people who have never once used it. These are the type who get hung up on numbers and specifications... for example the issue of compression... heavier compression is not a bad thing at all when it's done right. For example nobody seems to complain about the H.264 spec, it is only 8mbps, I've seen it projected on a large screen and it looks awesome. Thankfully the "HDV bashers" are a rare breed on DV Info Net; we do our best to discourage those nay-sayers who have no pratical experience with the whatever they're trying to talk trash about.

agreed, A lot of people have no clue about specs and especially withbroadcast. So long as the picture quality is good, and your delivery is on an exceptable format. Mini Dv is not a broadcast standard, but most will broadcast it. Some HD stations do require no more the 10 or 20% of content to be HDV, with exception if the film is say about everest, and the weight of the camera is a factor.

In theory, everything in a imaged is compressed regardless of format, it s a replication of life, and the only thing that matters is how well what ever the format you use, replicates.

If you want to complain, it can be graphic and effects people doing compositing, because rendering out DV causes artifacting.

My theory is if it looks good, and has a great story, and somebody will air it, that is all you need. People over look the story part and that is why TV is so bad for the most part.

Ofcourse, i'd love to have a 90k Vari-Cam to shoot on.

plus, when you downconvert from HDV, doesn't regular SD DVD look better than regular DV to SD DVD?

The vast majority of those who "bash HDV" are people who have never once used it. These are the type who get hung up on numbers and specifications... for example the issue of compression... heavier compression is not a bad thing at all when it's done right. For example nobody seems to complain about the H.264 spec, it is only 8mbps, I've seen it projected on a large screen and it looks awesome. Thankfully the "HDV bashers" are a rare breed on DV Info Net; we do our best to discourage those nay-sayers who have no pratical experience with the whatever they're trying to talk trash about.
It is easy to get hung up on technical nonsense.

Still there are many valid reasons for working with other formats.

Compression IS an issue.

Of course it is never as easy as saying that "HDV sucks" or that "HDV is great." It is a compromise, and a complicated one.

HDV was designed to make it possible to acquire good images with a cheap camera. It does the job.

HDV was not designed for complex editing, but it can be edited effectively. Mostly this just entails throwing CPU power at the problems of HDV editing, and current machines can handle this with aplomb.

HDV was not designed for compositing, but within limits it can be composited very well. For example it makes a great background layer in any composite. As composites get more complex, HDV is less suitable.

Examples of composite situations where HDV breaks down are lace, long hair and spill suppression.

The next step up intraframe compressed formats like DVCPRO HD and HDCAM. For fairly modest upgrade in disk requirements you get a much better edit and composite codec.

DVCPRO HD handles lace and spill suppression much better than HDV, but can still be tripped up. Compositing long human hair remains an issue, but you can throw some time and procesing power at it and get good results.

Uncompressed formats give you the best results possible. Even at this "ultimate" quality level you can find images unmanageable. For example 35mm film has issues with grain. Grain is often removed as a precompositing step. It is often added to the image after the composite is complete.

Its all about how you intend to use it.

I suggest using a mix of formats as your production requirements change.

For many that will mean that HDV will be used all the time if HD is used at all.

My advice to everyone however is to learn in detail what the limits of the formats are, and when you need to press for higher end acquisition.

Nice balanced post - and 100% correct!

plus, when you downconvert from HDV, doesn't regular SD DVD look better than regular DV to SD DVD?

Does HDV produce a better image for DVD output than SD camera recording.

With DVD as the final output I would say no.

HDV's main benefit over DV is raw resolution. It is worse than DV in many other regards. (Of course I love resolution... so its a good trade off.)

DVD throws away all the extra resolution, so in the end you gain all of HDV's problems and get none of its advantages.

DV is a better acquisition format for projects destined for DVD only. Notice the last part.

If you want or need better images for DVD release, then shoot a better quality SD format, like say DVCPRO 50 instead. The Canon XL-H1 allows uncompressed SD SDI output as well, so I can record DVCPRO 50, DigiBeta or even just raw uncompressed SD.

These basically give better color data. DVCPRO 50 and Digibeta are 4:2:2 formats. So if you want quality similiar to them for DVD distribution with HD acquistion you have to look at DVCPRO HD or HDCAM.

Now, I believe that our industry is in transition and we have to consider future viewing of our video. That means considering HD.

If you plan on making a future HD product (say a Blue Ray disc) then HDV has one HUGE advantage over any SD format: Resolution.

The best SD images don't upconvert to HD very well. They always look out of focus compared to material acquired in HD.

Of course while HDV looks decent often, it is NOT as good for HD production as DV is for SD production. You have to move up from HDV to a better format faster than you had to with DV in SD.

I hope that last bit made sense.

So... there you have it. Up to you to decide how your footage will be used today, next week, next year and in ten years. Then you can decide what format to shoot.

Of course, rather than obsess about all this I agree with Mike Dalton... it is always preferable to focus on STORY than technology. If its a good show except for technical issues viewers will still accept it.