I think yes, particularly since you can deliver HD via web (DivX, WMV or H264).
Just this morning I watched some beautifully shot video (XL2) on a HD television. It was simply amazing.

From what I've seen thus far of HD, it simply isn't worth the expense, not for me or my clients (so far). And, as I've said before, web delivery is a not an option, so it can't be taken seriously as an alternative to DVDs.

As I can clearly see that I've reached the point of repeating myself in these discussions, I have, obviously, nothing else to say on the matter.

Ya'all have fun!

Jay

I think yes, particularly since you can deliver HD via web (DivX, WMV or H264).

Thanks Stephen. I've seen some nice footage in WMV and H264 from regular DV., but all day a question I posted earlier in the thread has gone unanswered with the exception of Steve's post with his movie link, and Kevin Dooley's helpful comment about how most people are posting in raw footage formats that can be looked at in NLE's -

*** Where's all of the great edited HDV footage that everybody's getting?
In Quicktime, Windows Media Player or Flash formats that is.

OR, is this the point where one can say, the HDV solution is good for HDTV's but not for the web?

Yes HD can be delivered via the Internet, but how's it look after it's been compressed in Sorneson, Compressor or any other web compression software? Even if you compress it so it looks good and is 3 times the file size of SD footage?

Once it's gone through the compression can you even tell a difference between HD and SD - on the Internet?

Once it's gone through the compression can you even tell a difference between HD and SD - on the Internet?

You're welcome. Browse on over to www.DivX.com and there are some HD trailers you can download. You're in for a treat.

Just thought i'd post a link to some great HDV footage over on Apple's site. I couldn't see any previous replies in this thread mentioning this footage so I hope I'm not repeating anything.

Firstly however I should mention that this footage can only be viewed with Quicktime 7 (it's H.264) for either Windows or Mac (which seems to have now been officially released for Windows). I know that some people had compatability problems with Premiere and the pre-release versions of Quicktime 7, so be wary, but I figured I'd bite the bullet and go for it and have experienced NO problems at all.

HDV Gallery of Footage:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

Particularly good Music Video:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/tobymacgone.html

I think the footage looks pretty incredible, and the music video even in the lower quality format is unbelievably sharp and crisp, and at 76mb is pretty impressive compression.

As for the whole XL2 vs XL H1, I recently bought an XL2, and am not disapointed at all with this news. I don't personally think that HDV is going to take off, I think by the time consumers have caught up in order to justify the widespread use of HDV then a new format will have arrived which will utterly trounce it, and consumers will buy that. It's a bit like BetaMax in a way, or Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD. One day there will be a winner, but it wont be for another five years at least, and ultimately the average consumer will decide.

Thanks Andrew and Steve. I'm looking forward to seeing these, and will give a totally unbiased opinion when I return to this thread.

And you can leave Microsoft out. Their wmv codec is great as well.

Click here for content (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/content_provider/film/ContentShowcase.aspx)

Derek my point was just that given your setup if you decided to go HDV there would be no need to spend any extra cash outside of the cost of the camera, your current system could support it.

I think the SD 24p vs HDV is going to be a subjective issue for you. If you're clients don't care and you're broadcasting on the web and you don't see a need for it what specifications or head to head shots are going to make a difference? If you feel the need to go HD then this is a great product for you, if not then you have the best prosumer SD camera on the market. I think the market is moving toward HD but that might not effect you until the next round of camera's come out. Either way teh xl2 is still a good camera, and only you know what needs will serve you best.

Steve, I had to go the apple site first, just because I'm familiar with it, but will be visiting your link next.

Andrew,

So far I've watched the BBC Africa and Aimee Mann videos. Both had very nice detail. I was a little dissapointed with the saturation of color on the Africa video although the detail was excellent.

Then, I hit the Aimee Mann Video and any concerns I had about HDV displaying nice full, saturated colors were gone.

This is very nice. I'm going to keep watching them. But now, my big question would be -

Were these shot with prosumer level Sony or JVC HD cam's?
Is that known?
And then followed up with -
What kind of editing suites were used?

Not that I expect you to know Andrew, just posting these questions for anyone, or if you know that would be great.

Basically, I just want to figure out if these were shot and just as important, edited with affordable (affordable for most people that is) equipment that I could set my sights on eventually acquiring? Or were they shot using $50,000 to $100,000 HD cams and edited in $40,000 to $50,000 suites.

Please know that I'm just talking equipment here. I realize this footage was shot and edited by people whose skills are highly superior to mine... for now.

Nick,

Thanks for your comments above. If I can edit with my current set up and don't need to add anything else to it and can shoot the quality of footage as displayed in the above links (shooting and editing skills aside, as I know I'm not a professional) with a currently available HDV camera then I'll have to look at aquiring a HD100 or Z1 before the end of the year.

Andrew,

Yeah, so far the Toby Mac video has been the best out of the three. It was good to see the wide range of colors and how effects could be added in.

Steve,

I'm downloading some of the movies you posted links to now.

Andrew,

Yeah, so far the Toby Mac video has been the best out of the three. It was good to see the wide range of colors and how effects could be added in.

Steve,

I'm downloading some of the movies you posted links to now.

Derek,

This following video is not canned. It was shot by Nate Weaver on an HD-100 (JVC) and edited by me on Liquid 6.1.Click here (wmv) (http://www.planetliquid.us/web_video/szn89productions/szn89hdv30p.wmv)

Here is the iso (http://home.comcast.net/~stephenlnoe/30p_hdv.iso) of the same footage that will burn to a DVD so you can check it out on a TV.

I've worked a lot with HDV over the last year and the new cameras have really upped the ante for content producers being able to get broadcast quality.

One more for the road Click here (wmv) (http://www.planetliquid.us/web_video/szn89productions/szn89transition.wmv). This one was shot once again by Nate Weaver and edited by me. These are just examples of straight video.

good luck

Just thought i'd post a link to some great HDV footage over on Apple's site.


Andrew,

I could be wrong, but I don't think the footage available on the Apple site is from consumer HDV video cameras. At least I see no mention at all regarding HDV. I'm pretty sure the sources of those videos are film and full blown HD cameras. I don't think that footage is indicative of what you'll get with an under $10,000 video camera.

Stephen,

I'll check it out right now. Looking forward to it and thanks for going to the trouble to make the .wmv's. I know time is money to everyone here. I'm sure several others will watch it as well.

"edited on Liquid 6.1"

Is that around the same price range with the same features as Final Cut Pro 5?

- - - -

Off Topic - Stephen, any relation to Brett Noe?

Stephen,

I'll check it out right now. Looking forward to it and thanks for going to the trouble to make the .wmv's. I know time is money to everyone here. I'm sure several others will watch it as well.

"edited on Liquid 6.1"

Is that around the same price range with the same features as Final Cut Pro 5?

- - - -

Off Topic - Stephen, any relation to Brett Noe?

OT: Noe ;-)

On Topic: I don't know what FCP is going for these days, I'd heard $999. Either way FCP, Liquid 6.1 and soon Avid XpressPro are native HDV editors so the editing is fast and smooth.

Click here for Liquid 6.1 turnkey details (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=368188&is=REG&addedTroughType=search) or you can go to www.pinnaclesys.com to check out Liquid.

good luck..

"Noe" , that's good ;)

(downloading your movie now).

Stephen,

I'm sure I'm doing something wrong here, but I tried to download it by clicking the link you posted and got a white screen. So then I right-clicked and saved the link to my desktop. After the movie loaded (around 21k or so), I clicked it to play. It played, but still only with the white screen. I made a screen shot for you and posted it here, for your reference:

http://www.thisis24p.com/movie.html

I could hear it. It sounded like some water, perhaps rain or a stream or river, but I could not see it.

If it's not a quick fix with something I may be doing wrong, please don't go to any trouble trying to fix it. I don't want you to spend any extra time on it just for me. Thank you though.

Oh, was using Quicktime. The first time was 7.0.1 then I did an update to 7.0.2. I'm on a Mac G5 with OSX 10.4.2.

Hey Derek,

If your are using qtime under windows. You need to dowload the latest player that can handle the h.264 codec. Head over to this link

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/win.html

and click the standalone player link to the right of the page (kind of hidden) to update quicktime for HD (h.264) playback...... Worth the upgrade. Video clarity for this codec is impressive...... GOOD LUCK.

Thanks, but I can see this H264 file just fine:

Some footage from a soon to be released tour DVD of Hawaii's Big Island. Enjoy: http://www.hdvd2go.com/BigIsland_h264.html

(This was posted by Kalani Prince in another thread)

Also, I don't have my FCP 5 box or instructions with me, but I thought it came with the right version of Quicktime to view h.264????

... and I'm using a Mac.

Appreciate your effort though.

No problem Derek.

Mac user huh? You take her of any swwweeettt jumps<Napaleon Dynamite Quote>.

Thanks for the link though, it was a treat. Do you have any info on the production..... Primarly the camer setup they used......


Thanks

Eli,

Napaleon Dynamite - That's a GREAT movie. Here's a link where Kalani's movie was discussed. It was shot with a XL2.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=47777

Oh, was using Quicktime. The first time was 7.0.1 then I did an update to 7.0.2. I'm on a Mac G5 with OSX 10.4.2.


You'll need Media Player to view wmv's.

Click here and get it for OSX (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/download/AllDownloads.aspx?displang=en&qstechnology=)

To play media player files you'll need media player.

Stephen,

Thanks for the link to the OSX version of Windows Media Player, but I've opened several .wmv files within Quicktime using Flip4Mac. I'd prefer not to download Windows Media Player at this time, so I'll try to find a PC with Windows Media Player on it Friday.

You probably can't view them in QT because they are encoded high definition files not SD. Until Friday, I've posted some DivX AVI's over on cow for another user. You should be able to open them up if you have DivX codec installed.

Here's the link (http://forums.creativecow.net/cgi-bin/new_read_post.cgi?forumid=125&postid=855192)

good luck

[QUOTE=Nick Hiltgen]

But more to the point, Do a lot of people color correct off of the LCD displays? I was under the impression that it might be better to color correct off of a CRT.


Most likely, as nice as the panel Mac monitors are I liked my CRT cinema displays better for "viewing angle" purposes. They were just too old and bulky and, heh... they didn't look as cool as my flat panels!
But being a professional artist who works in Photoshop, Iluustrator, etc...accurate color is important in the monitor(s) I use.
Truly sad I could not seem to find a 23" without that pinkish cast. And this was only two weeks ago.
The 20"s will serve me fine for now.

[QUOTE=Nick Hiltgen]

But more to the point, Do a lot of people color correct off of the LCD displays? I was under the impression that it might be better to color correct off of a CRT.


Most likely, as nice as the panel Mac monitors are I liked my CRT cinema displays better for "viewing angle" purposes. They were just too old and bulky and, heh... they didn't look as cool as my flat panels!
But being a professional artist who works in Photoshop, Iluustrator, etc...accurate color is important in the monitor(s) I use.
Truly sad I could not seem to find a 23" without that pinkish cast. And this was only two weeks ago.
The 20"s will serve me fine for now.

Yes you need to correct from a monitor or a very good TV that can be blue balanced. Now Sony's Xbrite HS94P and others like it mimic the phosphors of a CRT and you can blue balance them. Also you do most of your correction from the wave form, vector, histogram, lighning and cube in your color corrector and then check it against the monitor (and then back and forth). Same thing in photoshop using Histograph and other color graphs or using spot colors and pantone mixes in Quark or Illustrator. In this case you're usually legalizing the image against specified IRE settings as well as adjusting colors between cameras.

It's quite expensive schooling to learn all the ins and outs of color ;-)

Stephen,

I think you make a good point, but also, I wonder if maybe you make another as well. When i paint a camera (uh, digitally that is) I use chroma dumonde chip chart (french for really expensive) and a waveform and a vectorscope. Which leads me to believe, if you're going to color correct something and you have access to a waveform, a vectorscope and the other items you spoke of (I'm not familiar with those sorry) how neccessary is it to have a great 5000 dollar (or if you get into the HD world 10,000 dollar) monitor? Does the monitor ever become something of just a reference to what your client will really see on thier home TV?

Does the monitor ever become something of just a reference to what your client will really see on thier home TV?

You hit the nail on the head my brother. It's only reference to the output.

If you're looking at the camera output in the wave form you can get your skin tones right on the IRE you wish and other elements as well. You can make sure the whites aren't blown out and the blacks aren't crushed. Basically you can broadcast legalize the entire image or fix an image in post production just using the waveform. You can color correct off the different scopes and color match using either a histomatch routine or do it manually with a 3 point white balance adjustment. Sound's BIG but it's not that hard to understand once you see it done a few times.

I decided to download the Windows Player, it was not long ago that you had to have Flip4Mac to watch .wmv files on a Mac, but the continued competition between Windows Media Player and Quicktime has eliminated that.

In the Past:
Quicktime = Mac
Media Player = Windows

Now it's wide open and I think that's great, as each one can keep the other in check. And PC and Mac users can use the players they like most. This will keep each one wanting to stay on top with the most (and best) features so they can have more people using it. The speed of progress continues to amaze me.

You hit the nail on the head my brother. It's only reference to the output.
I would say that's a gross over simplification.

Jay

Downloaded Windows Media Player Version 9.

Went to play the movie and got this message:

http://www.thisis24p.com/movie2.html

Played the movie anyway, and running into basically the same thing except this time it's a black screen. I can hear sound, just can't see anything.

http://www.thisis24p.com/movie3.html

I'll go to Microsoft's site and make sure that there is not a more advanced player I can load. When I was given a choice I loaded Version 9 for OSX 10+, which looked to be the most advanced choice possible. But maybe I overlooked a better player. Will any updates here.

- - - - -

It looks like there's only one version higher, it's version 10, but it appears that it's only for Windows XP at this point.

Has anyone else viewing this thread using a Mac been able to see the movie that Stephen has posted? Boyd, can you see them?

Andrew,

I could be wrong, but I don't think the footage available on the Apple site is from consumer HDV video cameras. At least I see no mention at all regarding HDV. I'm pretty sure the sources of those videos are film and full blown HD cameras. I don't think that footage is indicative of what you'll get with an under $10,000 video camera.
I think Damon's right. Please let me know if we are incorrect. If you know that any of the movies posted on Apple's site that showcase HDV and h.264 were made with cameras that cost under $10k, or were edited with a editing suite that cost less than say, $20,000 let everyone reading this thread now (or in the future) know.

Here are the links again, so nobody reading this has to backtrack:

HDV Gallery of Footage:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

Particularly good Music Video:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guid...obymacgone.html

Andrew, the three videos I watched were beautiful, especially the Aimee Mann and Toby Mac videos. I thought the color was a little faded in the Africa video, but that could have been done on purpose. I'd just like to know the camera and editing equipment they used. Was it high dollar stuff, or was it something, that in theory, Boyd Ostroff could make with his Z1 and FCP studio set up, with the right crew, lighting, director skills, etc., etc.?

Stephen,

I guess the same opinions and questions I posted above would apply for the video's posted at DivX and on Microsoft's site as well.

Stephen,

I guess the same opinions and questions I posted above would apply for the video's posted at DivX and on Microsoft's site as well.

YOu know the pisser of it all? QT7Pro does not work correctly on Windows to encode H264!!! Oh well, we tried.

@ Jay Gladwell Of course its a gross oversimplification. This is not a classroom hombre...

Stephen,

You're cool! Let me know if you need anything or want me to test anything out for you in the future to try to get it working.

Yes HD can be delivered via the Internet, but how's it look after it's been compressed in Sorneson, Compressor or any other web compression software? Even if you compress it so it looks good and is 3 times the file size of SD footage?
Looks like we've made some progress on this part of the question.

How's it look?
As I mentioned above, I think the samples of HDV that I saw looked good.
Pretty hefty in size, but that's the price you pay for high-quality movies with very clear detail.

Now we just have to find out what was compressed? Was it footage from under-$10,000 HDV cam's? Or was it footage from camera's and crews that would cost well into the $6 figure range?

Stephen tried his hardest to show me some footage from the HD100 that he and Nate Weaver worked on. I had been wanting to see this even before I started this thread, but I was unable to see it. I could be in the minority here though. For those of you who saw it, any opinions?

So what would happen if I had the HD100 or the Z1 or FX1 (or in the future the XL H1 or DVX200 for that matter) and my client loved the HDV footage that I burned onto a DVD for her. She loved it so much, that she wanted me to put it on her Web site, so clients from all over the world could see it.

What do I tell her?

[Edit: changed the the client from a man to a woman.]

YOu know the pisser of it all? QT7Pro does not work correctly on Windows to encode H264!!! Oh well, we tried.

@ Jay Gladwell Of course its a gross oversimplification. This is not a classroom hombre...
To the point of being misleading. That serves no purpose, homre.

Jay

he wanted me to put it on his Web site, so clients from all over the world could see it. What do I tell him?

You tell him he's got two options:

#1. Stick the HDV files directly online. This would be equivalent to hosting a DV project online as native DV... no one does this.
#2. Compress it to one of the web-delivery codecs - be it WMV or H.264 (preferably both). It is also recommended that you make smaller web-deliverables at SD and lower resolutions in widely adopted codecs (i.e., Sorenson3 for Quicktime, WMV).

This is all possible... hosting is just expensive. But it's getting cheaper. Getting a server with 5-10 GB of storage space and 100 GB of bandwidth a month isn't atypical.

-Steve

Then what do I tell her when she says -

"None of my friends can see it."

- - - - -

If it's possible, then why have I not been able to look at Stephen's footage? I'm under the impression, he's been overly helpful and has done everything under the sun to display the HD100 clip.

...and can shoot the quality of footage as displayed in the above links with a currently available HDV camera then I'll have to look at aquiring a HD100 or Z1 before the end of the year.
Doesn't look like its possible with an under-$10k HDV cam, so I won't be looking to sell my XL2 anytime soon for any HDV "solution."

Feel free to say otherwise, but please post some .wmv or .mov links to the footage that was filmed with a Sony Z1, FX1 or JVC HD100 that illustrates your point.

[feel free to add XL H1 and DVX200 to the above line in Nov/Dec 2005.]

In the mean time I can't help but to sum it all up with a quote from Seinfeld:

Babu's Brother - "Where is Babu? Show Me Babu!"

I think HDV is really cool and hope that everyone keeps up the good HDV work that's being done as the technology unfolds.

But as for me and my needs, from this XL2 owner to all the other XL2 owners out there...

I'm driving the "Family Truckster" to Wally World ;)

In response to the questions above about what type of camera was used to record this footage I have only found one reference in my exhaustive investigation.

It seems that at the very least the WildLifeHD footage was shot on a Sony F900/3, which retails at the wonderfully expensive price of $100,000.

Dissapointing. I can't be sure, but I guess it's safe to assume that the rest of the footage was shot on similar, non-affordable (for non-millionaires) HD cameras.

I do apologise for the misleading presumption that this was shot on pro-sumer HD cameras. I simply assumed that Apple would be advertising how good their new codec looks from a consumer/pro-sumer production perspective, not from a studio perspective, which is why I guess, they left out this crucial information.

I suppose its still possible that some of the footage was shot on pro-sumer HD cameras. I also think that with the right camera operator, and some great lighting, the same results could be achieved with HD, and be indistinguisable to the human eye.

In response to the questions above about what type of camera was used to record this footage I have only found one reference in my exhaustive investigation.

It seems that at the very least the WildLifeHD footage was shot on a Sony F900/3, which retails at the wonderfully expensive price of $100,000.

Dissapointing. I can't be sure, but I guess it's safe to assume that the rest of the footage was shot on similar, non-affordable (for non-millionaires) HD cameras.

I do apologise for the misleading presumption that this was shot on pro-sumer HD cameras. I simply assumed that Apple would be advertising how good their new codec looks from a consumer/pro-sumer production perspective, not from a studio perspective, which is why I guess, they left out this crucial information.

I suppose its still possible that some of the footage was shot on pro-sumer HD cameras. I also think that with the right camera operator, and some great lighting, the same results could be achieved with HD, and be indistinguisable to the human eye.
Andrew, thanks for taking the time to look. Like I mentioned to Stephen, to everybody here, time is money. So thanks again. AND no apologies are needed at all, you were just giving a link to Apple's site. We're all friends here and this is just a friendly discussion. The camera info you provided above is important information to know and I appreciate your research on it.

As for "I simply assumed that Apple would be advertising how good their new codec looks from a consumer/pro-sumer production perspective, not from a studio perspective," - I don't think you are alone.

The question has been approached from every angle except the right ones.

Despite what Jay Gladwell says, and what Derek keeps emphasizing, the output is what matters. Derek however is a bit too focused on the present. How you will output your footage in the future is also a huge issue.

Right now, TODAY, if your output target is DVD or Streaming video, then HDV doesn't matter too much. You can't see the resolution, and you lose colorspace compared to DV.

That will not remain the case for very long at all. Within the year we are going to have HD video discs (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD) available. Within five years they are going to be fairly common. Within 10 years they will be more or less where DVD is today.

In regards to streaming, the main limitation of HD video is very large file sizes, and thus high bandwidth requirements.

Well, right now TODAY, I can get fiber optic Internet service at 15Mbits down & 5Mbits up. Sadly I am moving next week and will not have fiber available for a while, but this type of fiber service is where ADSL was in 1998 or so in the DC area.

So the question isn't do you need to display HD video today, but rather will you ever need to use video you shoot today in future HD projects. I firmly believe that more than 75% of professional videographers will be working in HD almost exclusively by 2010.

Computers are already fast enough to edit HD. I have posted HDCAM 1920x1080p footage through a G5 2.3 DP with Final Cut Studio 5. I have posted DVCPRO HD, and even uncompressed HD. The G5 handles it well. Avid just released a version of Xpress ProHD that uses OS X Tigers hardware rendering, Core Image and Core Video. I've seen a demo and it is lightning. Windows Vista is supposed to offer a similiar feature. Processing power will not be the problem.

Storage and recording are the issues.

This camera is a revolutionary performer because it outputs uncompressed SDI video. HD and SD (I think). If you work with composites much this camera is light years ahead of any other DV or HDV camera- if you can store the data.

Some of the stuff I have posted in uncompressed HD (composites) used up a full XServe RAID. Using HDCAM or DVCPRO field recorders is an expensive solution and cumbersome.

HDV is not a very good HD format at all. You really can't do decent composites with it. (HDV is great for simply showing a picture. You'd be surprised at how well it intercuts with professional format HD footage once color corrected.) You can't rely on HDV as a storage medium for your future needs. I anticipate a 50Mbit/s format will be what we end up with at the prosumer/low end pro level. (twice the data of HDV half of the data in DVCPRO HD) With luck we might get a 75Mbit/s format that handles full 1080p. (~half HDCAM data rate.)

The next question you need to answer is how well does SD footage intercut with HD footage. Everybody has an opinion. Mine is that for many applications SD intercuts with HD beautifully. You have seen SD intercut with HD on network television, and even in Star Wars movies.

So... where does that leave you ? I can't say.

I can say where it leaves me. I still do the bulk of my work with an XL-1. Yeah- the original. Most of my clients say its beautiful. So definitely hang on to your XL-2 until SD is not an option.

Most of my work is not going to be useful to me in five or ten years. So I am not worried about having it in HD ready to go, it isn't worth the expense.

The XL-H1 is the first camera I can seriously consider for HD work, it is closest to my operating budgets and has the quality (at least on paper) I need via its HD-SDI output. Coupled with some sort of field recorder this camera is extremely capable (again on paper). I expect to be able to do very high quality broadcast and low end theatrical (2K) post with the SDI output from this camera.

I am a little confused, but I think the H1 also outputs 4:2:2 SD SDI. That is also a great thing for my projects today that might get intercut with HD in the future or that have to be composited. This is much more economical. I can reasonably store some clips for extended periods at 23MBytes/sec, while 190MB/sec for HD is presently out of reach. This is a camera I can afford, and I can produce very high quality composites with it- no more renting DigiBeta cameras. If I get this camera I am likely to buy a DVCPRO or some type of Beta deck to go with it, probably units I can use in the field.

There is one final consideration. I will be able to use this camera in five or ten years. I can't say the same about an XL-2. Sure it will be outdated, then again so is the XL-1 that makes my clients happy today. That's essential, because the reality of my business has taught me that I NEED to use a camera for at least 5 years before buying a replacement.

So, anyway that is how this camera affects ME. It is about the future. It is about reducing my costs and increasing my capability today. That may all be worthless to you- you may not have any of these needs.

So, what is my specific plan ? The XL-H1 has set a new bar for me. It is now the least capable camera I will consider as an upgrade. If everything works out and SD-SDI output is available and high quality, I expect to acquire a camera like this in late spring 2006. It will be used primarily for SD work, but it will increasingly be used for HD. In both modes I'll be using SDI video-out at least part of the time.

I expect that when I transition to primarily HD work the H1 will stay in the stable but will not be my primary camera. That is also the point when I expect to send the XL-1 out to pasture.

The footage shown in the Apple HD Gallery is mostly studio feature films. Very little of it is acquired on any sort of video. Mostly 35mm, some 70mm and some IMAX. There is some video, but its high end stuff as previously posted.

Apple is showing off their H264 codec, not their HDV workflow.

Remember that Final Cut Studio is intended as a complete solution for offline SD all the way up to online for features shot in 70mm. (Cold Mountain)

HDV is only a small part of the puzzle for Apple and Avid.

The great feature of the XL-H1 is the uncompressed HD-SDI output. If it is as good as promised you'll be able to deliver results basedon that camera which compare to Hollywood produced HD materials. That's about as far from HDV as you can get.

Alexander,

What well thought out post(s). I gotta get some stuff done over the next few hours, but look forward to re-reading it and discussing your excellent points.

Another thing that needs to be pointed out. Even though you may not be able to deliver HD to a client, and the clients aren't asking for it, the time to learn the technique for shooting HD is NOW. That way, when it is mainstream, you will already be proficient with the technology and not playing catch-up. Just as you shouldn't try to be learning an NLE or other high end software while working on a client's project with its associated deadlines.

-gb-

When DV first came out I didn't have clients running up to me asking for me to shoot in DV. Should I have held off shooting DV?

When DVD recording came out my clients were not asking for DVD's. Should I have held off making DVD's for my clients?

Remember most clients don't know what is out there like we do. It is up to us to present clients with the best quality not to wait for them to ask for it. If that was the case we may all still be sending out VHS (barf) tapes to our clients and shooting on SVHS.

In 2 years time, when my clients want their next HD presentation sequence produced and they want to use footage from the library that we are shooting today, they are going to be VERY happy that we shot it in HD.

Even if they don't want it now, and all they get at the moment is SD, they will soon catch up, and the fact that todays rushes are in HD is going to be a big bonus.

Another thing that needs to be pointed out. Even though you may not be able to deliver HD to a client, and the clients aren't asking for it, the time to learn the technique for shooting HD is NOW. That way, when it is mainstream, you will already be proficient with the technology and not playing catch-up. Just as you shouldn't try to be learning an NLE or other high end software while working on a client's project with its associated deadlines.

-gb-

I couldn't agree more. Client's don't like to pay for you to learn.

This said, the main thing I feel you need to learn for HD is how to focus. You may have thought you could focus, but HD is here to tell you you were wrong.

This is why the XL-H1 lens includes a rangefinder and focus marks on the lens. I understand you can pull focus with a measure of reliability on this lens. That should be telling you something... focus is much harder in HD. It is as hard as 35mm photography compounded by all the problems of motion pictures.

I haven't seen it, but I expect that the autofocus is much improved compared to the XL2. I am not an XL2 owner, but isn't the inclusion of the DIGIC chip from Canon's 35mm line new ? You should see better color processing and focus as a result.

In my limited experience you should plan on purchasing a high resolution field monitor to go with any HD cameras you acquire, or depend on autofocus completely.

Alternatively look into HD viewfinders, but in practice I can tell you that focusing even with a good HD viewfinder is very hard. I can't tell you how many times I have focused "to perfection" in the VF then looked at the monitor only to be horrified. This will only be exacerbated by the limited resolution of the H1's viewfinder.


Remember most clients don't know what is out there like we do. It is up to us to present clients with the best quality not to wait for them to ask for it. If that was the case we may all still be sending out VHS (barf) tapes to our clients and shooting on SVHS.

Again I agree. You have to know what's out there. You have to balance that for the client based on how you can deliver to them.

You have to be on the cutting edge. Just don't let you or your customers get cut!

For me right now, I sell HD as future proofing. If I shoot HD now, I can post HD and deliver SD for DVD, VHS(ick) or the web. Later on I can output to HD when that's necessary. Some of my clients are warming up to this idea because in a new HD market they can stand out simply by standing up with a product- any product that's true HD.

This post has me more addicted to it than the first John Grisham book I read over 10 years ago.

I skimmed through some of your comments and think all of them are very valid. I can't wait to spend more time reading them tonight and thinking about them.

But until then, just one thing really strikes me about "future-proofing."

When do you start? How many of you started future-proofing with the first JVC HD1?

If you did, are you still shooting with it?
If you did not, why? After all... it was HDV.

I've gotta go now (to go hook up some hardware), but I'm really looking forward to discussing this more. Afterall, I'm just trying to figure out the best path.

This post has me more addicted to it than the first John Grisham book I read over 10 years ago.

I skimmed through some of your comments and think all of them are very valid. I can't wait to spend more time reading them tonight and thinking about them.

But until then, just one thing really strikes me about "future-proofing."

I realize none of you actually used the term "future-proofing," but I've seen it around these forums and elsewhere, and think it's a good way to sum up the points of looking out for your client's (and your) best interest in the future. Feel free to replace it with another term if you see fit.

When do you start? How many of you started future-proofing with the first JVC HD1?

If you did, are you still shooting with it?
If you did not, why? After all... it was HDV.

I've gotta go now (to go hook up some hardware), but I'm really looking forward to discussing this more. Afterall, I'm just trying to figure out the best path.

In answer to your question I started using HD before HDV was available. HDCAM and DVCPRO HD. I can't afford any of that equipment. I just got gigs doing a little editing here, a little camerawork there, maybe a composite and some 3D, little by little.

About half of that work was delivered as SD. I am quite sure some of it at least has been repurposed by now as HD though.

All the HD work I have done so far has been on other people's equipment. Well, not all. I have done a logo bump in HD using Lightwave... but that isn't the same at all.

I did check out the first HDV camera, but it was a lousy camera. It shot HDV, but it didn't look that good, and as far as SD goes it was a huge step backwards from an XL-1. It was a single CCD camera IIRC. Footage shot with that had resolution, but was in every other way worse than any 3 CCD DV camera. There was no way it would intercut well with footage even from the current crop of HDV cameras, much less with other cameras I used for HD then.

The difference now, with the Sony camera at least, is that you can intercut that with F900/950 and it will look good. Not great but definitely deliverable. I expect the H1 will improve on this, and more over HD-SDI.

Right now the only HD capable equipment I own is my Dual 2.7 G5. Aside from goofing around with demo clips from Apple, Avid and Panasonic that hasn't seen any HD use as yet.

I said it before, I'll say it again: Stay on the cutting edge but don't get cut!

I have to go now, so allow me to write myself a reminder to discuss workflow and budgeting with the H1 on a show vs other HDV cameras.