OK,

I bought my XL2 back in June with no regrets, even with this new XL H1 on the horizon. I needed a camcorder and went with the XL2 for several reasons (several other threads for those reasons).

Now Canon releases their HDV solution which should be available to buy Nov/Dec.

I do appreciate several facts about the new XL H1 and how it was released:
1) It's twice the cost (if not more) than an XL2, so I'm not saying to myself, gezzzzz I could have had this for the same price and that helps keep my XL2 from becoming quickly obsolete.
2) They are keeping the XL2 in their line.
3) My XL2 batteries will work with it.
4) It's the same dimensions as my XL2, making all of the other stuff I bought, such as my tripod, fluid head, monitor, mic, etc. etc. still all mesh with the new camera in the same way.

I'm sure there are a few pro's and con's here that I forgot and I'd love to see any of you all add to the list above, but here's my BIG question for current XL2 owners -

Are you going to sell your XL2 and buy a XL H1 when they become available or see yourself switching sometime within the next year?

No right or wrong answer. Just friendly discussion between current XL2 owners and what they think of the new camera.

I've been extremely happy with my XL2 and don't know if I need HDV as most of my final products end up on the web. But some of the reasons that I did not buy a Sony or the JVC are no longer reasons with this new release. Although one of those reasons has been replaced by the fact that it's going to be somewhere around $9 billion dollars.

That is A LOTTTTTT of money!

Good question!

No, I will not sell my XL2 and buy this camera. Rather than repeat everything I've said elsewhere here today, I'll simply say there is no way I can justify the $9,000 expense (and it doesn't stop there!) considering none of my clients are asking for HD and that I have no way to deliver HD to them (and Windows Media doesn't count, not in their book or mine, so please don't bring it up, thank you), there is no reason for me to buy the XLH1.

Jay

Jay,

Thanks! Good - I thought I may not be alone with these thoughts.

You brought up a good point about none of your clients asking for HD. I have not had anybody ask about that either (clients or friends outside the industry).

I didn't even know that it existed before I started researching back in late April or May before buying my XL2. I wonder how many of us (here in this forum) actually have clients who request HDV material?

One of the main reasons I decided against buying the Sony, was that everything I saw looked too clear, as I've seen others in this forum say... to "soap-opera'ish." I wanted to try to get my videos to look more like film. And actually to this day, I have not seen anything shot in HDV that has made me think it looked like film.

Most of the recent HDV stuff I've seen has been posted in m2t format and I have no interest in loading another type of movie player on any of my computers to see them. I usually look at movies in Quicktime, Windows (thanks to Flip4Mac), or Flash.

Truth be known, if my clients were to all of a sudden start asking for HD, I'd be in a world of hurt. Based on my research, over many months, to change over from SD to HD would run in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $25,000. I simply don't have that kind of cash laying around.

Jay

Well see, that's what I've heard too.

When I bought my XL2 from Brian at Zotz Digital (who also sells FX1's and Z1's) told me I would need to add about $5,000 to $10,000 worth of editing stuff to my already pricey $9,000 editing set up (Mac G5 DP 2.7 with 22' cinema, the old style cinema not the new stainless HD ones).

But I've seen conflicting posts here (and elsewhere) on what you need to edit in HD. If anyone who actually already has a Sony or JVC HDV cam can shed some accurate light on how they've been editing and how much they had to spend to do so, I would really like to hear some first hand information on the subject.

Derek, here's what I found:

XLH1 is $9,000. Sony BVM-D14H1U 14-Inch 16:9 Widescreen Broadcast Monitor is $5,000. Problem is it's only 800 lines. The "optional" HD board is another $3,200 making the grand total $8,200, we're up to $17,200. Add another $3,500 for a muscle computer to deal all this HD video and that makes it $20,700. Another $1,000 (give or take) for a HD NLE and we have $21,700 (excluding sale tax). And this doesn't take into account all the unknown cards and connections it will undoubtedly take to make all this so it's singing from the same page.

The conversion to HD ain't gonna be a cheap trick.

Jay

I thought the same as you prior to buying the XL2. And have not seen anything to make me change my opinion since then.

You can really make the numbers prove any case you want. First you need to define some expectations. You can edit HDV on your existing computer for exactly $0 more than you've already spent. Just fire up iMovie HD and plug in a Z1 or FX1, or presumably an XLHD1.

If you have FCP5 you're good to go for HDV, if you have an older version then the upgrade is $400. Sure the expensive monitor and cards are nice, but not essential if you just want to edit HDV. Get a 16:9 LCD screen with DVI input and plug it into your second monitor port. FCP can scale the video to its native resolution using the digital cinema desktop feature. Depending on what type of screen you buy that could cost anywhere between $500 for a cheap 1280x720 LCD panel or $1,500 for a 23" cinema display that will show the full 1920x1080 image.

The disk requirements for HDV are not really any different than DV. So if you *want* to make the switch I don't see that huge cost barrier. But of course if you feel you need studio quality monitors and Decklink cards and disk arrays then you're going to spend a lot more.

I don't know much about the new Canon. Does it downconvert to SD on the fly like the Z1? If so you could make the switch, film in HDV but still edit in DV for the time being. That's what I'm doing with my Z1 on a dual G5 right now. Soon I'll upgrade to FCP 5 and start working natively in HDV. The only reason I haven't done this yet is resistance to changing software while in the middle of several big projects. But my upgrade costs will be minimal: $400 for the FCP 5 upgrade and I'll use my existing 23" Cinema Display and Samsung 22" HD LCD panel via digital cinema desktop for now.

So there might be a lot of valid reasons not to trade in your XL-2, but computer ugrade cost doesn't really have to be an issue.

So there might be a lot of valid reasons not to trade in your XL-2, but computer ugrade cost doesn't really have to be an issue.
That would depend on your computer, wouldn't it?

There's always a work around, but that's not my style.

Jay

You can really make the numbers prove any case you want. First you need to define some expectations. You can edit HDV on your existing computer for exactly $0 more than you've already spent. Just fire up iMovie HD and plug in a Z1 or FX1, or presumably an XLHD1.

If you have FCP5 you're good to go for HDV, if you have an older version then the upgrade is $400. Sure the expensive monitor and cards are nice, but not essential if you just want to edit HDV. Get a 16:9 LCD screen with DVI input and plug it into your second monitor port. FCP can scale the video to its native resolution using the digital cinema desktop feature. Depending on what type of screen you buy that could cost anywhere between $500 for a cheap 1280x720 LCD panel or $1,500 for a 23" cinema display that will show the full 1920x1080 image.

The disk requirements for HDV are not really any different than DV. So if you *want* to make the switch I don't see that huge cost barrier. But of course if you feel you need studio quality monitors and Decklink cards and disk arrays then you're going to spend a lot more.

I don't know much about the new Canon. Does it downconvert to SD on the fly like the Z1? If so you could make the switch, film in HDV but still edit in DV for the time being. That's what I'm doing with my Z1 on a dual G5 right now. Soon I'll upgrade to FCP 5 and start working natively in HDV. The only reason I haven't done this yet is resistance to changing software while in the middle of several big projects. But my upgrade costs will be minimal: $400 for the FCP 5 upgrade and I'll use my existing 23" Cinema Display and Samsung 22" HD LCD panel via digital cinema desktop for now.

So there might be a lot of valid reasons not to trade in your XL-2, but computer ugrade cost doesn't really have to be an issue.


Well Boyd, you beat me to it. I was going to tell Derek that having a dual 2.7 with FCP5 is plenty capable of HDV capture and editing. Another 2500 bucks for a Kona II card and maybe an external SATA disk array. Still not majorly expensive.

-gb-

Boyd,

Thanks. Glad that's the case - that it's easy with current setups. I guess I just wonder why I have not seen any more HDV footage than I have. It was super easy to find XL2 and DVX footage when I was looking for a camera. Is that only because these cameras have been around longer than HDV cameras?

Where's all of the great edited HDV footage that everybody's getting?

In Quicktime, Windows Media Player or Flash formats that is.

Can you post some of your edited footage somewhere when you are finished? Can even be small screen. I'd just like to see some really great HDV footage.

Greg,

That's good news.

Believe me I want to go HDV, but I've got to be able to back up my reasons!

So Greg, is a new XL H1 in your future?

I saw this in another thread -

"Don't underestimate how good a feature the HD SDI out is. I'm sure a converter will be quite expensive, but if/when someone comes out with a realtime converter to get the files to a harddrive via uncompressed or DVCPro HD, this will be a very, very interesting camera."

Emphasis on two things -
1) if/when someone comes out with a realtime converter
2) I'm sure a converter will be quite expensive

So would I not need a "converter" to work with uncompressed HDV footage from the XL H2?

Even though most of my stuff will be going to the web, it's still best to start with the best captured source footage possible. So, would I need a flux capacator a.k.a. a "converter" to do that with HD footage from the XL H2?

why I have not seen any more HDV footage than I have

I've been too busy with other stuff to work on my projects, the only thing I managed recently was this little effects test:
http://s94963366.onlinehome.us/FX/FLTHD.wmv (13 MB)

One of the big reasons you're not likely to see too much HDV content is that the data rates are so high for web-compressed HD video that hosting is a major concern. I don't doubt though that if you had a friend with an HDV cam, s/he would be more than happy to show off ;)

-Steve

So would I not need a "converter" to work with uncompressed HDV footage from the XL H2?
Unless you have a monster computer with a mega processor or two, you won't be editing uncompressed footage. My understanding is that with an HD NLE (and possibly a specific card) you edit highly compressed footage, add transitions, effects, color correct, etc., and then this is all applied to the HD footage.

I'm sure someone here who does it can explain better in more detail that I.

Jay

After thinking about it over night -

I'm let down by Canon. It took too long for them to come out with their HDV solution. And now that they have, it's way too expensive, and 24F... what the F?

The only reason that I like the XL H1 is that it's not making my XL2 obsolete. I bought my XL2 back in June after much research and many sleepless nights of wondering if I was buying the right thing as well as wondering what kick ass HDV solution Canon was going to release.

Well, if I was making my decision today, it would still be to buy a XL2.

Here's why - I've seen TONS of great footage taken with the XL2 and DVX camcorders from links posted in this forum.

I have yet to see one great clip posted to this or any other forum from ANY HDV camera. I know that the web is not conducive for HDV movies in full resolution. But that's what Sorenson, Compressor and other compression software is for. Everybody compresses their footage from their XL2's and DVX's before uploading it to a web site. Why not the same for HDV?

I'd like to see a comparison of two 30 second clips - one shot with an XL2 or DVX and compressed to say 5 or 10 megs, the other shot with a Z1 or HD100 and compressed to the same 5 or 10 megs - and then be able to see what looks the best. They don't have to be identical shots, just close, with similar lighting and optimal settings for each camera - not the factory defaults.

In today's day and age the majority of footage ends up on the web, from wedding videos to movie trailers to full movies. So purchasing equipment that can supply good footage for this medium would be an important factor to anybody who wants to be well rounded.

Steve,

I liked your static electricity effect. Did you use After Effects for that?

I'd like to see a comparison of two 30 second clips - one shot with an XL2 or DVX and compressed to say 5 or 10 megs, the other shot with a Z1 or HD100 and compressed to the same 5 or 10 megs - and then be able to see what looks the best. They don't have to be identical shots, just close, with similar lighting and optimal settings for each camera - not the factory defaults.


By doing this, the HDV camera would loose its advantage completely. It is only worth shooting HD if the film is going to be viewed in HD, either now or in the future.

BTW, there are a few clips around the web from HDV cameras that look very, very good. Check out the JVC HD100 Mini35 tests.

BTW, there are a few clips around the web from HDV cameras that look very, very good. Check out the JVC HD100 Mini35 tests.
I'd like to but would like to see the footage in a format that is recognizable by Quicktime or Windows Media Player. I tried downloading some footage that Nate Weaver shot (a 100 meg file). The link that was posted for the Mac saved to my G5 as a TEXT file. I tried replacing that with .mov and it didn't work. The other footage I saw was m2t format, and I have no interest in looking at a format that the vast majority of viewers on the web will not care to look at either.

By doing this, the HDV camera would loose its advantage completely. It is only worth shooting HD if the film is going to be viewed in HD, either now or in the future.
That's interesting that you say that the HDV will have no advantage over DV on the web. I think that's the first time I've heard it put so frank. Thanks. So would it be true to say:

If you are shooting video and your final edited products will be output to the Internet, stick to a traditional DV camera such as a XL2 or DVX?

Two things...

m2t files are raw camera files, they're posted in that format so people can see what the actual footage off the camera looks like... it's not intended to be a web format, but if you want to see what HDV is capable of, download VLC and watch them on it...

Also, the comment about taking away the advantage of HDV... if you're asking for video with 2-4x as many pixels as SD (depending on which resolution) to be crammed into the same file size it will clearly look worse, with major compression artifacts, etc. If you're asking for it to be downrezzed and then compressed, you're looking at both in SD, when one actually records in HD. The advantage of HD is that you can release (for the web) multiple sizes of the video, making full quality HD video available for those with the bandwidth that can handle it. If you want two clips to compare, one in SD and one in HD, you need to be ready for the HD clip to be 2-3x the file size of the SD clip... otherwise, you take away the advantage of HD...

Did you use After Effects for that?

Yup.

As for HDV vs. DV for web delivery... We're at the point where you can release stuff in HD. It just takes a lot of space, but it certainly makes a difference. Most people are running around 1280x1024, which is perfect for 720p format files. Trust me... people notice. And posting full-rez frame grabs can really excite anyone following progress.

-Steve

Kevin,

That's really helpful information. Thanks.

Would it be more accurate to modify my request above with the following change:

- one shot with an XL2 or DVX and compressed to say 5 or 10 megs, the other shot with a Z1 or HD100 and compressed to 30 megs -

As I do feel broadband is in wide enough use to offer those with it a choice of a higher quality video if they want the option.

good question derek.

i bought a XL1s last spring. shot a wedding last June but sold the body last August when XL2 was announced. but i never bought the XL2. i guess i didn't have time for this expensive hobby (still don't). i was waiting for the Canon HD cam. now that it's been announced and i can't use my 3x&16x lens, i intend to sell those lens as well. start from scratch.

i'll be making good use of a cam (SD or HD) in 2007 probably. by that time, i definitely wanna go with HD. i have a front screen projector. watching DVD on that is a pain. there's terrible compression artifacts. on the other hand, when i watch 720p or 1080p, it looks awesome! with HD cam, i can achieve 720p or 1080p. with SD, i can't. the idea of lugging around my FP& a laptop powerful enough to playback 720p/1080p (dualcore AMD Turion laptop comes out in 2006) can complete my complete chain of content creation AND delivery =).

I saw this in another thread -

"Don't underestimate how good a feature the HD SDI out is. I'm sure a converter will be quite expensive, but if/when someone comes out with a realtime converter to get the files to a harddrive via uncompressed or DVCPro HD, this will be a very, very interesting camera."

Emphasis on two things -
1) if/when someone comes out with a realtime converter
2) I'm sure a converter will be quite expensive

So would I not need a "converter" to work with uncompressed HDV footage from the XL H2?

Even though most of my stuff will be going to the web, it's still best to start with the best captured source footage possible. So, would I need a flux capacator a.k.a. a "converter" to do that with HD footage from the XL H2?

The real question is whether it's 8, 10 or 12 bit coming out SDI. You wouldn't use a codec like DVCProHD for this instance since the raw data is uncompressed. You would work in uncompressed and bypass the codec altogether.

Working uncompressed is not as processor intensive because the processor does not have the 'duty' to uncompress and recompress each frame as you edit. If your NLE can work in uncompressed now, do a live capture with your camera to uncompressed YUV and start editing it. You'll see that your processor stays nice and cool. The issue with uncompressed is the throughput speed of your mother boards bus to the hard drives. The issue with uncompressed is the hard drive throughput bottleneck. To really edit it effecitly you need a hyper, hyper fast SCSI Raid for multiple streams.

Anyway, capture some SD uncompressed YUV (around 176Mb data stream) and you'll soon see it's no problem for the processor in your task manager (windows).

That would depend on your computer, wouldn't it?

There's always a work around, but that's not my style.

Jay

Just my $.02, but not willing to take the work-around approach in a lot of instances is going to force you to spend significant $$ (that you're already saying you can't afford) on negligible needs that could be avoided by just taking the work around?

It's your call, but if I was facing that dilemma I would change my style.

Kevin,

That's really helpful information. Thanks.

Would it be more accurate to modify my request above with the following change:

- one shot with an XL2 or DVX and compressed to say 5 or 10 megs, the other shot with a Z1 or HD100 and compressed to 30 megs -

As I do feel broadband is in wide enough use to offer those with it a choice of a higher quality video if they want the option.

Yeah, I would say 30 megs for a H.264 or wmv clip would be a pretty fair comparison with a 5-10 meg SD file.

Two things...
m2t files are raw camera files, they're posted in that format so people can see what the actual footage off the camera looks like
I get the following message when I try to import a downloaded m2t file into FCP 5.0.2 -
File Error: 1 file(s) recognized, 0 access denied, 1 unknown

I do appreciate several facts about the new XL H1 and how it was released:
1) It's twice the cost (if not more) than an XL2, so I'm not saying to myself, gezzzzz I could have had this for the same price and that helps keep my XL2 from becoming quickly obsolete.


See, I really think that's the main reason they set the price so high. Because honestly, I don't see anything in there to make it cost that much. I have the impression this camera will not be a big seller.

I get the following message when I try to import a downloaded m2t file into FCP 5.0.2 -
File Error: 1 file(s) recognized, 0 access denied, 1 unknown

Convert the m2t file into another format first. It's more of raw camera format then an editing format.

http://www.alfanet.it/squared5/mpegstreamclip.html

See, I really think that's the main reason they set the price so high. Because honestly, I don't see anything in there to make it cost that much. I have the impression this camera will not be a big seller.

You could be right about that Michael. If they would have priced it close to the XL2 it would be bitter-sweet. Sweet because you could have two cameras, a Xl2 and XL H1 for the price of one currently priced XL H1. Bitter because anyone that just spent $4,000 for a XL2 would feel, well, not so great.

However, it would have been great news all around for anyone who had not bought a camera over the past 6 months or so.

I don't think it will be a big seller either. Not near the level of sales for the FX1, Z1 or HD100.

Convert the m2t file into another format first. It's more of raw camera format then an editing format.

http://www.alfanet.it/squared5/mpegstreamclip.html

Patrick,

Thank you very much for taking the time to post that. That's very kind and I appreciate your effort in trying to help me out. At this point in time though, I would not be interested enough to see a m2t clip to download additional software to my Mac.

That's just me though. I'm sure that your information will be a big help to others.

The interesting thing to see in the very near future (for me at least) -

XL2 & XL H1 footage compared.

I'd like to see the test I mentioned above to see if the extra money, extra efforts, extra hardware requirements, and extra bandwidth required to view HDV material on-line make it worth switching from a XL2 to a XL H1 IF and only IF you are going to be putting your final edited footage on-line.

How much clearer will it be?

How will XL2 24p compare to XL H1 24F?

You could be right about that Michael. If they would have priced it close to the XL2 it would be bitter-sweet. Sweet because you could have two cameras, a Xl2 and XL H1 for the price of one currently priced XL H1. Bitter because anyone that just spent $4,000 for a XL2 would feel, well, not so great.

However, it would have been great news all around for anyone who had not bought a camera over the past 6 months or so.

I don't think it will be a big seller either. Not near the level of sales for the FX1, Z1 or HD100.

Yeah, if they had priced it lower, many XL2 owners would complain.
I think that people who do studio work will be the ones buying this camera. I don't see many independent filmmakers getting one. Not for that price.

XL2 & XL H1 footage compared.What, you mean SD to SD, right? Otherwise it's applaes and oranges, because the XL2 is 25mbps DV, and the XL H1 is 1.485Gbps HD.

Chris,

Thanks, but I do mean HDV to SD. I would like to see the BIG differences with how good on-line footage from the Canon XL H1 would be and how it would compare to footage from the XL2. I'd like to see why I would want to switch?

Or is Mike right with this -

By doing this, the HDV camera would loose its advantage completely. It is only worth shooting HD if the film is going to be viewed in HD, either now or in the future.
When he anwered my question of -

I'd like to see a comparison of two 30 second clips - one shot with an XL2 or DVX and compressed to say 5 or 10 megs, the other shot with a Z1 or HD100 and compressed to the same 5 or 10 megs - and then be able to see what looks the best. They don't have to be identical shots, just close, with similar lighting and optimal settings for each camera - not the factory defaults.

Only this time you could replace the Z1 or HD100 with XL H1, and you could compress the HDV footage to any size you want (as opposed to limiting it to the size of the SD footage as mentioned above, since the addition of Kevin's point above with it needing to be 3 times the size).

If so, seems to me (and I could be way off base here) that HDV would be a complete waste of time, effort and money for anyone shooting DV that would be outputting their edited footage primarily to the web.

To everyone reading this thread -

Please know that I'm not trying to come down on HDV. I'm all for progress and great equipment. I just need to know why I'm for it, and whether or not it will be good for the way I use it.

What, you mean SD to SD, right? Otherwise it's applaes and oranges, because the XL2 is 25mbps DV, and the XL H1 is 1.485Gbps HD.

Isn't the H1 HDV? HDV is 25mbps like DV, right?
I know JVC's ProHD runs a 19mbps. But since Canon is doing 1080i, I would think it's 25mbps, like the Z1.

I'll use my existing 23" Cinema Display and Samsung 22" HD LCD panel via digital cinema desktop for now


Boyd, don't want to start a shift in the thread topic but I was curious. I bought 2 0f the Apple 20" diplays because it seems that Apple is having a huge problem with the 23" cinemas and this pinkish cast to the screen.
I heard about it on the Apple discussion boards then decide to quit reading about it and go out into the real world and see for myself.
At the MacMall storeand at another video electonics outlet I clearly saw the pinkish cast everyone was talking about.
Although the Apple sales guy assured me Apple had taken care of this year old problem.
So in short, do you have this problem with your 23"? And if so how does it effect your color correcting during post?
The reason I didn't go for it was because of this and that I am also a professional artist and accurate colors are paramount.

Isn't the H1 HDV? HDV is 25mbps like DV, right?
I know JVC's ProHD runs a 19mbps. But since Canon is doing 1080i, I would think it's 25mbps, like the Z1.

The XLH1 records a 1080i60 25Mb/s HDV stream (and 1080i50 depending on model). Within this stream, it can record 60i, 30F or 24F footage.

I got my 23" Cinema display from my local Apple Store about a month ago, when my 21" Trinitron CRT Apple Studio display died (after 7 years of faithful use :-). No problems whatsoever with the color. But if there had been I would have driven right back to the store for an exchange.

Yeah, MacWorld did a review of 23" LCD's and mentioned that the first model they were shipped had the problem but the second didn't. But that review is nearly a year old now....

I have a 23" and haven't experienced a pink tint at all, however... I did have something similar when running two monitors and on the second monitor (the apple 21" CRT) there was a pink shift. turns out upgrading the video card to a 9800 solved all my problems.

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.

Also, I think that this HD- Uncompressed price problem is kind of a rediculous debate.

It sounds like you want an uncompressed editing suite and scoff at paying 23,000 for it. Um, check out some prices for an avid nitris or an HDW-500F or a D5 deck etc. If you look at it as just setting up an uncompressed set-up then you're still getting a good deal at anything less then 100k. The 23,000 system would allow you to do HDCAM on-line editing. (we've done it with the same set up only a dual 2ghz processor) If you're just editing HDV your current setup is fine, you don't need to purchase anything. Heck I've edited HDV on my dual 800 g4, it was slow but it could be done and only cost me the price of imovie. (this was pre final cut pro 5)

I think the strong advantage of HDV is only there is you don't go out and spend the extra cash on new gear. If you're going to feel obligated to buy all the newest toys then I think the advantage of HDV is lost.

Just my $.02, but not willing to take the work-around approach in a lot of instances is going to force you to spend significant $$ (that you're already saying you can't afford) on negligible needs that could be avoided by just taking the work around?

It's your call, but if I was facing that dilemma I would change my style.
Thanks for the advice, Patrick, but I don't compromise.

Jay

Thanks for the advice, Patrick, but I don't compromise.

Jay

Filmmaking is the art of compromise... :)

Filmmaking is the art of compromise... :)
Maybe for you, not for me.

Jay

Maybe for you, not for me.

Jay

You must be a cameraman... That's sounds like a 1st AC talking...?

Can't be a director or producer... :)

You must be a cameraman... That's sounds like a 1st AC talking...?

Can't be a director or producer... :)
All of the above!

Mike, I've been doing this for over 30 years. Let's just leave it at that.

Jay

Mike, I've been doing this for over 30 years. Let's just leave it at that.

Jay

... and never compromised. I would like to see a director go 30 minutes without having to compromise.

In technical roles it is possible to an extent, but not directing.

I take it from your site that you shoot DV - that is a compromise in price and quality.

I am not having a dig, I just think the ability to make wise compromises is ESSENTIAL to filmmaking. Striving for the highest possible standards is great, but never compromising is impossible.

I am not having a dig, I just think the ability to make wise compromises is ESSENTIAL to filmmaking. Striving for the highest possible standards is great, but never compromising is impossible.

Sorry for going OT, oh well ;-)

I'm also not having a dig (and I've been at this significantly under 30 years). I think the ability to adapt to ever-changing situations - aforementioned wise compromises - is far more important nowadays in filmmaking (as well as most avenues of life). The ability to compromise and adjust as needed allows a modern filmmaker to raise their standards far beyond what they would otherwise have if dictated solely by budget, crew, etc - simply by harnessing non-traditional methods or means (not illicit).

Creative ingenuity is a blessing, not a liability.


*edit* Perhaps compromise is the wrong word - gives the wrong idea of having to sacrifice, maybe adapt/consensus would be better as those are more literally about attaining your goal. All still involve adaptation though.

It sounds like you want an uncompressed editing suite and scoff at paying 23,000 for it.
I'm not sure if this was for me or not, but if it was that's fine, BUT I really don't "scoff at paying" for anything as long as I can afford it and if it's worth it. I've already got a good start on a quality editing suite with a Mac G5 DP 2.7, Dual 22' Cinema monitors, FCP 5, Adobe AE, GenArts Sapphire, etc. etc., not including my video equipment .

The bigger factor here, for me at least is -

Is it worth the money AND hassle to go the HDV route for on-line video?

If the XL H1 was available today and you were to somehow mount it side-by-side with a XL2 to take the same footage. And then edited each the exact same way, then compressed them so each one looked it's best regardless of file size, then finally posted them side-by-side on-line -

Will a 90 meg XL H1 two-minute long video look that much better than the same movie shot, edited, compressed and posted XL2 video?

If someone can post a quality video on-line that's 30 meg in size and looks really great, how much better will the 90 meg version of that same movie be? Would it even be noticable and if so, by how much? Would it be enough, that an on-line user would want to wait to download an extra 60 megs?

Canon's on-line presentation of the XL H1 looks nice and everything, but if their HDV solution is so much better, why don't they show us with shots of comparisons with the two cameras? Maybe they have, and I just have not seen them yet.

And personally, I'm not looking at this as a debate at all - just a friendly discussion between XL2 users.

Is it worth the money AND hassle to go the HDV route for on-line video?


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