I have to agree. $9,000 is alot. The HVX200 even though it does not have removable lens is looking to be my camera. I like the P2 concept alot but not the price for them. I'm sick of tape though. I will just have to see how the 1080/24 on both H1 and HVX looks. If the H1 is way better, then that will be the camera if not then the HVX we be the camera.

$9000 is ridiculous, unless you're setting up a low-budget TV studio, in which case the Genlock and HD-SDI will definitely be an advantage. But otherwise, yes, $9000 for an HDV camera is absurd. Nobody is going to shoot with an HDcam Deck in the middle of Times Square.

The HVX w/Firestore will give you full-out 1080/24p 4:2:2 DVCProHD for less than $8000 ($6000 HVX + $2000 Firestore) and it seems by far the best bang for your buck for indie filmmaking. Portable, inexpensive (for HD) and full quality DVCProHD.

Personally, if I were to think about the $9000 price tag and the maybe $5,000 to $10,000 to rent a deck for 3 weeks, I'd rather use my friend's FX1 and use the $14,000 to $20,000 on making the movie, paying the cast/crew and feeding everyone, not to mention insurance.

Excellent point. No ammount of uncompressed anything is going to feed your crew, or buy lights, costumes, props, and pay for salaries and transportation and insurance. I love more options, and I'm glad Canon is getting into the HD mix, but this camera doesn't seem like the best indie filmmaking camera out there.

I USED to think that way--better camera=better movie. I do know having the right tool works out best (for my DV needs, the DVX100A is better than my old XL1; for my HDV needs, the FX1 is better than my old HD10), but it still comes back to the story.

It is an impressive camera, though.

heath

The HVX w/Firestore will give you full-out 1080/24p 4:2:2 DVCProHD for less than $8000 ($6000 HVX + $2000 Firestore) and it seems by far the best bang for your buck for indie filmmaking. Portable, inexpensive (for HD) and full quality DVCProHD.
That just made me put the HVX200 on my radar screen! That's the beginning of a good workflow. And it's cool because you could always switch over to P2 cards (if you wanted to) as the prices came down in the future.

I think we're getting off topic--let's talk more about the Canon (the P2 HVX200 should be discussed here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=80)).

heath

who in the indie world can deal with 1.4GB data/s, all the Harddrive to store it?


it's gigabits, not gigabytes. roughly 200megabytes/sec. still a lot, but far from impossible. definitely doable on a prosumer budget.

definitely doable on a prosumer budget

Do you have any products to recommend? Or are you just referring to overall storage space? I haven't spent too much time looking into it, but it seems like you'd need a RAID of six or 8 hard disks, and probably more if you want to have redundancy to avoid losing all your footage if just one drive crashes. Then you need to multiply that by the amount of storage you want to have on hand; 10 gigabytes per minute goes by pretty quickly.

However, let's keep in mind that you may not need to use the full 200mB/sec bandwidth -- there are lossless codecs that can compress the data to around half its size while losing nothing (think an LZW-style compression, like WinZip... I believe the Video Toaster 2 also employed lossless compression). You wouldn't get the massive 10:1 or higher compression ratios that you'd get from a lossy compressor (like MPEG-2 or DV-based compression) but you would retain 100% of the uncompressed quality... and when you're talking about needing a RAID of 8 hard disks, cutting the data rate in half gets you massive benefits as far as workflow, cost, etc.

Specific products no (I rarely look at proprietary solutions for a particular problem - my mileage will vary :)... but you could easily build a good RAID array for $2-$3k.

12 250GB drives (~ $100 each @ Pricewatch) = ~ 1000GB of RAIDed space
2 Rocketraid cards (or something similar)
Server PC + case to hold it all (full server size cabinet (not a rack) or roll your own)

100 minutes of uncompressed HD

I guess nobody read my post on options to use instead of uncompressed capture. There are other ways to capture HD other than uncompressed but would also be better than HDV.

One example of storage for HD would be a Lacie SATA II 5 disk external raid that can get a sustained 189 MB/S for the first 75% of the storage unit and only costs $2,000.00 for 1 TB.

Just because a signal is uncompressed doesn't mean you have to keep it that way. Heck even the HDCAM SR deck records the uncompressed dual port 4:4:4 as a mpeg4 2:1 compression.

One example of compression I listed is the bitjazz codec which on a Decklink and Apple you can capture uncompressed video at around a 2:1 ratio with 100% quality. This alone cuts your harddrive bandwidth in half and would even work with a raid-0 with only 2 drives.

If that is still too much for some people you can always capture directly to live DVCPROHD at 1280x1080 and 4:2:2. While this isn't the best format in the world for HD it is only around 14 MB/S which almost any off the shelf hard drive can handle. This will allow you to use the XLH1 with the SDI port to at least give you a nice clean format that would be pretty good for keying without the need for special storage. I'm sure most of the indie people on here already have a G5 with at least one extra hard drive. Now all you need is a $595.00 Decklink card and you are all set to go to capture DVCPROHD from the SDI.

I just do not understand why people want to put up with all these cumbersome solutions to obtaining footage.

No high def for me until I get all of this stuff in one unit.

I just do not understand why people want to put up with all these cumbersome solutions to obtaining footage.

No high def for me until I get all of this stuff in one unit.

Me too... pain in the arse IMO.

So HDV or spend a whole loada £££ on P2 is basically my option..hmmm...

I think every one is getting far too wound up by formats anyway.

These are 1/3" cameras! There is no point in capturing on some ridiculous quality, because there are so many other weaker links in the chain.

Aim to make all your links about the same size, that way you'll get the best compromise between quality and cost - which is the aim for EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS BOARD.

HDV is good enough for all these camera in most situations. However, I would have liked to have seen at least one of these manufacturers come up with a built in archive method of shooting a 50Mbps interframe at this price range. I though Canon would be the one because they have no higher end cameras to protect, but again, this very obvious path has been ignored!

If you need to blue screen etc, you can use the ridiculous quality of HD-SDI for that small, controlled part of you film. If you are planning on making an Indie Sin City, the XL-H1 is perfect.

The cost is still going to be a problem but the HD7000 comming from JVC should have a few more options than just HDV.

JVC really don't have a high end to protect, but they don't seem very interested in creating anything more than HDV in this price range either.

I say this because Canon is not interested in BRAINWASHING everybody by saying "Wait till NAB" and basically defaming its competitors by sending representatives to these forums to push their agenda.

Sending reps to push an agenda is not at all, not even 'basically,' defamation. To defame something is to damage its reputation, character, or good name.

To do it cheap, maybe in 2 years or so. You could always go 4:4:4 with the F950 or the Viper FilmStream.

heath

Whew! Not just this thread. I've been reading avidly (not an endorsement for anyone's NLE) the posts on this new Canon. People really need to stop vacillating and form opinions. Yes, sarcasm is a blunt weapon. Sorry.

I find it very interesting that on some threads there are some people raving about how this camera sucks, and on other threads saying it's for them. I mean even the same people. More to the point, for myself, it's the PICTURE that is created, the IMAGE that is captured that's the ultimate concern. I've heard very few people speak to this. Perhaps not having seen what this camera produces, as I haven't, people would rather go on and on ad ifinitum on gearwhore comparisons. I will note that the XL series from Canon has been roundly dissed since before I first got an XL-1. Hearing all the knowledgeable damning of it, I'm just amazed anyone would want to use one. Or an XL-1s, or the XL-2, or the newest member of the family, the XL H1, subject of this thread. Yet, more than a few have been made, sold, used and some amazingly creative motion pictures have been produced with them.

There are a lot of different cameras out there, both SD and HD. A lot I've had the pleasure of using were good, albeit in different ways. More of both will come. This and that are important (I, for one, find the dismissal of SMPTE syncing as a gimmick ludicrous- It is important). What really counts, above all: The PICTURE. As to the high-hatting 'professionals' posting that this is somehow the latest version of the Fisher-Price camcorder, well. Do you ever SEE some of the quality broadcast television on the air? No, no, on your air right now. Go look. It's not all 'Six Feet Under'. I'm talking about network programming, too. Lots of poorly lit crap that may have been shot on a camera big enough that the cameraman felt secure in his masculinity. And yet it looks bad. The PICTURE. By the way, long ago in the medieval ages when I worked at a TV station they had REAL he-man cameras. And huge wide video tape running on open reels at what looked like mach 1 in the booth. Things are better in this modern world, and don't you forget it.

Now I'll stop ranting, in my culmination of an hour reading posts. I want to see what this camera outputs. I really do. Anyone who thinks HD resolution, of any stripe, is comparable side by side with NTSC or PAL is kidding themselves. It's, how do I put this, Higher Resolution. What the camera is pointing at, how it's pointed, how the subject is lit, what glass captures and reveals the framed image- Those aren't all easily reduced to numeric distortion analogs.

I don't know when I'll jump to HD, but this camera pushes me closer. Resolution for the revolution. Or something catchy like that. Now everyone can yell at me.

Totally unrelated, but your sig had me in stitches.

Thanks, the signature is the only part that should be taken seriously.

<<<Heck even the HDCAM SR deck records the uncompressed dual port 4:4:4 as a mpeg4 2:1 compression.>>>

Right. Most pros will tell you that they cannot tell the difference between
uncompressed and 2:1. Even 4:1 HD using a modern I frame compression
codec should rock.

As I always say, test and make a decision. Especially with a $9,000 price tag.

heath

What really counts, above all: The PICTURE.

The PICTURE. By the way, long ago in the medieval ages when I worked at a TV station they had REAL he-man cameras. And huge wide video tape running on open reels at what looked like mach 1 in the booth. Things are better in this modern world, and don't you forget it.

Hooray! If I could give awards for Post of the Day, this would be it. Well done!

Quad is dead! Long live the Quad,

But the image quality has to do with a lot of things, such as the resolution and manual control.

Who would want a F900 in auto mode and 60i to make a movie?

But the image quality has to do with a lot of things, such as the resolution and manual control.

Who would want a F900 in auto mode and 60i to make a movie?

True, but if you can't communicate a story in the first place, all the manual knobs in the world won't change that.

All this focus on specs this, manual that - it's all just wankery that avoids actually doing something w/ the gear :). If you can make a movie, tell a story, share something - that ability doesn't depend on the hardware you use.

Don't turn the #s on the hardware into a crutch.

$.02

True, but if you can't communicate a story in the first place, all the manual knobs in the world won't change that.


$.02

Yes, yes, YES! IMHO picture quality in the indie film sector is about 10% of the equation. No indie film is going to rise or fall just because it was shot on an FX1 or a F900

All ye shall be sainted.

Now if I could just work this message into our registration page somehow...

True, but if you can't communicate a story in the first place, all the manual knobs in the world won't change that.

All this focus on specs this, manual that - it's all just wankery ....
$.02


The first part I agree with; truer words were never written. The second part I don't. If any of us believed that, we'd be out shooting with a cheap ol' VHS camcorder we got at a garage sale rather than with the best equipment we can afford, while debating the merits of the latest technologies. A good camera with a great feature-set doesn't give you talent, but allows you to better express your talent -- or at least increase the challenge -- as compared to a cheap-o or yesterday's technology.

Sports example: Would Lance Armstrong still be a great cyclist if he rode on a $200 mountain bike? Yep. Could he win the Tour de France once, let alone seven times, if he believed that computer-modeled low-drag titanium bike frames, etc, etc, was wankery? (Do I need to answer that?)
;-)

Besides, it is hard for me to understand how someone could have a passion for creating cinema and not care about cameras. Whatever someone's hobby or beloved vocation, an enthusiasm for the stuff that makes it possible seems an innate part of the equation.

The art of filmmaking isn't just in the mind's eye; it is what the mind's eye can do to express itself with the tools available. If there is an affordable but better tool to help me both challenge my skill and present broadened creative opportunities, you can bet I'll be after it. If that's wankery, well, WANK ON!

Finding a proper, healthy mixture of both types of discussions (that is, tools as well as techniques) is the real challenge to greatness, methinks.

If you haven't helped push 3 quad machines up ramp into a truck to haul them away, then you haven't lived in the video world long enough to diss any camera. I was in love with one-nch machines at one time because they were so small and the tape was so cheap. Life is relative.

We live in a world in which a 1/3" HDV "prosumer" camera looks better than the Ikegami HL79 state-of-the-art-high-end-envy-of-all did a scant 20 years ago. And a $10,000 1/2" chip camera actually looks better than a $35,000 2/3" chip camera of 15 years ago.

I can't say the 1/3" chip Z1 looks better than a DSR500WS, but from what I've seen, it's probably as close to the 500 in image quality as the 500 is to a Digibeta camcorder.

If I were in the market for a camera today for the types of things I do, this upcoming Canon HDV camera would cause me to come to a screeching halt before I signed up for a bank loan for a DSR570 (or equivalent) package. I'm not saying a 1/3" chip HDV camera is better than a 2/3" chip DVCAM camera, but it may be close enough to make some people decide that maybe they should give HDV a go. Even if you pay list price for the Canon, and buy a Sony HDV deck, you'v still spent less than half of what a DSR570 package would cost with a minimal quality lens.

I'm also not saying I would rush out and switch over to HDV at this time. But, IF I needed to scrap the current camera because of its age, I would most definitely give this approach serious consideration.

As for those who look at the statistics and read the opinions and say that HDV isn't good enough--well, it's better than DV shot with the same camera. The only thing I've seen is the Z1, and if I had not known the stuff I saw (on DVD on a 35" monitor) had been shot with a Z1, I would have guessed it came from a 2/3" chip camera. I was an HDV naysayer until I saw some decent footage shot by a professional.

In the past I was also a bit of a naysayer about the XL1. All the stuff I saw was oversaturated and had highlight blowouts. Then I saw a documentary shot by a real pro, and discovered it came from an XL1. I also saw an HBO short that came from an XL1 and it was incredibly good.

The thing about a 2/3" chip camera--it's a hell of a lot easier to get good footage under different conditions than it is with a 1/3" chip camera. But in the right hands, a very tweakable camera such as the Z1 or the upcoming Canon or the JVC, can turn out great stuff.

I learned some time ago to not trust most of what I read on the boards, and even some allegedly apples-to-apples comparative tests have been suspect sometimes. In the early days of DV, there was all the buzz that said it's not as good as Betacam, you can't chroma key it, it has artifacts. I rented a DVCAM camera and found that it looked better than the Betacam camera I had, I could indeed chroma key the footage, and there were no noticeable artifacts. Just as HDV won't be as good, from the same camera, as HDCAM SR, DVCAM from a DSR500WS isn't as good as Digibeta from a DVW700. But it's good enough for the types of TV spots, documentaries, corporate sales and training videos, and the occasional transfer to 35mm film that I do. I suspect that HDV would also be as good, depending on the camera chosen. And the quality I have seen so far makes me think that, in the proper hands, a 1/3" chip camera could be successfully used in many professional contexts.

Having said all that, however, I wouldn't buy one without renting first and testing thoroughly, just as I did with DVCAM before buying.

Nice thread grenade you dropped Shannon. You type one message about how excited you are about the new camera and it explodes. :-)

I think the credit goes the Canon, not the thread starter, LOL

The art of filmmaking isn't just in the mind's eye; it is what the mind's eye can do to express itself with the tools available. If there is an affordable but better tool to help me both challenge my skill and present broadened creative opportunities, you can bet I'll be after it. If that's wankery, well, WANK ON!

Sports example: Would Lance Armstrong still be a great cyclist if he rode on a $200 mountain bike? Yep. Could he win the Tour de France once, let alone seven times, if he believed that computer-modeled low-drag titanium bike frames, etc, etc, was wankery? (Do I need to answer that?)
;-)

Besides, it is hard for me to understand how someone could have a passion for creating cinema and not care about cameras. Whatever someone's hobby or beloved vocation, an enthusiasm for the stuff that makes it possible seems an innate part of the equation.


Mind you; you perhaps should have refrained from further elaboration after such a true statement as: "it is what the mind's eye can do to express itself with the tools available."

I'll assume what you actually meant was "the tools that remain unavailable at this point - but promised enough that those that are currently available should be avoided".

It's reassuring that if you think something is affordable then everyone else should naturally find it so also.

As for your sports example - perhaps the example of the fine artist would be slightly more appropriate. While many a painter would dearly love the most expensive sable brushes, gold oxide based Madders and the finest French linen canvas, the simple fact is that owning them doesn't make the artist wielding them a genius - just as owning the same bike that Lance Armstrong rides won't make everyone a Tour de France winner.

And oh me oh my... Sacre Bleu!! I own some of those lesser HDV camcorders! I guess that means in your eyes I'm indifferent to the tools of my craft...

1st year film student with an F950 or Tarantino with a domestic VHS camera, which movie would you go and watch?

"At the 30 Frame rate, broadcasters can capture high motion, like sports with confidence that each frame is captured individually and completely."

Anyone who has shot 30p kmows thus is utter nonsense! Shooting with 30p yields painful to watch strobing from the double images from the well known "eye tracking artifacts."

Whoever wrote this is writing fiction which casts doubt on on everything else Canon claims about the camera.

FOX originally wanted to go DTV via 480p30 until they say what sports looked like. They then when to 720p60 because it is the best for sports.

1st year film student with an F950 or Tarantino with a domestic VHS camera, which movie would you go and watch?

If Kill Bill 2 is anything to go by I'll take the 1st year film students work thanks.

I love the soft and warm image quality of my 1997 PAL XL1 in frame mode. I don't like the rugged and cold quality of PAL Sonys I've tried. (VXs, etc.)

(To some people it might be the complete opposite in terms of warmth)

Now I want to get the best HD camera for shooting a small live action feature with a small crew, having 2TB of LaCie FW storage and a PB G4, thinking in a 35 transfer later on. What would be the best below $10,000? I do want the best possible definition to tell a best possible story.

Are the image qualities (looks, feels, styles of what you end up seeing in the monitor) sustained by the different camera brands in their evolutions to HD? If I love the XL1 feel, will I find it in the XLH1?

The HVX200 + FireStore seems the most appropriate overall, but will it shoot as "beautiful" as the XL1 shoots in DV?

After reading this thread up to this point and seeing all of the debates, differing opinions and specifications on the latest gear, here is the answer. This is the latest device and some say the must have accessory for all complex gear. It is the solution to ALL of your questions, issues, discrepancies, etc., costs only $4.99 and most importantly, works on all formats, makes and models worldwide!

www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51321

Good Morning, Folks.

After taking several days to read and digest the contents of this thread, it appears to me to be nothing but the same old same, that was posted prior to the release of the XL-1s, and the XL-2.

Kennelmaster, which way to the fire plug??!

If Kill Bill 2 is anything to go by I'll take the 1st year film students work thanks.

Haha, you got in there before me Simon!

I bought an XL2 in May of this year. With all the accessories, a wide angle lense, matte box, follow focus, dual BP 945s, charger, ETC, It cost me about $13,000 Canadian (So like $20 american), anyhoo, I love it. I have used DVx 100a's, All the sony and JVC cams you can shake a stick at (including their HDV offerings, though the HD100 is incredibly nice), but I still love my SD XL2. I am modern guy, I live in a big house, have a nice computer for editing, can afford a camera package liek this, and my Dad is one of the highest-ups at the CBC (canadian broadcasting Corp.), But we don't own a sinlge HD TV, Infact, I only have one friend with an HDTV, and he doesnt get any HDTV channels!

Short story, I think Mandatory HD is still a ways away, and the added resolution doesn't mean squat if the picture is bad. You cant deny it.

If you want to get your nature documentary aired (or even considered)
on National Geo or Discovery now you have to shoot in HD. So,
for my work, equipment and image quality do indeed matter a lot.

James Emory:
That Easy Button is dynamite! I'll take two!

Steve Connor:
I guess don't see a 1st year film student with an F950 vs Tarantino with VHS as being apples-to-apples...that's more like, oh, grapes vs papaya. If you want apples-to-apples, it is any filmmaker with VHS vs that same filmmaker with a Cinealta. (Scientifically speaking -- sorry, I AM a scientist! -- to evaluate a variable, you must have constants).

Steve Crisdale:
Two admin points:
- I've got thick skin, so personal derision has little effect on me. However, see the DVinfo.net Policy (http://www.dvinfo.net/network/policy.php). Even if you disagree, please don't make it personal with other members.
- Selecting particular sentences, rearranging them, and then displaying them as a continuous quote would be "misquoting" and is potentially libelous behavior most anywhere. Don't do it.

Please clarify the following points on which I am confused:
- Where did I say that because I personally find a camera affordable, that any other person should also? We're just here in this particular thread discussing a newly-announced camera.
- Why is your HDV camera "lesser?" I'm shooting with an SD camera presently (XL2). I don't see where I accused you of being indifferent to the tools of your craft and wouldn't think you are...after all, you have a higher rez camera than do I and you're posting in a thread about an upcoming camera that lots of folks are excited to learn more about and discuss, whether or not they'll be buying it. I think my generic comment about people being interested in the tools of their hobbies or professions is self-evident, as your alternative example of an artist desiring sable brushes, etc. also illustrates.

A reminder to everyone else, including myself:
DVinfo is not keen to see people camp out in a camera forum just to make disparaging comments about it, or most especially the people posting about it. If you have something constructive to say -- whether it be a new on-topic fact, comments in agreement, or a polite counterpoint -- that's what the forum is here for. I hope that this is the end of the acrimony that has plagued this thread...it was started by someone who is enthusiastic to explore how this might be a great indie camera. Let's discuss that.

WANK ON!
;-)

If you want to get your nature documentary aired (or even considered)
on National Geo or Discovery now you have to shoot in HD. So,
for my work, equipment and image quality do indeed matter a lot.

I have same kind of thoughts.

For me the new XL H1 raises immediately couple questions. At first, is the DV image of XL H1 as good as that of XL2? If so, the option to capture also in HDV is pretty tempting.

Second, is there anybody who could say something realiable on the HDV images? In shooting landscapes the HDV will quite likely be stunning and clearly an improvement compared to DV. But, what about taking footages of moving objects such as flying birds?

Having technical background, can't avoid sceptical thoughts that HDV is bit like putting a basket ball through the eye of a needle. There must be some price for the increased resolution. My assumption is that it should show up in pan and tilt, and when something moves.

Second, is there anybody who could say something realiable on the HDV images? ... There must be some price for the increased resolution. My assumption is that it should show up in pan and tilt, and when something moves.

At the Canon Global Expo last week, Canon Inc. displayed some HDV video from the H1 which was shot in Florence, Italy. It was a mix of static shots and moving images. As you might suspect the camera was locked down for most of this, but there were a few slow, careful pans. Those are the best kind of pans anyway.

James Emory:
That Easy Button is dynamite! I'll take two!
Glad to help! I think everything should have an easy button!


If you want to get your nature documentary aired (or even considered)
on National Geo or Discovery now you have to shoot in HD. So,
for my work, equipment and image quality do indeed matter a lot.
As for Discovery, did you hear this first hand? If so, is it for certain types of content such as what you described or for ALL new recent content. I have shot for a couple of Discovery networks recently and HD was not a requirement. There is alot of DV, Beta SP and Digibeta still being shot. Now, with that being said, I did work on a show where they shot 16x9 for future syndication when 16x9 sets will eventually dominate but at the time, it aired in 4:3. Most of the shows that I have shot were 4:3 though. The budgets for most of these reality shows are tight for SD, not to mention HD. I would think HD would be reserved for nature documentaries and special features where the bugdets are larger and the photography could be appreciated more. The rates that I have seen for an HD EFP package are around $2000 per day and that's just for the gear wheras a complete beta package with crew is around $1300-$1500 and a DV crew with gear is around $1000-1200 per day with all of these before OT on labor.

I wish I could comment on the H1, but on the JVC HD100 I was surprised to see so few issues on pans of varying speeds after all that I had heard about the HDV format--in fact, I was unable to duplicate any of these issues, all the pans I did were fine, within the parameters of 24 frame panning "rules" (which are applicable to film also).

1st year film student with an F950 or Tarantino with a domestic VHS camera, which movie would you go and watch?


Ha! Good one.

The funny thing about breaking HDV is that by the time you do it, even if the picture was perfect, you wouldn't be able to see what they heck was going on because you'd be panning, shaking, zooming, and jumping up and down like you were having a seizure (read: The Bourne Supremacy).

Any half-watchable camera work will come through the HDV format admirably. However, subjectively, no matter how hard I've tried, I cannot get HDV to look worse than DV... the codec is just too smart.

It isn't the best format for post - we all know that. But DV users talk like HDV is a step backwards - in reality it's the kind of step forwards we should consider at all levels of acquisition. You could have 4:4:4 4k resolution at the data rates of HDCAM SR.

-Steve

Charles,

That's good to hear. When the HD10 came out, you couldn't go handheld, and they said it was HDV, but in fact it was the one ccd (non-CMOS) that did it.

heath

I was in love with one-nch machines at one time because they were so small and the tape was so cheap. Life is relative.

We live in a world in which a 1/3" HDV "prosumer" camera looks better than the Ikegami HL79 state-of-the-art-high-end-envy-of-all did a scant 20 years ago.

"Scant" is relative too. Scant is a long time to some of the readers around here. Some are under 20 years old! NOT me... ;)

Just as HDV won't be as good, from the same camera, as HDCAM SR, DVCAM from a DSR500WS isn't as good as Digibeta from a DVW700. But it's good enough for the types of TV spots, documentaries, corporate sales and training videos, and the occasional transfer to 35mm film that I do. I suspect that HDV would also be as good, depending on the camera chosen.

Typo? Did you mean 'Just as DV won't be as good,' etc? Because you then say "I suspect that HDV would also be as good."

???

And the quality I have seen so far makes me think that, in the proper hands, a 1/3" chip camera could be successfully used in many professional contexts.

I don't think there's any "could" about it. They are successfully used for feature motion pictures and in other professional contexts already, in increasing numbers!

:)

However, subjectively, no matter how hard I've tried, I cannot get HDV to look worse than DV... the codec is just too smart.
... But DV users talk like HDV is a step backwards - in reality it's the kind of step forwards we should consider at all levels of acquisition.

Steve, thanks a lot for your comment. Coming from the cold north (the first snow came already last Saturday) I appreciate your calm and justified comments free of unnecessary fuzz.

Since I'm in wildlife filming, any kind of HD format would guarantee longer life span for the material which often cannot be retaken. Hearing the HDV format is a real step forward makes the new XL H1 very tempting. Especially, for sooner or later portable recording devices will replace the miniDV tape completely, and then, the HD-SDI output will become a real asset.

I have had exactly the same experience with HDV- ignore the merchants of doom who only look at the tech specs and not the pictures!