Kaku, please recommend a 60i clip. I am interested in the wider field of view, with people and motion, cars, water, boats, buses or whatever, but anything that would put the most stress on the HDV mpeg2 encoder, motion or other flaws.

Thanks for your efforts.

Sight unseen, the XL H1 even at the painful pricepoint of $9k may offer more of what I'm looking for.

I wonder if the relative lack of motion related mpeg artifacting as noted by a previous poster when compared to the FX1/Z1 could be a consequence of the absence of the pixel shift paradigm, moreover a benefit of the full 1440x1080 CCD sampling?

Kaku, please recommend a 60i clip. I am interested in the wider field of view, with people and motion, cars, water, boats, buses or whatever, but anything that would put the most stress on the HDV mpeg2 encoder, motion or other flaws.

Thanks for your efforts.

Sight unseen, the XL H1 even at the painful pricepoint of $9k may offer more of what I'm looking for.

I wonder if the relative lack of motion related mpeg artifacting as noted by a previous poster when compared to the FX1/Z1 could be a consequence of the absence of the pixel shift paradigm, moreover a benefit of the full 1440x1080 CCD sampling?

Tom,

I do have some footage that we shot last sunday at a short mountainbike course in the city (next to Makuhari Messe where InterBEE is going to be held next month) and we shot the same angles with XL H1 and FX1 with bunch of cross country mountainbikers are riding. I have to prepare for collage class tomorrow, so I will try to work on some tomorrow night. Meanwhile, you can download bikeseq60 from the first batch for moderate camera work of me riding my bike around doing little tricks in front of my office (shot by my wife). This is my standard procedure and I have the similar clips of all the other cams that I owned and tried before.
My impression is the compression is little less comparing to HC1 and FX1.

The best test is panning the camera in the mountain trails with a lot of trees and plants and follow the fast mountainbiker passing by. It's a guarranty compresion break up on FX1 and HC1.

bikeseq60 it is then! Thanks!
Tom

My pleasure.

Well, regrettably I cannot download bikeseq60 because my only broadband path is my Verizon cell phone, that halts downloads after 50mb. I did manage this way to get the carspassing clip.

Kaku made no representations, and offered his clips in the spirit of demonstrating what a camcorder could have difficulty with. I commend the honesty of allowing the clips to speak for themselves.

The sum total of my viewing experience of the XL H1 comes from the one clip, but still it absolutely jumped out at me how strikingly similar it looked to footage shot with my JVC GR-HD1. And I'm afraid that's not what I hoped for. Highlights were badly blown, color saturation is muted, and 24F...well I don't like it.

To be sure of my observations, I loaded up some clips from my GR-HD1 and a few I downloaded from the Sony Z1U. The Canon optics look superb. But the color temperature was cool. I much prefer the warmth of the Z1U clip. The GR-HD1 looks as sharp to me, but by comparison to either has horrid artifacts and chroma noise. The Canon was razor sharp, and held together during the panning and motion. The Z1U clips have the best latitude and tonality, nicely detailed.

I need to see more. The XL H1 has so many controls I'm sure it's capable of much more.

I like my HC1 better..it's more sharp... and if i use wide lense it shows better pic than xlh1 .$9k for this camera? rip off....FX1 or Z1u would be best choice.

Kaku, can You make some resolution charts, please?

Kaku, can You make some resolution charts, please?

Robert,

I don't have the camera anymore, it was only for the last weekend.

Well, regrettably I cannot download bikeseq60 because my only broadband path is my Verizon cell phone, that halts downloads after 50mb. I did manage this way to get the carspassing clip.

Kaku made no representations, and offered his clips in the spirit of demonstrating what a camcorder could have difficulty with. I commend the honesty of allowing the clips to speak for themselves.

The sum total of my viewing experience of the XL H1 comes from the one clip, but still it absolutely jumped out at me how strikingly similar it looked to footage shot with my JVC GR-HD1. And I'm afraid that's not what I hoped for. Highlights were badly blown, color saturation is muted, and 24F...well I don't like it.

To be sure of my observations, I loaded up some clips from my GR-HD1 and a few I downloaded from the Sony Z1U. The Canon optics look superb. But the color temperature was cool. I much prefer the warmth of the Z1U clip. The GR-HD1 looks as sharp to me, but by comparison to either has horrid artifacts and chroma noise. The Canon was razor sharp, and held together during the panning and motion. The Z1U clips have the best latitude and tonality, nicely detailed.

I need to see more. The XL H1 has so many controls I'm sure it's capable of much more.

Yep, Tom.
I think I tried to do too much. It wouldn't do justice to this cam if we don't spend the time. So, pepole should watch my clips as just quick test, not thorough planning and careful preparation, and how much the cam can do without them.

I like my HC1 better..it's more sharp... and if i use wide lense it shows better pic than xlh1 .$9k for this camera? rip off....FX1 or Z1u would be best choice.

Some clip don't come sharp as it should maybe, because I had hard time focusing with the color LCD and I wasn't used to varifocus (should I call this?) that needs so much adjustment when I change the zoom position.

The "carspassing" clip from the XL H1 has edge to edge sharpness in spades. But HD DESTINATIONS "Bora Bora" it's not.

On the Vasst site, they probably did their best to highlight the capabilities of the FX1. Filming a duck floating on water is let's admit, not too demanding but can be pretty.

Shooting passing cars and tourists is not as artistic, but tells a lot more about what to expect from a run and gun.

But I want my videos to look like Discovery HD Network, not my GR-HD1. And I want to go to Bora Bora and shoot them, and never come back...sigh.

Does somebody realize block artifacts at the grass in the video with the dog? I wonder, how it will look on a blow up/big screen.? I guess, there you will see it still more obviously.

This camera is very sharp. Clean image, great low light and very bright nice colors. The lens performs very very good. The best HDV camera out there by far. It's a winner of a camera.

Pappas

Tom I work for the company that did "Bikini Destinations Bora Bora" (sort of comparable) we used to sell to HD Net and they would only accept HDCAM. So it wouldn't make a difference what you shot in as long as it was a sony HDCAM. They have the 1080i standard, and I've heard of some OTHER companies that would actually shoot with smaller cams (think Z1U) and insert the footage onto HDCAM and no one ever new the difference. OF course MY company wouldn't do anything like that, but let's not anyone overlook the power of good post correction on a prosumer camera...

The XL-H1 is a professional camera head. HD-SDI 4:2:2 1080i is anything but "consumer". Those specs can only be found on professional line level of products. The lens is "prosumer". The LCD VF & Mic is "prosumer". But the H1 core head is a professional broadcast system.

Pappas

HC1? DO you mean the XLH1 are they the same? I thought the HC1 was sony?

HC1? DO you mean the XLH1 are they the same? I thought the HC1 was sony?


Thanks Nick! Fixed it.....

Kaku,

Like so many others, I want to sincerely thank you for making your clips available on the web. To me, the material is perfectly adequate in showing what the camera is capable of, because if it looks sharp, detailed, colorful, with filmic motion (24f) and (relatively) artifact free in simple "run-and-gun" scenarios, then I can deduce that the technology will absolutely excel in production scenarios.

I've been watching the clips on both hi-res CRT and on a 12 ft. HD projection screen (720p projector) and all I can say is I think Canon's hit a home run. The HDV stuff compares quite favorably to HDCAM and DVCPRO HD material I have on my system. It's really sharp and I can only imagine what a good SDI acquisition might look like. Just the option of it is amazing.

I've been talking with a good friend and we've both come to the conclusion that Canon has taken dead-aim at the F900, and come up with 99% of what that camera really provides. I think the H1 is the true "poor man's" CineAlta--and most definitely the highest bang-for-the-buck in this "affordable" HD realm...at least until Panasonic can prove otherwise.

Looking at the 24F clips, they are all 29.97 frame rate actual. Stepping through frame by frame with an mpeg editor, every 5th frame is repeated. That's where the stutter gets in. It totally corrupts the motion, fluidity of the water in the video scene by the bay.

On the other hand, Bikeseq24 is actually not 24F, but true 29.97 fps. It has wonderful fluidity and continuity.

The crisp detail and lack of motion breakup is the best I've seen from HDV. The shadow detail is the best also. I think it could use some adjustments to the gamma and color matrix.

I think you'd have to avoid the XL H1 if your priority was 24 fps. But for "live quality" 1080i, it's impressive already and could be a knockout with some tweaks to the color.

I think you'd have to avoid the XL H1 if your priority was 24 fps.

Why? I'm sure most of the major NLE's will have a pulldown method for extracting only the 24 frames needed.

Looking at the 24F clips, they are all 29.97 frame rate actual. Stepping through frame by frame with an mpeg editor, every 5th frame is repeated. That's where the stutter gets in. It totally corrupts the motion, fluidity of the water in the video scene by the bay.


Tom, that's not really true. The Canon 24F stream only contains 24 frames per second, and uses repeat flags to tell the decoder when to insert redundant fields to add pulldown.

It's up to the decoder to correctly display this, and not all decoders will do it right. Also, some decoders will report the stream as 29.97 (which it is after repeat flags have been accounted for), and some will report as 23.98.

The 24F files DO exhibit perfectly smooth motion if you're using a program that reads the stream right.

Tom, that's not really true. The Canon 24F stream only contains 24 frames per second, and uses repeat flags to tell the decoder when to insert redundant fields to add pulldown.

It's up to the decoder to correctly display this, and not all decoders will do it right. Also, some decoders will report the stream as 29.97 (which it is after repeat flags have been accounted for), and some will report as 23.98.

The 24F files DO exhibit perfectly smooth motion if you're using a program that reads the stream right.

24 fps is perfectly smooth on the motion picture cinema screen because that's the frame rate of the film projector (or 48 since each frame is flashed twice). 24 fps is inherently *not* perfectly smooth on ATSC-HDTV (or NTSC) because the sync rate is 60hz. If 24 was evenly divisible into 60, there would be no need for repeat flags or 3:2 pulldown. But since it's not, motion becomes discontinuous at the repeated field/frame, no matter what.

24 fps is perfectly smooth on the motion picture cinema screen because that's the frame rate of the film projector (or 48 since each frame is flashed twice). 24 fps is inherently *not* perfectly smooth on ATSC-HDTV (or NTSC) because the sync rate is 60hz. If 24 was evenly divisible into 60, there would be no need for repeat flags or 3:2 pulldown. But since it's not, motion becomes discontinuous at the repeated field/frame, no matter what.

I understand all that. It has nothing to do with what I was explaining above.

I was just trying to clarify that if you see a repeated frame while stepping through a Canon 24F stream, then that's a product of your MPEG2 decoder adding it. It's a product of how your MPEG2 decoder was adding pulldown to the 24fps MPEG stream to get to 29.97.

If I demux the Canon 24F .m2t stream using MPEGSTREAMCLIP on my Mac, my end result is a 23.98 .m2v. In this .m2v there are 24 discrete frames per second, and no more.

I understand all that. It has nothing to do with what I was explaining above.

I was just trying to clarify that if you see a repeated frame while stepping through a Canon 24F stream, then that's a product of your MPEG2 decoder adding it. It's a product of how your MPEG2 decoder was adding pulldown to the 24fps MPEG stream to get to 29.97.

If I demux the Canon 24F .m2t stream using MPEGSTREAMCLIP on my Mac, my end result is a 23.98 .m2v. In this .m2v there are 24 discrete frames per second, and no more.

You are not stepping through a native 23.98 m2v stream unless *you* demux it into that!

The native *Canon 24F* m2t stream that comes out of the XL H1 is @ 29.97 f/sec, same as the 60i. The 24F option adds the pulldown, the 60i doesn't need it. Canon 24F mode wouldn't play on an ATSC compliant HDTV monitor unless it did, because 23.98 sync rate (48hz) is not ATSC compliant!

Tell you what. I too will demux this clip to 23.98 (as you did), and then step through that frame by frame to evaluate whether the 24 frames are periodic. That's really the salient point about whether the 24 frame mode introduces stutter or not.

They are not periodic. The Canon 24F mode appears to be capturing at 60i (30 fps). You can thus drop every 5th frame and replace it with a flag to repeat the 4th, (so that the it doesn't play back speeded up), to get a filmic look. And though you get 24 discrete frames every second that way, the cadence is irregular.

To do this right, you have to have a variable frame rate like the HVX200, which this cam does not.

They are not periodic. The Canon 24F mode appears to be capturing at 60i (30 fps). You can thus drop every 5th frame and replace it with a flag to repeat the 4th, (so that the it doesn't play back speeded up), to get a filmic look. And though you get 24 discrete frames every second that way, the cadence is irregular.

To do this right, you have to have a variable frame rate like the HVX200, which this cam does not.

I'm confused about your methodology, but I won't debate it.

The Canon 24F streams I have (the true ones that weren't mislabeled), act identically to the 24fps streams I have from my own HD100. Same rendering of motion, everything.

... you have to have a variable frame rate like the HVX200, which this cam does not.Actually the HVX200 does *not* have variable frame rates. It has selectable frame rates. There is a big difference between variable and selectable. Hope this helps,

I doubt it's worth getting that technical Chris...

Even the Varicam has only frame rates between 1 and 60 in integer steps. If you want truly continuously variable, you have to consider an analog crank I guess.

-Steve

all i can muster right now... is WOW!

Thanks my Ito&Chris for bringing us advanced footages before the cam's even released. This is incredible previlege to be a part of a group to see a dawn of a new revolution =).

i'm projecting some of those images on my 80" front screen projector and all the footages look awesome. i'm so gettin this.... in 5 years after price drops =). with all these new HDV cams coming out, we're coming upon an impasse. yesh it is still "video" but so was star wars episode ii&iii (so far the MOST financially successful "video" movies ever).

Has anyone else noticed that this camera seems to exhibit FAARRR less MPEG artifacting than the Sony? I mean, how is this possible?

Is it because the image is being compressed as a progressive image, and not interlaced? If you shoot in CF25 on the Z1U, does it produce less artifacting than in 60i?

I know that progessive frames like up a lot less storage (for the same quality) than interlaced frames. Each interlaced frame is really two frames in one (fields).

So for the same bit rates, progressive "frames" are much less artifact free then interlaced "fields".

Remember Kakus clips (except one) are also 24fps and not even 30fps, and so there is even more allocated data for each frame.

Personally I think that unless there is a lot of movement, at 24fps there will hardly be any noticable MPEG-2 baddies...

<<If you shoot in CF25 on the Z1U, does it produce less artifacting than in 60i?>>

For sure.