Just came back from Samy's camera in Hollywood. Picked up another Canon XL-H1 to go with the other H1 I bought in December. Alternatively, I had been considering for about 10 months the Panasonic HVX200. I held off as long as I could to see how good it would be for my production workflow and future narrative movie projects, but after recent testing & evaluation of the HVX200, I decided to give Canon another $9k. The decision was quite simple, actually.

THE IMAGE

Ya see, while all the bells and whistles that these cameras come with are wonderful to have, it's the final image that means the most to me. It should mean the most to you as well. Don't "SETTLE" on your image over some camera feature that comes on one camera and not the other. A removable lens means nothing if you're not gonna actually remove it. The photography should be the sole purpose for you buying one camera over another. Isn't that what we consider when buying STILL D-SLR cameras? Isn't it the resolution & the picture quality what we all strive for with those? "How many megapixels does it have?" is the biggest question ever asked in regards to digital photography. "What does the picture look like?" is the second biggest question. I've never heard a professional photographer chose a Sony CyberShot over a Canon 20D because it used memory sticks and not compact flash. So why don't we judge these HD cameras the same way when it comes to DIGITAL MOTION PICTURE cameras? Don't get me wrong, workflow is important, but how much more important is it compared to the final image?

It's the resolution, it's the definition, it's the colors, it's the vividness, it's the beauty, it's the impact on my audience that matters. From today forward we should 'demand' from all good cinematographers only the best imagery with what they have to work with, and give them the best tool we can. They must PUSH these cameras to their limits to deliver astounding footage for the masses. That's what it's all about. Nothing else. It should never be about "who made it?" but rather how well it looks as the requirement.
Taking this prerequisite into consideration, it was easy to make the final decision for me as to what 2nd camera to get. I believe....that the Canon XL-H1 produces a prettier, higher resolution, more tunable, more pleasing, more movie-like, more awesome picture then the other camera I was considering, the HVX200. Besides a camera shoot-out I was involved with last week that left me with doubts about the HVX200's picture performance when shooting a pretty young lady sitting at a table, yesterday at Birns & Sawyer, the HVX200 & the XL-H1 was switched back & forth on their "model train" setup in the camera showroom. This time the XL-H1 was tweaked by a DP who knew what he was doing. The results confirmed & convinced me without a doubt in my mind about what camera to buy to attain the best quality. You have to SERIOUSLY convice a guy like me to spend an additional $three grand$ *TWICE*, and the XL-H1 has done that. For you it may be different. But for me, it's worth $8,999.00 (they still didn't give me a discount)....because I take what I do SERIOUS. I have to or I don't eat.

Wether you know it or not, each and every one of you reading this post are "founders" of the Digital Video era and all the reason why you should get involved in the discussions here. Don't just read, come and talk too. In about 100 years from now when film, dv, hdv, dvcpro, hdcam, xdcam, & digibeta is long gone, people will wonder "When did DV begin and who used it?". Who do you think they are going to look back at? Todays DV is no different then the day Film was born. And you guys are the first users of its kind. Websites like DVINFO.NET is history in the making guys. We are losing our history of just 50 years ago. How many photos do you have of your great-grandparents? We wonder what the people who started FILM discussed and pondered on. But not for you. Your photo will be there for your childrens children thanks to the IMAGE that your camera produces. And the things you discussed during the dawn of the DV era will be forever archived thanks to this website. Everything you say and do here will be documented and recorded for thousands of years thanks to people like Chris Hurd. I encourage you to make stuff with your gear. Record your children. Record your wife. Record your parents. Record yourself!. USE IT! Your great-great-great grandchildren will cherish it and remember you. They will laugh at the equipment you quarreled over and be in awe as to how you could even CONSIDER watching a movie like we enjoy today because of the technology they will have in 100 years. Just think about how you look at 1906 films.....yea, it's like that. That's how they are going to think about your movies in the year 2106. But one things for sure....the IMAGE will be clear! *smile* Tell stories. Make movies. Be a part of the creation of a fiction or non-fiction moving picture adventure. I sure will. And therefore, to me, the most important thing that we should always remember as digital pioneers is the image itself. How pristine it is aquired. And that's why....as of January 19th, 2006....I pick the Canon XL-H1 as my cameras of choice.

People wanted to know how I felt about the testing last week and was waiting for me to post my thoughts......well......I hope this answers your questions. *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

P.S.
For late 2006 early 2007, my eye is now on that selectable frame rate 1/2"CCD 24p HD removable lens shoulder mountable HD-SDI Sony XDCAM HD that is being released!

Shannon, thanks for the report. Seing that you had a real DP on the shop to compare the footage, do you think it is possible for you to post some footage of a "tweaked" xl-h1 in order for it to look like a HVX, in order for us to see how versatile the camera can be on looks in camera?

One more suggestion. There's been much concern because of the Blow ups (White sky) with the XL. Can you post a video of a Blue Sky scene? How about some stills of a scene taken from a XL-h1 (no photo mode, please vs some HVX footage still in 1080? In I or p?)

I know you have to make money with these babies, but, like you said, we are the pioneers, right? You wouldn't want a fellow pioneer to end up in an ambush while pioneering... Please show us why your pasture is greener!

( As you can see I'm really undecided between these cameras... Is The XL-h1 such a leap quality wise for me to abandon 2 years of dvx experience- its like changing NLE workflows! Really annoying! But if it delivers the goods, than so be it!)

Wow with a pep talk like that how can you yourself not be into cinematography and just call yourself a "producer?"

Good for you Shannon, i really thought about the Canon, but for my next project i really need variable framerates and interchangeble len's and this has been my problem with the HVX, the fixed lens design.

I'm currently looking at puttin my money into the HD-SDI Sony XDCAM HD .

For late 2006 early 2007, my eye is now on that selectable frame rate 1/2"CCD 24p HD removable lens shoulder mountable HD-SDI Sony XDCAM HD that is being released!

Two days ago, I saw some footage of the new XDCam HD camcorder, the PDW 350 during the Sony Roadshow. Images were displayed in 1080p with the Ruby videoprojector. It was beautifull but very close from HDV pictures. After that, we saw some HDCAM footage on the same screen and that was really really much better (color, sharpness, contrast). So I 'm a bit disapointed with the XDcam HD, for the moment. For the price of two Canon XL-H1 you have only one PDW 350...
XDcamHD is still 4.2.0 with MPEG2 HD compression and this remains a weak point, even with a 35Mb/s rate, IMHO.

Hey Shannon, good post---I'm lookingat the XDCAM HD too-. Only thing is, that I have it from a reliable source that Sony will be introducing a 2/3" chipper in the XD HD series this summer. It might be worth a wait to see if it really happens. Also, are there any other options besides the two Sony decks for post?

In about 100 years from now when film, dv, hdv, dvcpro, hdcam, xdcam, & digibeta is long gone, people will wonder "When did DV begin and who used it?".

I don't know about that, but I suspect that in as little as ten years people will be asking, "Why didn't more people start shooting in HD as soon as that became affordable to do?" :-)

Shannon: I agree with everything you've said in your posts about this camera. You have been very objective - and not been a "Chevy's better than Ford" guy... I too very am impressed with the picture from this camera, and I am a DP - the only shortcomings are inherent in the HDV specs (audio primarily) - and the fact that Canon was more than slightly shortsighted in introducing a camera without a companion deck.. they'd be selling a bunch more of them if they had..

Although I'm shooting 60i exclusively at the moment, I took an hour to shoot and play back some 24f stuff yesterday.. I played it out of the camera (using that nice component cable supplied with the camera) into the 42" plasma screen in my office - my opinion (and remember everybody, this is only my opinion) - I thought the 24f stuff looked better than most of what I've seen shot in 24p, it looked much more like a telecine transfer of well shot super16... Steve Rosen

Sergio: Barlow is taking care of that for you this weekend. *smile*

Evan: Me, a cinematographer? LOL no way buddy....I stay in my lane and do what I do. I leave that to the masters of lighting. I only know what I need to know so I won't get screwed, nawmean? I believe a good movie producer should know a little about every department. I know enough about camera, sound, lighting, wardrobe, construction, art, makeup, writing, scheduling & budgeting to interview others about it and hire someone that is good and weed out the ones who are trying to shaft me by using technical terms other producers may not understand. I know a few producers who know jack crap about depth-of-field or what a polarizer filter is or what the gain setting does. They couldn't identify an XLR cable or explain the difference between UHF & VHF wireless if you paid them. I can go on and on about the other departments as well. They just put their trust into someone and pray all is well. As an indie, I can't afford to give someone that much power over an entire department. So I learn their job as well. Hire the good ones based on the three R's (references, resume & reel) and if they pass those, then I don't have to worry about them on set. If I see something going wrong, I can intervene and ask relevant questions without sounding like an idiot. Also, I'm a damn good P.A. *smile*

Tony: Good for you. That XDCAM HD looks very promising, doesn't it!

Ronan: Well, I guess we'll have to see how well it does when it hits the streets. If it's anything like the Varicam in terms of picture quality, then....I'm sold.

David: Honestly, 1/2" chips is the largest I will ever 'purchase with cash' at my level. Anything larger I will simply rent. Owning a 2/3" camera is for a dedicated DP who can rent it out along with hiring him or for a dedicated rental house, neither of which I am. As a producer, if I was to buy a 2/3" HD camera I would go the robert rodriguez/michael mann route and get the best of the best, and I can't afford that today.

David: LOL, I feel you.

Steve: Man....I am with you! And there "IS" in fact a deck coming. Don't worry 1 bit. And about 24f on the XL-H1 looking more like a telecine of film and in some cases better then 24p actually does on other cameras....YESSSSsssss. I've been trying to say that forever. Apparently not too many people have seen a film transfer or raw processed stock, so they just don't know. "true 24P" means jack if it looks worse! "interlaced scanning chips" means jack if they look better and yields higher resolution in 24p recordings then progressive scanning chips from comparable cameras! It's mind bogling how people get hung up on specs and terminology, and completely bypass the final image. I think the proper term is "denial".

- ShannonRawls.com

Shannon, or anyone.

Both the Sony Z1U and the Canon shoot HDV.

What do you see as the material difference between the two cameras and how do you justify the price difference between the two?

For the life of me, how can a HDV camera shoot progressive footage?

Do you see a huge difference between the Canon and Sony in image quality? Does the Panny fit in between?

I am saving up for one of those babies. there is a local rental company that I am working on to get 2 xl-h1's.

Shannon, you are a man among boys in this community, which is why I want to lay the following down for you. A doc that my friend and I did was selescted for the New York International Independant Film Festival (the one in Hollywood), and I would like to know if you would mind coming by and critiquing it for us. I can get you a VIP pass good for the whole week, plus I would just like to meet the man behind the brilliance I read on hear every day. (Okay, maybe that was laying it on a little thick...) The dates are March 9-16. Drop me an email and let me know!

Thanks

Bryon <><

Shannon, you are a man among boys in this community, which is why I want to lay the following down for you.

Doesn't say much for the rest of us, does it Bryon?

Take care

Well, David. No offense was meant to anybody and if you took it that way I apologize. I simply take alot from what Shannon says. Reading his posts have gotten me through many a shoot.

Sorry if it sound demeaning to anybody.

Can't we all just get along?! ;-)

Bryon <><

Shannon, or anyone.

Both the Sony Z1U and the Canon shoot HDV.
What do you see as the material difference between the two cameras and how do you justify the price difference between the two?
ANSWER: High Definition 24p recorded footage @ 1/48th shutter speed. NuffSaid!

For that single reason alone, it is worth $4000 extra to me. Shooting 60i and converting to 24p is pretty but it just don't cut it, I'm sorry. CF24 to 24p is pretty but it just don't cut it for me, I'm sorry. We are talking about "IMAGE BEAUTY & APPEARANCE & MOTION & FEEL"......24f delivers.

I know Hollywood Producers who shelled out $150,000.00 bucks for a scene that never seen daylight. Never made it in the movie, and before they shot the scene, they had a feeling it wouldn't make it to begin with....why did they do it? because the STORY could not be sacraficed. it was worth wasting every bit of $150k to them. Well, I am adopting the same ideology to my level of producing. I don't mind buying lenses for my XL-H1. I don't mind adding matteboxes and good 4x4 GLASS filters for my DP to have at his disposal. It's OK for me to buy DTE recorders. I buy the best tape stock I can get. And I'll spend $4000.00 on an upgrade to record 1080p24 HD. Why?? Because at this price point....it's WORTH IT. I mean, c'mon......We are talking under 4 thousand dollars here. $4k that will DRASTICALLY change the final look of my projects??? Man, what is YOUR movie worth?? Mine is surely worth $4k on the image for SURE! Ten Eighty Twenty Four Pee High Definition Footage...for only Four Thousand bucks more?? AND I GET TO KEEP THE CAMERA??? Ahh man, I'll take it!.....here (diggin' in my pocket).....here's the money, take it. You feel me?
Now, if it was like a $15,000 difference, then I'll slow my roll. But $4k??? Naw man....gimme the best I can get for under $10k. Period!

Now....above and BEYOND that incredibly important aspect, read these posts....

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56129

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=56283

see what I mean?

- ShannonRawls.com

Well, David. No offense was meant to anybody and if you took it that way I apologize. I simply take alot from what Shannon says. Reading his posts have gotten me through many a shoot.

Bryon, no offense taken.

I was just kidding with you.

I should apologize to you.

I really value any information I can get on what I see is an immense amount of disinformation about HDV, DVCProHD100, the Z1U, HVX200, and Canon XL-H1.

Shannon and I both share something.

We both were kicked off another web site for expressing respectful opinions.

Shannon, you are a man among boys in this community, which is why I want to lay the following down for you. A doc that my friend and I did was selected for the New York International Independant Film Festival (the one in Hollywood), and I would like to know if you would mind coming by and critiquing it for us. I can get you a VIP pass good for the whole week, plus I would just like to meet the man behind the brilliance I read on hear every day. (Okay, maybe that was laying it on a little thick...) The dates are March 9-16. Drop me an email and let me know!

As for your project...CONGRATUALTIONS MAN!!! The NYIIFF is an AWESOME festival. I know the organizers. I am happy for you guys bro! and I will be there. Getting me a pass is not needed, I was already coming anyhow. I will make SURE I see your documentary, and will look for you to sit next to you guys.

- ShannonRawls.com

Having compared my Z1 and H1 side by side on a decent monitor I would say that the H1 produces a much cleaner, more detailed picture. At first glance the Z1 looks to have more contrast, until you realise that with the Z1 the blacks are so crushed that there is no detail in the shadows, while the H1 clearly shows much more detail in the shadows. The H1 image is very neutral and natural looking, wheras the Z1 looks very punchy, enhanced and noticably softer.

With regard to high lights, in my tests at the point where the sky was just starting to clip the H1 was showing much more detail in the darker parts of the picture than the Z1, the Z1 blacks looked darker, but they were just blocks of black, wheras on the Z1 they were dark areas that still contained good detail. In this particular situation the picture look quite different, the Z1 looking more contrasty, however the Z1 seems to have only dark and bright areas while the H1 has a more natural progression from light to dark. I suspect the z1 has a fractionaly better highlight handling, but the H1 still produces a more natural image.

I think something needs to be said about this price thing that seems to concern so many people.. and excuse me, Shannon, for repeating the essence of something you've said several times before...

Nine grand a lot to pay for a camera? I made a documentary called BEYOND BARBED WIRE in super16 nearly ten years ago. The film, processing and telecine on that project alone was more than $10,000. On top of that, the on-line at 4MC to Digital Betacam was over $14,000.. That's nearly $25,000 for the acquistion material, not talking about the camera and lenses and audio equipment (that I still own) in order to shoot it.

I love film, I love the whirring sound of film running on a Moviloa, if I could get film budgets I would never touch any video camera. ... But the fact is that those budgets are getting few and far between. It bothers me not one little bit if Canon wants to hold out on their price so that they can continue to provide a high quality professional tool, and keep doing R&D to improve it... Steve Rosen

Shannon I applaud your point. Although this has turned into more of a reflection on what dv/hdv/xdcam is all about rather than hvx vs xl-h1 comparison I expected when I read this thread.

Its so true that everyone here is making history. Movies are a reflect of our thoughts, our dreams, our history, our culture, and everything that makes us up. Technology is making it easier for people to express their stories and what is almost frightening is that in 20 years you will probably be able to take every short, ever trailer, and every feature ever posted here and hold it in the palm of your hand.

I've said it a thousand times, I'm not a filmographer or movie maker or anything more than an engineer. I see people who have great concerns on how their tools affect their final product and I see people who are more concerned with what makes up the tool. I'm one of the latter and even though I'm not a movie maker I'm hoping that I'm going to be at least a little successful in the tools I design for this industry and hope that they will be remembered for how they helped people make their movie.

So with that I think that Shannon has made a nice point on how people are making movies now. They are putting themselves into it whole heartly and willing to risk it all for the perfect shot, or the perfect scene, all so that in the end they will create the perfect movie. And to do that you need to understand your tools and look at is the camera you choose suitable for the application and not what cool features it has.

Man, what is YOUR movie worth?? Mine is surely worth $4k on the image for SURE! Ten Eighty Twenty Four Pee High Definition Footage...for only Four Thousand bucks more?? AND I GET TO KEEP THE CAMERA??? Ahh man, I'll take it!.....here (diggin' in my pocket).....here's the money, take it. You feel me?

Wow… this really hit home with me.

You see, I had a choice early this year. My parents offered to buy me a car, or a camera. I considered how I am trying to penetrate an intensely competitive industry, and, quite frankly, I am simply not that good. There are a whole lot of folks with a higher GPA than mine, more money, and all the right credentials. Why should anyone give a second glance at Jeff? I realized the truth; the only way I can even hope to have any kind of shot is by wanting it more than anyone else…

Man, I’ll take the camera!

HOW DOES THAT LOOK? I have no social life… no girl friend (well, yet)… but I have a friggin’ camera, and I am making movies that totally smoke my competition. The only things I got are my story, and the means to tell it… and no one can take that away from me.

So, come this fall, I will be the college film student trekking with the public bus... donning a big, Canon hard-shell case. :)

So, come this fall, I will be the college film student trekking with the public bus... donning a big, Canon hard-shell case. :)

Love that image...but please don't buy that Canon case. It's an invitation to theft of something incredibly valuable. Get a Pelican case. Cheaper, lighter and smarter.

Wow… this really hit home with me.

You see, I had a choice early this year. My parents offered to buy me a car, or a camera. I considered how I am trying to penetrate an intensely competitive industry, and, quite frankly, I am simply not that good. There are a whole lot of folks with a higher GPA than mine, more money, and all the right credentials. Why should anyone give a second glance at Jeff? I realized the truth; the only way I can even hope to have any kind of shot is by wanting it more than anyone else…

Man, I’ll take the camera!

HOW DOES THAT LOOK? I have no social life… no girl friend (well, yet)… but I have a friggin’ camera, and I am making movies that totally smoke my competition. The only things I got are my story, and the means to tell it… and no one can take that away from me.

So, come this fall, I will be the college film student trekking with the public bus... donning a big, Canon hard-shell case. :)

If your making movies then you already have a social life. Movie making is such a social thing, I find hanging out a lot more fun when it's making a movie then just doing the usual stupid stuff our age range does (I'm in 2nd year uni now). So all you got to work on is a girlfriend. Just cast a hot female lead, and because your director she'll go for you. :) It worked for Speilberg. Hell, my girlfriend was MY hot female lead!

While I never argue with casting a hot lead, I would like to suggest if you're truly interested in the girlfriend angle through directing, cast a smoking hot SUPPORTING actress. You and your movie will appreciate it a lot more. (For those unable to do the math, the thought process being that if she's the supporting actress now she'll date the director and become the lead next time, plus if she's just good looking and not much of an actress, you dont' kill your movie)

Also for the record this conversation is horrible and demeaning to our art (and perhaps women as well), and it never works...


Off the record, uh, yeah it totally does work. But it's more because you show passion and control and power when directing and for some reason that appeals to a large portion of the femals I've met.

On topic, I've ranted about this whole silly HVX vs XL-H1 thing enough. To me the information is starting to really get out there, and it should come down to each individual user what they want to do about there camera purchase. But I think it's silly to buy a camera without even seeing it in action first.

(For those unable to do the math, the thought process being that if she's the supporting actress now she'll date the director and become the lead next time, plus if she's just good looking and not much of an actress, you dont' kill your movie)

I've seen some sage wisdom on these boards, but people should have to Paypal you for this one.

The thing about not buying a camera until you use it is ok too. ;-P

For the life of me, how can a HDV camera shoot progressive footage?


A better question would be how can an HDV camera "shoot" interlace footage. :)

MPEG-2 works most efficiently with a non-interlaced frame -- i.e., a progressively scanned image. When you feed it interlaced video it has to deal with the frame to frame motion PLUS the field to field motion ALL within the same frame to be encoded.

That means you need a much higher data-rate for interlace than progressive. The 19Mbps to 25Mbps increment really is not adequate to make up for the loss of encoding efficiency, which is why Sony is moving-up to about 35Mbps MPEG-2 (while also increasing H. rez. from 1440 to 1920). That's really what's needed for interlace.

Frankly, I'm unclear why if the goal is Quality one would choose ANY interlace camera. Far too many interlace artifacts in the recording plus the addition of artifacts whenever video is deinterlaced for display.

These deinterlacing artifacts from the display go away with 24F, BUT they are replaced by a loss of V. rez. and in-camera de-interlacing artifacts. That's why no high-end professional camera deinterlaces to get 24fps.

I hope Shannon was making comparisons on a huge high-quality projection system because I suspect these artifacts -- plus MPEG-2 motion artifacts from only 25Mbps -- will become all too obvious upon viewing.

See Steve, that's the thing....
These artifacts you speak of are all a hypothesis. The fact is, I have not seen any of these artifacts you speak of with the XL-H1. The picture is just flat out "GOOD". And in my opinion, better then any of the 'progressively scanning' options available today and in the near future for under 10 grand. Now if you go pulling out your microscope and find an artifact here, then I can pull out my microscope and find one there. Or I might find something EVEN WORSE then a simple artifact. If you disect the XL-H1, I can disect the HD100. We can do tit for tat if you want...im fine with that.

And what difference does it make if the XL-H1's 24F mode gets hit with a resolution loss, if the final result is still better then it's competition??? it perplexes me as to why people continue to talk about the so-called "24f resolution loss"....when 24f resolution is HIGHER then ANY other HDV camera available. Artifacts not-included.

I have seen many many many cameras of all types projected on a big screen with my own two eyeballs. Indie projects projected from DVD, HDCAM decks, component direct from HDV cameras and minidv....all on a 45-foot screen. Let's not forget, I'm the founder/owner of the Hollywood Pure Digital Film Festival. I have seen many many many DV and HDV movies, music videos, PSA's, commercials & documentaries in every frame-rate imaginable made into a DVD. I have study and analyze this conversion thousands of times over and over again all year long. Not because I want to, but because I have to...it's my job. So I probably have more of a grasp of seeing DV & HD/V converted & projected then most people in this country.
This is 'real world' talk I'm talking now. Not scientific study. Crunching numbers is meaningless. You may geek out with the best of them, but I'm in the kitchen tasting the pudding here. I'm talking about seeing reactions from the general public and taking their questions during Q&A about cameras and picture quality. Comparing colors from one movie to the movie that just played before it and seeing what cameras were used & how they used them. Critiqing sound and production values. Judging storyline and composition. Seeing shots that were too dark and finding out why. Seeing scenes that were blown-out and finding out why. I've witnessed & studied this so much, I now play internal games with myself picking out, not only the format, but the actual CAMERA that was used on certain projects, LOL...and I'm pretty accurate. On top of all that, I make movies of my own as well, using my own money. And I have in my posession a camera made by all 4 manufacturers.
Basically....in a nut shell.......I kinda know what I'm looking at when I see what I see.

No, I did not make comparisons on a huge high-quality projection system. and honestly, well, I kinda don't need to. I know what I'm looking at. I don't have a 9-5 job bagging food at the local grocery store and shoot movies in my spare time. This is not a hobby. It's all I do for a living. I have seen the XL-H1 on a big screen. A big 55" Plasma HD monitor. I don't need to see it on anything bigger. Yes, I know the CCD's scan interlaced...well...if that's the case, then Canon knows something you don't know. That DIGIC processor is doing something you claim can't be done. Because if what you say is true, they just broke the rules with the XL-H1.

Remember Steve, I already own the Z1U so I only had 3 choices----> HD100, XL-H1 and HVX200. I needed to record 24p HD @ 1080 for under $10 grand for my slate of projects in 2006. So I had to pick the best of 3 evils. Unlike others who salivate on their keyboards googling the web all day, I don't sit around and wait for the next best thing. I get what I need for TODAY and use it NOW...sell it later and upgrade.

So of my choices, I recommended to myself the Canon XL-H1 as the best of the bunch, hands down. (in-camera de-interlacing artifacts sold seperately)

Ya feel me Steve?

- ShannonRawls.com

Shannon, are you still interested in getting the HVX200?

Just curious...

No Mathieu, I am not. This year all low budget projects will be done with a Canon XL-H1.
As I step up my game for 2007, I am looking at the XDCAM HD (selectable frame rate version) or the forth-coming Panasonic D5 w/P2 that Barry hipped me to. Those are the most I'll ever "PAY" for a camera at my level.
These XL-H1's are the last cameras I will ever purchase that uses a cassette tape to record on.

- ShannonRawls.com

These XL-H1's are the last cameras I will ever purchase that uses a cassette tape to record on.

- ShannonRawls.com

Great thought - we're on the last generation of tape cameras, I bet Sony Broadcast doesn't release another tape camera, with the possible exception of an SR camcorder. Unless the rumours of an XDCam HD SR camera are true!

Fact is it's ALL good, we have a great range of cameras available at the moment so there is something for everyone whether you want, cheap, interlace, progressive, interchangeable lenses or no tape!

I like Shannon's strategy (I'm pretty much in the same boat he is). The camera I buy today will be my last taped based camera. I still haven't made up my mind between the Panny and the Canon-----I intend to before the end of March.

While I never argue with casting a hot lead, I would like to suggest if you're truly interested in the girlfriend angle through directing, cast a smoking hot SUPPORTING actress.
lol, I don't know Nick....Since we're talking about UNDERWORLD.......it worked for Len Wiseman (director of both UNDERWORLDS). He snagged the leading lady Kate Beckinsale on the set of the original Underworld movie in 2003. Now their happily married, and he gets to ....um.... GREET her on a nightly basis. . *smile*

- ShannonRawls.com

See Steve, that's the thing....
These artifacts you speak of are all a hypothesis.

I suspect you simply haven't provoked interlace artifacts in your tests OR that you are so used to seeing them in your work that you simply automatically ignore them OR the displays you use simply can't show them.

Recent tests show that 50% of the HDTVs tested from Sony. Panasonic, etc. do NOT display more than 540-lines when fed 1080i. Despite some having 1080-rows of pixels -- the chips that do the deinterlaceing simply DO NOT output more than 540-lines of information to the display! (Same is true of CRTs!)

That means all the 1080i you have likely ever seen in your life has been on displays that have a FILTER that removed the interlace artifacts. The newer de-interlace chips fix this problem. So what you don't see NOW -- may become very visible to someone who owns/buys one of the newer monitors.

I'm doing a series on 1080i in HDV@Work for Video Systems. The first part has just gone on-line. I'll be covering these monitor tests and more in the coming month.

Ok Steve. I understand. I'll take my chances.

- ShannonRawls.com

Steve, only 540 lines? that's interesting. Can you point me to some reputable reads/articles on that? If this is true, kinda changes perspective on what is shot today, and how it may look like when 'real' HD tv's hit the floor.

Ok Steve. I understand. I'll take my chances.


I should have added, that with these new display chips -- and likely the 24F chip in the Canon -- that de-interlacing is getting so sophisticated that under most all conditions you won't see de-interlace artifacts (combing, etc.).

But what about interlace artifacts -- line-flicker and line-twitter -- I see on even broadcast HD. The new display chips should make these more visible.

Shannon, if you have time -- can you try two simple tests.

1) shoot a brick building starting at wide. Now very, very, slowly zoom in. On playback -- do you see a point where some of the horizontal lines become so thin they exist in only one field and thus flicker at 30Hz? (You may not see them in the VF.)

2) shoot a brick building starting at wide. Now zoom until until you see the horizontal lines distinctly, but not so far they become thick lines. Now pan UP and DOWN the side of the building. On playback -- as you pan, do the hortizontal bricks seem to "twitter."

Shannon I was speaking purely on economies of scale. See if you have the amount of money to throw behind a movie that underworld took (or to be honest the amount of money for publicity) then totally cast the hot lead, but until that day comes, stick with the supporting actress theory... (especially in college/ filmschool)

So steve are you saying that the camera produces a better image in 24f then it does in 60i?

I should have added, that with these new display chips -- and likely the 24F chip in the Canon -- that de-interlacing is getting so sophisticated that under most all conditions you won't see de-interlace artifacts (combing, etc.).

But what about interlace artifacts -- line-flicker and line-twitter -- I see on even broadcast HD. The new display chips should make these more visible.

Shannon, if you have time -- can you try two simple tests.

1) shoot a brick building starting at wide. Now very, very, slowly zoom in. On playback -- do you see a point where some of the horizontal lines become so thin they exist in only one field and thus flicker at 30Hz? (You may not see them in the VF.)

2) shoot a brick building starting at wide. Now zoom until until you see the horizontal lines distinctly, but not so far they become thick lines. Now pan UP and DOWN the side of the building. On playback -- as you pan, do the hortizontal bricks seem to "twitter."

This effect can be produced regardless of whether the source is interlaced or progressive, all that you need is an interlaced display running at a lower res than the source. I've had to deal with this very issue putting HiRes stills into SD video, in fact I can get artifacts way worse than line twitter, on some stills I can get the whole frame to blink at around 1Hz. I can confirm that the effect is not seen on a progessive scan display that does display 1920x1080 from 1080i source nor does it appear on a SD LCD after downscaling.