Note: download and save files to your local drive first before viewing. These are raw Mpeg transport streams that are best viewed on an HDTV. Shot descriptions provided by Kaku Ito.

1. Street band (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndyband.m2t) Size: 50.69Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 3.2 - Shutter: 1/48 - OIS: On - Custom Preset: cinelook 1 - Focus: Manual focus ring - Zoom: Manual zoom ring - Additional Rig: None - Description: Drum kit playing, guitar, bass focus in out. Cam: Kaku Ito


2. Reflections of sunlight on waves (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24ftrpdwavezmin.m2t) Size: 56.73Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 4.4 - Shutter: 1/150 - OIS: On - Custom Preset: Factory Preset - Focus: Fixed - Zoom: None - Additional Rig: Manfrotto S503 Videohead - Description: Looks of 24F with Preset 9 (Cinelook) faster shutter speed for slow speed in post. Reflections of sunlights on the waves. Zoomed in. Cam: Kaku Ito


3. Makhari Panorama Pan (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24ftrpdpanoramaps9.m2t) Size: 166.57Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 7.3 - Shutter: 1/48 - OIS: Off - Custom Preset: Preset 9 (Cinelook) - Focus: Fixed - Zoom: None - Additional Rig: Manfrotto S503 Videohead - Description: Looks of 24F with Preset 9 (Cinelook). Panoramic scene of Makuhari slowly panned on a tripod. Compare with the similar one from XL H1 annd G1 60i version. Very strong wind is shaking the cam unfortunately. Cam: Kaku Ito


4. Handy Night Taxi ride (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndynitetaxi.m2t) Size: 120.7Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 1.6 - Shutter: 1/48 - OIS: On - Custom Preset: Factory Preset - Focus: Fixed - Zoom: None - Additional Rig: None - Description: Requested by a lot of people from HDVinfo.net Night time taxi ride in Shibuya. Many different lights. Cam: Kaku Ito


5. Handy low light party (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndydrkprty.m2t) Size: 30.17Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 2.6 to 3.4 - Shutter: 1/48 - OIS: On - Custom Preset: Factory Preset - Focus: Auto low sensitivity - Zoom: Manual zoom ring - Additional Rig: None - Description: Low light situation, fixed shutter speed. Shot in the dark party with no added gain. Cast: Yoshimasa Kamei, Cam: Kaku Ito


6. Handy Kite (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndykite.m2t) Size: 80.87Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 5.2 - Shutter: 1/48 - OIS: On - Custom Preset: cinelook 1 - Focus: Manual focus ring - Zoom: Manual zoom ring - Additional Rig: None - Description: Three people trying to fly their kite. Cam: Kaku Ito


7. Handy Harajuku Street Static (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndystaticstreet.m2t) Size: 38.62Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 4 - Shutter: 1/48 - OIS: On - Custom Preset: Factory Preset - Focus: Fixed - Zoom: Fixed - Additional Rig: None - Description: Almost static shot with optical stabilizer on. Many people passing by in front of buildings. Cam: Kaku Ito


8. Handy dog and ball (media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndydogzoomed.m2t) Size: 23Mb - Added: 09.10.2006 - Format: 1080/24F - Gain: 0 - Fstop: 3.4 - Shutter: 1/180 - OIS: On - Custom Preset: cinelook 1 - Focus: Manual focus ring - Zoom: Fixed zoomed in - Additional Rig: None - Description: Dog watching the ball in the field. Cam: Kaku Ito

Thanks for posting these.

I just downloaded and watched in Premiere Pro 2.0.

I must say I am underwhelmed by what I saw. The colors are drab, the detail is ok - not great - and I see signs of CA especially in the kite scene.

****I correct myself. I watched the files in WM Player and it looked much crisper, although the color is still a bit bland. Nothing that can't be tweaked in post.

I thought they looked pretty good.. quite XL H1ish.

Liked the one with the party in low light - still preserves some nice colors.

I just downloaded and watched in Premiere Pro 2.0. I must say I am underwhelmed by what I saw.The problem is that you're looking at them on a computer monitor, which is an injustice. Like I said before, these clips should be viewed on an HDTV display. Otherwise you're not seeing what they really look like.

I have to say, just watching it straight thru WMPlayer, on a 21" LCD HD Monitor, 1680x1050. This cam rocks! That taxi scene, lowlight is quite impressive, color & detail were crisp and vibrant in my books.

Thanks Kaku & Chris for posting & hosting these clips.

First, many thanks to both Kaku for the clips and Chris for expediting.
I searched but couldnt find this anywhere: what is the shutter speed range on this camera?

The shutter speed on the XH G1 and A1 ranges from 1/3rd sec. to 1/15,000th sec.

Thank you Kaku and Chris...this preview footage is really a shopper/budgeter's best friend.

Thanks again for sharing this footage. Chris, you say it must be viewed on a HDTV. I have a 24" Dell widescreen TFT with a native resolution of 1900x1200. Why wouldn't I see this footage in the right resolution? As far as I know, that is the native 1080p resolution that should show the footage 100% correct.

I can't belive that some people actualy don't like this footage. I think it looks amazing on a HDV tv, on a regular tv and on a pc monitor. The dog footage looks like it was shot with a GOOD 35m adapter. I'm sold to the bone.

I can't belive that some people actualy don't like this footage. I think it looks amazing on a HDV tv, on a regular tv and on a pc monitor. The dog footage looks like it was shot with a GOOD 35m adapter. I'm sold to the bone.

There's just an intangible asthetic to various cameras, and that's just going to make some people hate the same footage that others love. Actually, that's a good thing, certainly a lot better than measuring CCD pixels and performing 300% zooms on frame grabs to determine if a camera is good or bad. You can't always explain WHY you like or dislike some footage.. you just have that gut feeling.

I personally am very impressed with the stuff Kaku provided for us. But I've always liked Canon's video asthetic, so no surprise for me there. I certainly don't like everything about it though; the limited HDV colorspace combined with the 24F processing seems to leave a bit more stepping on some diagonal lines than I'd like to see (this may be mostly due to 4:2:0 though rather than 24F, not sure). The same effect makes the tail lights in the night shots appear rather blocky to me as well. But hey, its $3999 and I'm a realist. Its an absolutely incredible bang for the buck.

www.philipwilliams.com

Chris, you say it must be viewed on a HDTV. I'm saying it's *best* viewed on an HDTV.

Ok. SO on the shot of the city street that is at an angle with people walking by......am I the only one that feels that the tree in the upper lefthand corner looks terrible? That looks like CA to me. I used to get footage like this with my XL2 when I used a Century Optics .7x wide angle adapter. I find that unnacceptable. It isn't in all shots however so I realize certain circumstances will exaggerate this.

I currently own an H1 and have never seen anything to that level even when using the 16x manual lens. This shot scares me. The rest of the image looks pretty tight.

That tree does look awful. Almost like it is double blurred.

Name the exact clip, please?

Name the exact clip, please?

24fhndystaticstreet.m2t


On this one clip there is something very weird up in that corner.....CA? Colors seem to not be lined up exactly.

http://media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndystaticstreet.m2t

- yes, the tree in the upper-left corner looks awful.

Yes, there's something wrong with the tree. It looks like it was shot using a bad 35mm adapter. I used to get this kind of stuff when I used the first edition of the letus35. The G1/A1 have SO MANY possibilities over image control that it might be related to this. Maybe it's something that could have been fixed on-camera after carrefuly studying all the image control options. I HOPE that's it. If it's lens related then this is really gonna be a deal killer for many people.

Yes, there's something wrong with the tree. The G1/A1 have SO MANY possibilities over image control that it might be related to this. Maybe it's something that could have been fixed on-camera after carrefuly studying all the image control options. I HOPE that's it.

I hope that is true but it seems unlikely in my opinion. It looks exactly like what I have seen when using an add-on wide angle adapter and an XL2. In that scenario the WA is unable to evenly focus colors at the outer edges onto the CCD plain . This created a slight shift at the extreme edges of the frame. It looked like a projection TV with a convergence problem. And that tree looks exactly like what I saw before. I am not saying it is but it looks like it. I am guessing this is an optical thing and not a "menu" setting. I hope I am wrong. I don't see it in most shots. But in that one.....it is awful.

Yes, that's chromatic aberration..BUT

It's really only very limited and in normal viewing condition would not be visible to an audience. This lens is far far superior to the H1 (at least on the two I returned).

It's not a problem. For £2300 it's an absolute bargain to get a camera and lens of that quality. Other options you have are to purchase cameras that cannot resolve as much detail as the Canons as they don't require as good lens i.e. HVX200 and any number of DV cameras.

If your audience is gazing about looking for image imperfections then your content really isn't up to much.

Look how wide that lens is and to have that little CA is remarkable, at the periphery it's only out by a couple of pixels!!

TT

To be fair I am not measurbating here....I have no idea how many pixels is acceptable or not....I am strictly talking about appearances. In this shot you do not need to look for it. It stands out as looking "fuzzy" or "blurry". I'll even go one step further and say it makes me feel a little queasy......reminds me of when I was sick a few times and my eyes saw something like this.

I can honestly say I have never seen anything remotely that bad on "my" h1 or my old XL2. The exception with the XL2 was when using the wide angle adapter. Then I saw "exactly" that. The fact that it is not there in many other shots is encouraging.

This lens is far far superior to the H1 (at least on the two I returned).

TT

I am concerned when people make hard statements like this based on viewing 30+ clips versus actually using a camera for an extended period. I am encouraged by this footage but can I tell by these short clips how good or bad the lens is? Especially based on the months of H1 usage I have......30+ clips is not a big enough sample to make a clear judgement.

I encourage the use of IMHO whenever making a "subjective" statement. As I learned 2 years ago on these very boards, some people will take your statements as hard fact when they are actually "opinions". I made statements about what I perceived as poor color performance on my XL2 and it started a bit of a panic. Then I learned how to use it and realized I misrepresented the camera to many others before I really knew what I was talking about!

IMHO.......other than being a wider lens, I see nothing to make me think it is superior to the H1 lens based on these clips. In fact, to me it seems like it may have a little more CA.....but the jury is out. Again....IMHO.

Peace!

I am concerned when people make hard statements like this based on viewing 30+ clips versus actually using a camera for an extended period. I am encouraged by this footage but can I tell by these short clips how good or bad the lens is? Especially based on the months of H1 usage I have......30+ clips is not a big enough sample to make a clear judgement.

I encourage the use of IMHO whenever making a "subjective" statement. As I learned 2 years ago on these very boards, some people will take your statements as hard fact when they are actually "opinions". I made statements about what I perceived as poor color performance on my XL2 and it started a bit of a panic. Then I learned how to use it and realized I misrepresented the camera to many others before I really knew what I was talking about!

IMHO.......other than being a wider lens, I see nothing to make me think it is superior to the H1 lens based on these clips. In fact, to me it seems like it may have a little more CA.....but the jury is out. Again....IMHO.

Peace!

I tried to purchase the H1 shortly after it came out. It had the most aweful lens and most footage with contrasty edges had the purple and green fringes. I did everything I could do to set up the camera and to sort the problem. I couldn't. I sent it back because in the end I thought there had to be a problem with it. I was sent a replacement and to my disappointment it had the same problem so it went back and I got my money back.

I then searched the web found this site and downloaded disjectas footage and low and behold the same thing was apparent. I concluded that this was consistent of all H1s. Other people seemed to have similar stories but could accept the CA but I couldn't.

If you are not seeing these problems your H1 must be different to the two I had and the one disjecta uses. Perhaps modifications have been made in later versions. I accept that could be the case and will reference my H1 experience in the future.

IMO the performance of the H1s I received did not match the amount of money I was being asked to part with. Your mileage obviously varied.

Even from watching Kaku Ito's clips its clear to me that the XH performs better than the H1s I had the misfortune to receive. You are obviously luckier than me.

So I then decided to wait to get into low cost HD. That time appears to be nigh.

I m a freelance Shake artist so measurebating is part of my job and I can promise you I've seen worse than the tree clip.

TT

IMO the performance of the H1s I received did not match the amount of money I was being asked to part with. Your mileage obviously varied.

TT

Actually I am not completely thrilled about how much I spent on the H1 and the performance it gives. Before July I was happy. It was the best HD I could get for under $10000. By the end of July I could get the same performance for less than half in the A1....and a wider lens to boot.

That being said CA was not one of my worries with the H1. I do agree that much of the H1 footage I have seen has a "magenta" cast to it. Dunno why.



I m a freelance Shake artist so measurebating is part of my job and I can promise you I've seen worse than the tree clip.

TT

I was not trying to paint "you" as a measurebater. I was trying to justify my opinion based on something that looked visually distracting versus "looking" for shifted pixels. The tree in that shot draws my eye to it because it looked weird. Not because I was looking for problems.

Peace!

Ok, this is what I think about the footage:

- The Taxi ride looks fabulous. Really good low-light performance.
- The band clip shows that this camera has great bokeh (the out of focus area's are smooth and not very harsh)
- The tree in the walking footage looks a bit weird
- Seeing the footage at 100%, it is really difficult to notice purple-fringing or CA, I am sure you are all seeing it with your magnifiers in photoshop, but I think that is simply not something many people will notice. While watching the footage in 1900x1200.... I do not see it. And I was looking for it.

Overall, I think we must wait untill the camera gets in the hands of more people before we are making conclusions. Many of this footage was shot with great passion, but a bit in a hurry. And although we know some of the settings used, we have no insight in all settings/parameters used.

And I still hope on some tweaking from Canon's side. For now, I am confident that we get a XL-H1 with fixed lens for $7000, and a XL-H1 with fixed lens and no professional jackpack for $4000. Not too bad.

Ok, this is what I think about the footage:

-- Seeing the footage at 100%, it is really difficult to notice purple-fringing or CA, I am sure you are all seeing it with your magnifiers in photoshop, but I think that is simply not something many people will notice. While watching the footage in 1900x1200.... I do not see it. And I was looking for it.



Sorry but I am not magnifying anything and I haven't even gone near photoshop. This footage on a 26" HD TV and a 45" 1080P tv looks weird. Most of it is okay. But something in that clip is off. Either way the camera appears to be a great tool. But my criticism is based on real world viewing....not on scaling and measurebating. In fact I have never viewed any HD footage magnified.....why bother? It looks great as it is.


Peace

Sorry but I am not magnifying anything and I haven't even gone near photoshop. This footage on a 26" HD TV and a 45" 1080P tv looks weird. Most of it is okay. But something in that clip is off. Either way the camera appears to be a great tool. But my criticism is based on real world viewing....not on scaling and measurebating. In fact I have never viewed any HD footage magnified.....why bother? It looks great as it is.


Peace

I have to agree, can see it for sure. In the newer fountain clip, I could see a little CA on some clouds. But only near the edges of the scene. Not a lot like some lenses produce, but has to be expected a little when using an "all around" lens. I think it is pretty good though just the same.

You people need to stop getting so worked up over CA. I wish that stupid term would have never come up. Now that it is a well known issue that is all you ever hear anybody talk about. Face it every HDV camera is going to show some kind of artifacts. We can sit hear for the next 15 years and wait for a camera that doesn't have this issue but I don't know if we will ever see one. This same exact thing happens on SD footage as well. I have edited footage that was shot on a SONY DSR-300, SONY DSR-500 and a JVC DV5000 and under ceratin conditions of hitting the light just the right way at the correct angle will give you the same sort of issues. These are all SD cameras but they use large chips so the glass has to be very high quality. In order to get rid of CA on those SD cameras you would have to buy a lens that cost well into the ten thousand price range. With HD it is even worse.

I am usually an extremely picky person when it comes to quality but I have to say that this shot doesn't really bother me. Yes the tree looks a little funky but that may have been fixed by just adjusting the angle slightly or any other adjustment of the camera. Look at how good all the other shots are and just look at this clip as how good the camera can still look in the most difficult CA situation. Due to the odd angle, that tree could also be soft due to the focus or depth. The details on the right side of the screen do not show this same effect.

If this is the worst the camera can do well then sign me up to buy one. The rest of you just keep saving up your pennies to buy a Cinealta.

Your points are well taken but doesn't change the fact that the issue "is" an issue. Not a big one but one that you must consider when purchasing a camera.

I realize that CA may be a catch phrase nowadays but I assure you that I saw this issue with my old XL2 and WA adapter before I ever knew what CA was. It drove me nuts and upon talking to some very knowledgable people at both Canon and Century Optics I was "learned" what it was and that in the price range you are likely to stumble upon it in certain situations.

I've been using the H1 for about 6 months and in all the footage I have shot (10-12 hours) I have never seen anything remotely like this. So what is the semi-logical conclusion for me?

H1 10-12 hours = no CA
G1 3-4 minutes = CA in one shot

If I were to jump to conclusions I'd say that the G1 has a bigger CA issue. But I am not going to do that. Instead I am going to scrutinize my H1 footage and see if I can find similar CA that I may have overlooked.

However I have to defend myself and I am being completely honest here....I wasn't looking for it in the G1 footage. It was obvious and a distraction that drew my eye to it.....just like when I used that .7x WA adapter. I was hoping those days were over.

Who knows?

Peace!

Geez, go out make movies instead of pondering over the CA or some bull. Honestly, if you're a sad geeky videographer like me and you guys, then you would notice, but then general public will not!! Get on with making movies. Oh and the footage looks great, I'm sold.

Geez, go out make movies instead of pondering over the CA or some bull. Honestly, if you're a sad geeky videographer like me and you guys, then you would notice, but then general public will not!! Get on with making movies. Oh and the footage looks great, I'm sold.

The purpose of these boards is to discuss and have intelligent conversations about the positives and the negatives of the equipment we invest thousands of dollars into. I want to know what I am getting into when I invest that kind of money.

However if you feel that you don't really care to know about potential limitations of your equipment that is fine. Just buy it. Is there really any need to put down other people who find this kind of information exchange useful?

Having discussions about CA is fine. But I think the number of threads and posts about CA is borderline absurd. The discussions here are exact repeats of discussions on the XLH1 threads a year ago. And I think it's unfortunate that Canon has somehow become the poster-child for CA issues when the reality is that ALL of these cameras have CA problems.

I think the bottom line is that CA on this camera and others is nominal at worst and non-existent the rest of the time. I think Barlow Elton has proven with screengrabs of "Revenge of the Sith" that even a $50k cinema-grade lens from Fujinon on a $250k F950 produces some CA.

Having discussions about CA is fine. But I think the number of threads and posts about CA is borderline absurd. The discussions here are exact repeats of discussions on the XLH1 threads a year ago. And I think it's unfortunate that Canon has somehow become the poster-child for CA issues when the reality is that ALL of these cameras have CA problems.

I think the bottom line is that CA on this camera and others is nominal at worst and non-existent the rest of the time. I think Barlow Elton has proven with screengrabs of "Revenge of the Sith" that even a $50k cinema-grade lens from Fujinon on a $250k F950 produces some CA.

I don't wish to engage in long debates over CA at all. I was simply reviewing the clips and that one clip jumped out at me. In my opinion I have never seen that on the H1. Never. Well at least not my H1.

If I recall correctly I was simply trying to keep people in check that making statements that the A1 lens is far superior to the H1 based on some downloads is a little premature. If I was going to make bold statements based on my own experience and these frame grabs, I might be inclined to think the H1 lens is better. But it's too soon to judge.

In my statement about looking for CA in my H1 I was kinda joking. I will keep an eye open to see if it does happen. But so far, I have not seen it. Nothing to the degree of that tree in the people walking clip.

Peace!

Marty, please understand my post was not intended to be a directed at you personally. It was just my general commentary on the meta-discussion of chromatic abberations wrt to Canon lenses.

Part of the problem is that some people think "chromatic abberation" anytime they see a fringe. As A.J. deLange has helpfully pointed out numerous times, fringe has a variety of causes, only one of which is chromatic abberation. More often than not, the cause of most fringe issues we see around here isn't chromatic abberation at all, but the far more common issue of chroma subsampling effects.

Image fringe does NOT automatically mean chromatic abberation. That's what some people just don't seem to understand. With the help of A.J. and others, we're working on correcting those misunderstandings.

It's taken me awhile to really analyse this footage - particularly as I'm really thinking of getting an A1.

Whilst I understand some of the comments on CA, what I have only just really picked up on is the vertical smearing on the night taxi ride. The streetlights have really big vertical lines.

Now I know this is quite common with small CCD chips, but for those with more experience - is this worse than normal?

There are just a couple of things tempting me with the Sony V1, the HDMI and the CMOS chips (For colour, latitude and lack of smearing) - however, hardly any footage has come out from the V1 (and I've seen none with correct pulldown applied) and I'm loving the Canon footage. 24F is better than I thought it would be.

Anyway, back to that smearing. Any comments?

It's taken me awhile to really analyse this footage - particularly as I'm really thinking of getting an A1.
<snip>
Anyway, back to that smearing. Any comments?

I'd say it looks about normal from what I've seen. I think this is more controlled in some other cameras, but its not unexpected for the price and technology being used here.

Actually, I just finally got a chance to pull some of the 24F footage into After Effects and I was fully expecting to find some substantial macroblocking and banding effects when pushing the footage around. As it turned out, I was very surprised at how robust the footage was.

I took that taxi footage and did some brightening and contrast work on it and I was able to pull a lot of detail out of the darker areas while retaining a clean image. I could definitly use this at a wedding reception with minimal gain and boost it up in post without issue.

I pulled up the band footage and with some basic brightness/contrast boosting got an instant semi bleach-bypass look. No blocks, no weirdness, just solid footage.

www.philipwilliams.com

I don't what you are all talking about. I just watched osme of these clps exported to HDV tape then played on a 40" Samsung LCD.


Wow.

Nuff said

This stuff is amazing at first impression. No doubt. But having 6-8 months of HD viewing experience (both broadcast signal and HVX and H1) I am not simply blown away anymore by HD. Seriously.....you get used to the "wow" factor and you begin to notice little details that you didn't before. It's the nature of the beast really.

Now....when I am watching HD on a network I have to sometimes say "Is this in HD?", and switch channels to see how horrid the SD signal looks, and then switch back and say "Yup! Pure HD." Then I realize how quickly I got use to HD as a standard. It does not always just blow you away. And once you get past that point, you find little imperfections that are completely worthy of discussion. Whic is why we talk about CA and Smearing and such. Just creating an amazing HD signal does not automatically give the camera a free pass on other little things that should factor into your decision.

Peace.


I don't what you are all talking about. I just watched osme of these clps exported to HDV tape then played on a 40" Samsung LCD.


Wow.

Nuff said

I watch a lot of HD programming to and have been using a JVC Hd100 for a few months now...

My WOW is basically that such a good image (as good as any 2/3" XDCAM stuff I have I seen" is from a $5000 cam.

Wow

...
Seriously.....you get used to the "wow" factor and you begin to notice little details that you didn't before. It's the nature of the beast really.
...

I agree. We get used to good things in life so quickly and soon after take them for granted. Even bad movies shot on 35mm become bad movies quickly. Blu Ray, HD DVD and beautiful large display help only for a moment :)

However, I think we should be a little bit more forgiving. Nothing is perfect, but considering the results vs the cost ratio, we really should not complain too much. $4k package that includes 20x HD lens and still produces such beautiful results is wonderful achievement, imo.

Density of 1.56 megapixels on 1/3" sensors translates to 44 megapixels(!) on 35mm SLR frame. Imagine the cost of 35mm lens resolving that resolution at 3x zoom, or even prime... Even the most expensive lenses suffer from CA and therefore there's always at least one reason for color fringe. Barlow Elton posted very good example of that. Here we have 20x lens and solution that in many image quality aspects is comparable to waaay more expensive equipment so who can seriously complain?

Maybe instead of pointing our fingers to inherent imperfections of equipment we use and can afford, we should rather discuss how to avoid situations that make those problems visible?

Just my humble 2 cents.

I originally pointed it out because I do not see any CA to this degree on my XL-H1. It seemed like a potential issue to me in comparison to another camera in the sub 10K market. Not in relation to $100k camera. Either way after not viewing it for a while and getting a chance to check it out again it really isn't that bad. The problems grow in our minds in direct proportion to how much we talk about it!!!

:)


Peace!

I've seen it in XL-H1 and all cameras I had a chance to hold in my hands, including still cameras, but it's really hard, at least for me, to say if some of them were significantly better or worse than others (I'm talking about $4..10k range).

It would take putting them side by side in the same light conditions to draw near-objective conclusions. There is no guarantee other cameras in this class would behave better in the same situation. Just give them hard edges, enough contrast and point in direction they don't like and color fringe will sure be there.

I have seen it in other cameras, even some H1 footage I have downloaded on the web. However I have not seen it on my own H1 (lucky I guess....I usually get the problems!) as of yet. When I had my XL2 I never saw it much. But when I put a .7x in front of the lens it started looking weird out at the edges. More than just a tiny bit of fringing. I saw a lot of blur and distortion out there. I was not happy with it.

That XH-A1 shot (with the trees in the top left corner) looked more like that than what I have seen in other cameras. That is why it jumped out at me. I think the A1 is going to be a great camera despite this one incident....the rest of the footage is tight.....especially for a $4K camera.

Peace!

I haven't seen much of that problem with XL2 also. I guess it's because SD hides most of the symptoms. In HD it's much harder to have those problems unnoticed. I guess you are lucky if you haven't seen it in your H1 footage :) Good thing is more often than we realize, we avoid those problems almost automatically using our esthetic judgment.

The XH-G1 shot you mentioned would be probably very tough to handle for any camera. The problem is visible in the left upper corner. Other 3 corners look perfect so it's not the lens weakness that caused it. There were many branches and leaves dancing in that area in high contrast. Actually, I'm quite impressed with dynamic range of new Canons.

Sure it would be interesting to compare A1/G1 against Sony V1 in that particular situation since they have similar zoom range (actually Canons start with wider angle, but they are all 20x zooms).

Peace!

That's what I said....the upper left corner.

:)

Did I say right corner? :)

I guess this is the only camera in this price range with these features. I'm new to "owning a camera" and am debating between a proven DVX100b and this. The dvx is about 1k cheaper w/ rebate. I've read a lot and tested the A1 in store. Did not floor me (will Canon ever make a usable lcd??) The CA is definitely there (or everyone wouldn't be talking about it in all these threads - it's real). The footage here is very choppy. The 24f looks different than the 24p in the DVx, that's for sure. It's very sharp and clear (duh). But I think for all the headaches, maybe I should just rent "a really good" HD camera when the project calls for it (like the HVX200). If you were a new buyer, is the A1 worth the extra 1k over the awesome dvx100b? I feel like I can get top-of-the-class SD or entry level (i.e. frustrating) HDV. Like the other poster says, once you step into HD, you expect a lot more and you SEE a lot more (good AND bad). Yours truly, About-to-punish-my-credit-card.
p.s. Thanks for posting the clips and the great debate! Without these forums, I'd be lost.

you are welcome.

But I think for all the headaches, maybe I should just rent "a really good" HD camera when the project calls for it (like the HVX200).

The A1 and the HVX200 are not far off being in the same ballpark. The HVX200 has plenty of "issues" (image and workflow) just different ones to the A1.

I chose an A1 over the HVX because the noise in the HVX's image can be a bit dodgy in the shadows, and the P2 workflow is a nice idea, but an expensive pain in the behind if you work like I do.

If you're renting I'd aim for something a bit further up the scale - at very least go for a F350. Now that's a nice camera (in the affordable HD range).