Hey guys, I can't seem to find answers to a couple of probably easy questions.

1. Does the A1 have XLR inputs?
2. What size is the front of the lens?
3. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only way to take advantage of the HD-SDI (and 4:2:2 sampling) is to be plugged into a computer with HD-SDI and recording directly to disk.
4. No over/undercranking?

Cheers

I think most of the answers are here (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/index.php)

HTH

the only way to take advantage of the HD-SDI (and 4:2:2 sampling) is to be plugged into a computer with HD-SDI and recording directly to disk.Incorrect. That's not the only way to take advantage of HD-SDI. You can also use HD-SDI ouput to feed a separate VTR for recording in another HD format, such as HDCAM, DVCPRO HD, HDCAM SR, etc.

the only way to take advantage of the HD-SDI (and 4:2:2 sampling) is to be plugged into a computer with HD-SDI and recording directly to disk.How? Is there now any HD-SDI interface for its use with a laptop?

Thanks guys.

Chris, I should have been clearer. I do a lot of shooting in the field which means that I almost have to shoot to tape which will be HDV. So what I was getting at is after recording to tape... is there any way to take advantage of the increased color sampling? I still think not.

Just in case anyone else was wondering what the answers were to my quesions without digging.

1. YES
2. Filter size is 72mm
3.
4. Negative

Supposedly -- and I have not been able to confirm this myself, but -- according to Scott Billups and several others, there is said to be a significant advantage to SDI capture from HDV playback. In other words, capturing a tape recorded in HDV from the SDI output is reported by Billups and other folks to be superior to capturing from the FireWire output. I'd love to see some hard data on this claim. It's the sort of test that would be excellent to show on this site.

The two advantages to recording from the HD-SDI output would be to avoid the MPEG-2 motion artifacts and to record in a 4:2:2 color space as opposed to the HDV color space of 4:2:0. DH-SDI transfers from recordings already made to tape would not necessary reflect those advantages. Better to use an intermediate codec with 4:2:2 up-sampling after capture.

Capturing HDV tapes through SDI can make for easier editing. Well this is the case at least if you have a very fast raid. Uncompressed HD or DVCPRO HD can edit very fast on a moderate system. Much faster than what HDV can do. You will get more realtime and a better response by editing video this way. For years a lot of people have shot with highend DV cameras but edited using a system like the Video Toaster from Newtek which was an uncompressed SD system. They did this for a few reasons.

1. Editing was faster.
2. Higher quality for compositing and effects work.
3. better multigeneration quality.
4. Many claim the video actually looked a little bit better.
5. Better control with the other SDI based equipment they had.

In the case of HDV on the PC side the files are mpeg2 files which may or may not work very well in some 3rd party applications. Capturing to a AVI file means universal support to use that video file in any program you want.

The problem with compressed formats is that every time you do something it gets compressed even more. If you had to work with a HDV file across many different platforms and 3rd party tools you would quickly loose quality. By capturing as uncompressed even though the source was compressed you make sure it doesn't get any worse while you are editing. It will always stay at the same level of quality until the very end when you compress to whatever format you wish to compress to.

Capturing HDV through SDI is almost the same as using a codec such as Cineform. With Cineform you capture through firewire but the video gets converted to a format that this easier to edit and closer to a uncompressed format in terms of no generation loss. With SDI you are letting the camera do the conversion to an uncompressed source and then send that to the computer to save as a new file. In the end the results would be pretty much the same with SDI having the bonus of really high quality during live capturing directly to the computer. Cineform would always be limited to trying to upconvert HDV to a higher quality format.

So therefore there are advantages to using SDI even if you record to HDV tape. The advantages may not be as big as they are with live video but all of the workflow and generation loss advantages are still the same.

The two advantages to recording from the HD-SDI output would be to avoid the MPEG-2 motion artifacts and to record in a 4:2:2 color space as opposed to the HDV color space of 4:2:0. DH-SDI transfers from recordings already made to tape would not necessary reflect those advantages. Better to use an intermediate codec with 4:2:2 up-sampling after capture.
But this was kind of my point. Since you record to tape in HDV (which is 4:2:0), doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of outputting and capturing at a 4:2:2? Kind of like shooting in SD and uprezzing to HD.

Chris, that would be awesome to see some data on that. It's hard for me to justify a 3k price jump for HD-SDI when it's next to useless for me.

Thanks for the info Thomas. All good points.

Gene,

I have captured Canon HDV (1080i and F modes) to FCP in a variety of formats via SDI and a Kona LH card, and I can tell you from my own experiences that you really don't gain any quality transcoding to another compressed format, even to the best intermediate codecs like CineForm.

What you do gain is milder compression when recompressing material on a timeline by filtering, adding FX etc.

The new 24F support in FCP is excellent, and I've found the performance to be quite snappy for most common editing operations. (I have an older G5 dual 2.7)

The issue of timeline performance is really negligible IMHO. I get quite a few RT effects even on an HDV timeline, (the Kona card may be helping somewhat)...but guess what? More often than not I don't finish in HDV. I copy my HDV-edited sequences to Sheer lossless codec timelines (or standard uncompressed HD) and render in a much milder compression environment, and then compress for DVD or HD h.264 from a lossless HD QT file. The quality holds up quite well this way, and if I want to I can output HDV sequences back to tape also.

The nice thing about native HDV editing in FCP is not having to create clips 3-4 times the size of the original material.

In my opinion the only reason to use SDI now is for actual uncompressed capture of camera-head-live signal true 4:2:2 output from these cameras tethered to an appropriate recording device. (NLE/computer, Wafian, or HDCAM/DV100 decks, etc.)

SDI cards do potentially offer nice NLE monitoring output too.

So the conclusion is that the SDI output is not worth the $3000 extra for most of us? I rarely expect to capture live footage. I am not sure, but to capture uncompressed one would need a fast computer or harddisk with you in the field? Or can you still output to tape and capture through SDI?

Yes you can simultaneously record HDV to tape and output raw HD via SDI, but remember you get more than just SDI for the extra $3000. There's also TimeCode input or output, and Genlock... for some folks, these extra features together with SDI are indeed worth the extra money.

So the conclusion is that the SDI output is not worth the $3000 extra for most of us? I rarely expect to capture live footage. I am not sure, but to capture uncompressed one would need a fast computer or harddisk with you in the field? Or can you still output to tape and capture through SDI?

That is not true at all. A lot of people assume SDI equals uncompressed only but that is not true. The SDI itself is uncompressed but it is only a signal. If you do not want to deal with the expensive hard drives you can use DVCPROHD or photojpeg which will capture to a single everyday hard drive. Now you are only looking at $995.00 for the SDI card and around $250.00 for a good size single hard drive to capture to these compressed formats. DVCPROHD may not be as good as uncompressed in terms of raw quality but it makes up for it with raw editing speed. Photojpeg at 75% or above can look better than DVCPROHD and pretty darn close to uncompressed but may be slower to edit and if I can remember the realtime effects in FCP will not work.

I am still not sure if I could use SDI. First of all, will SDI work only with live recording? Or can I output through SDI and record to my computer from tape when the footage was already record on tape?

Is there any other way to record uncompressed footage, let's say firewire?

I understand that the editing of uncompressed footage is faster, but what about the required storage space, is it also x times higher?

The genlock and timecode outputs are only useful for multi camera shooting, or also if you use only one camera for 100% of your work?

I hope you can clarify this.

Or can I output through SDI and record to my computer from tape when the footage was already record on tape?Yes you can... in fact that was the whole point of the posts from Thomas and myself just above, at http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=558113&postcount=6 and http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=558113&postcount=8

Is there any other way to record uncompressed footage, let's say firewire?Not through FireWire. FireWire is limited to a maximum throughput of just 400Mbps (or 800Mbps if it's FireWire 800). Remember, uncompressed is about 1.5Gbps, so there's no way FireWire can accomodate that. It is possible to capture uncompressed through the component video output terminal, but that's an analog connection and it raises an entirely different set of concerns (which have already been discussed extensively on this site in our XL H1 and HD110 forums).

I understand that the editing of uncompressed footage is faster, but what about the required storage space, is it also x times higher?Yes the required storage space is higher by several orders of magnitude, you'll need terrabytes of it, but keep in mind the point Thomas was making in the post just above yours. It doesn't *have* to be uncompressed; it can simply be a less compressed codec than HDV, such as DVCPRO HD or JPG2000 for example.

The genlock and timecode outputs are only useful for multi camera shooting, or also if you use only one camera for 100% of your work?The sole purpose of Genlock is to sync multiple devices together so if you're shooting only with one camera then it's pretty much worthless to you. As far as TimeCode is concerned, it depends on whether you choose to record audio in the single system style (that is, on camera) or double system style (separately from the camera). For double system sound, the TimeCode jack is a must.

DVCPROHD can take up to around 12.5 MB/S for hard drive space and needed bandwidth. While this is higher then the 3.125 MB/S for HDV it is much much lower then using uncompressed which could be as low as 125 MB/S or much higher. Basically DVCPROHD uses 1/10th the amount of space and speed as the lowest form of uncompressed which is a very good balance between quality, speed and file size.

Another thing to think about is that these are 1080i cameras. While DVCPROHD may be a little soft for 720p video because it only uses 960x720 pixels the 1080i form isn't as bad. With 1080i DVCPROHD it uses 1280x1080 pixels compared to HDV using 1440x1080 pixels. There really isn't that much of a difference between the two so capturing to DVCPROHD with 1080i HDV gear in my opinion is much better then using DVCPROHD with a 720p camera. If I had a 720p camera I'm not sure if DVCPROHD would be good enough for me. I have no problem with DVCPROHD at 1080i however.

On the PC side the new MJPEG codec from Blackmagic seems to do around 11 MB/S for normal video. This number can change based on how complex the video is because it will adjust the datarate to maintain the level of quality. If the scene is blowing trees over busy water ripples then the datarate may be higher. If you are shooting a solid color such as a bluescreen shoot then the datarate could be half of that.

So yes the files are larger but not really that much larger.

I understand that the editing of uncompressed footage is faster, but what about the required storage space, is it also x times higher?
Unless someone corrects me on this (entirely possible!) AFAIK, uncompressed "HDV level" footage is approx. 540Giga-bytes per hour. That's about 40times as big as 'normal' HDV footage.

So the conclusion is that the SDI output is not worth the $3000 extra for most of us? I rarely expect to capture live footage. I am not sure, but to capture uncompressed one would need a fast computer or harddisk with you in the field? Or can you still output to tape and capture through SDI?

My experience is mostly based on HDV and Final Cut Pro, and from my own SDI experiences I can tell you that if you don't intend to ever capture the uncompressed signal for acquisition or in a switched TV studio environment or greenscreen stage (i.e. live camera signal, NOT HDV tape playback through SDI) then you just don't need to spend the extra money.

Chris is right on the money about the jackpack being more than SDI--timecode i/o and genlock are very important for a bunch of professional reasons, but if you intend to use one of these new Canon cameras just like you used prosumer DV cameras in the past, only now in HD, then you don't need SDI. Just use firewire and HDV editing.

Thomas noted a number of good formats to convert HDV footage to for "faster editing", and there are lots of good reasons to go the intermediate route, (which I did exclusively in the past) but I've found native HDV editing within FCP to be fairly responsive, and it saves a lot of disk space.

What I tried to explain though is that it's fairly easy to take an HDV timeline (at least in FCP) and change the codec and do a final render in a less compressed format and save all the time and hassle of capturing raw footage to an intermediate with it's larger/faster disk requirements. It also avoids the entire "conform to HDV, rebuild and recompress GOPs" etc. This allows you to make a final edit that retains all the quality of the original footage without using up so much disk space overall, and also renders graphics, color correction and other effects noticeably better too.

Does this make sense?

Good info there, but would you mind getting more specific for the HDV newbie. We're using FCP now, and I've shot HDV for others but have never taken any HDV into my system, though I am interested in doing so if this new A1 camera looks as good in the flesh as it does in person. I read a lot of different things about how to edit HDV in FCP and all of it confuses me.

Is what you're saying like this: You capture in HDV...edit in HDV and then change the render to something else? Or do you start a timeline in something else after you capture but before you edit? 'Scuse my ignorance--I'm still in a DVCAM world.

Is what you're saying like this: You capture in HDV...edit in HDV and then change the render to something else?

Yes, that's it. If your deliverable is something other than HDV it helps to preserve the best quality possible. (given you render and output in a better codec)

What I tried to explain though is that it's fairly easy to take an HDV timeline (at least in FCP) and change the codec and do a final render in a less compressed format and save all the time and hassle of capturing raw footage to an intermediate with it's larger/faster disk requirements. It also avoids the entire "conform to HDV, rebuild and recompress GOPs" etc. This allows you to make a final edit that retains all the quality of the original footage without using up so much disk space overall, and also renders graphics, color correction and other effects noticeably better too.

Does this make sense?

So basically what you are saying is that I can shoot in regular HDV, and then convert to a different format, which gives me faster render times / editing and a better image quality but relatively low disk usage? Can you tell me a bit more about the Cineform codec? What does it do exactly?

So, if you don't need the genlock or timecode of the G1, but still would like the option of capturing uncompressed video; can you use the component out on the A1 and digitize the analog signal with a capture card. Would the data-rate be any where near the 1.4g of the HD-SDI, or the quality? Or has the signal coming out of the component already gone through the HDV compression?

So basically what you are saying is that I can shoot in regular HDV, and then convert to a different format, which gives me faster render times / editing and a better image quality but relatively low disk usage? Can you tell me a bit more about the Cineform codec? What does it do exactly?

I'm saying edit all the way with HDV. When you have a finished edit, copy and paste the HDV timeline into a custom timeline with your choice of codecs. For ultimate quality I use the Sheer codec (which cost me $150 but is nearly 1/3rd the bit rate of uncompressed, yet actually the same quality) but PhotoJPEG and a few others are pretty good too.

CineForm for now is a Windows-only format. It works with Premiere Pro and Vegas as far as I know. It costs $500 for a version that will allow you to capture via firewire in real time and converted to their nearly lossless codec.

Steven Dempsey uses this system. He could tell you more about it than I could.

So, if you don't need the genlock or timecode of the G1, but still would like the option of capturing uncompressed video; can you use the component out on the A1 and digitize the analog signal with a capture card. Would the data-rate be any where near the 1.4g of the HD-SDI, or the quality? Or has the signal coming out of the component already gone through the HDV compression?

The live signal from the camera head (non-tape playback signal) is uncompressed analog from the A1. It can be captured with the appropriate hardware, and at least with the XL-H1, the signal is virtually the same as SDI.

This will offer higher quality if compressed to a better format, but the question is if it's worth the trouble.

I would say in a studio greenscreen shoot...absolutely, but in the field...not really, until some company creates a firestore-like device that will allow trouble free recording in the field with a portable device.

I have been looking around for the answer to this on the firestore. Do you lose any quality by recording to the Firestore? And how reliable have they been for the XLH1? 24F? I know what I want to know is buried in these forums. But where?

The component uncompressed on the A1 (possibly) sold me on that camera. I am going to give the A1 & HDV a shot. I just feel better knowing I have access to an uncompressed feed from the camera if needed. (20mm shots of the moving ocean, moving trees, and moving clouds; my grand vista shots.) I fear that the amount of data in those shots might overwhelm the HDV codec. As everything in scene is small, detailed and moving. I have no problem acquiring the pieces to capture an uncompressed signal in the field. (well, I do have to wait for a special Expresscard 34 to be created) But these shots will happen in the Spring.

First however, I will let HDV try to capture what I see...

Thank you very much, without this forum, this project would never happen.
Jay Stebbins

I have been looking around for the answer to this on the firestore. Do you lose any quality by recording to the Firestore? And how reliable have they been for the XLH1?

The files are recorded as m2t MPEG2 files. Quality will be identical to that laid down on tape while not being susceptible to tape dropouts. I beta tested the Firestore a couple of years ago and found them to be extremely reliable. I'm planning on upgrading the one I won to be able to take the HDV signals.

I'm planning on upgrading the one I won to be able to take the HDV signals.
How is this possible? And does that mean you could buy a really cheap firestore and upgrade it to work with other cameras like a Z1 or P2?

I'm sure that Focus Enhancements would be the first to inform you that there is no such thing as a "really cheap" FireStore, but yes, you can purchase an upgrade for the FS-4 or FS-4 Pro in order to make it HDV compatible. Cost of the upgrade is $299.

DVCPROHD can take up to around 12.5 MB/S for hard drive space and needed bandwidth. While this is higher then the 3.125 MB/S for HDV it is much much lower then using uncompressed which could be as low as 125 MB/S or much higher. Basically DVCPROHD uses 1/10th the amount of space and speed as the lowest form of uncompressed which is a very good balance between quality, speed and file size.

Another thing to think about is that these are 1080i cameras. While DVCPROHD may be a little soft for 720p video because it only uses 960x720 pixels the 1080i form isn't as bad. With 1080i DVCPROHD it uses 1280x1080 pixels compared to HDV using 1440x1080 pixels. There really isn't that much of a difference between the two so capturing to DVCPROHD with 1080i HDV gear in my opinion is much better then using DVCPROHD with a 720p camera. If I had a 720p camera I'm not sure if DVCPROHD would be good enough for me. I have no problem with DVCPROHD at 1080i however.

On the PC side the new MJPEG codec from Blackmagic seems to do around 11 MB/S for normal video. This number can change based on how complex the video is because it will adjust the datarate to maintain the level of quality. If the scene is blowing trees over busy water ripples then the datarate may be higher. If you are shooting a solid color such as a bluescreen shoot then the datarate could be half of that.

So yes the files are larger but not really that much larger.


"With 1080i DVCPROHD it uses 1280x1080 pixels compared to HDV
using 1440x1080 pixels."

This sounds great but I'm interested in shooting dramatic shorts and
using 24F. Can i get the benefits of 1080i with 1280x1080 and shoot
at 24F or am I completely stupid because the "i" means no "F"?

I'm sure that Focus Enhancements would be the first to inform you that there is no such thing as a "really cheap" FireStore, but yes, you can purchase an upgrade for the FS-4 or FS-4 Pro in order to make it HDV compatible. Cost of the upgrade is $299.
True but...

If you take this one... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=404560&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation for 759 plus the 299 = $1058. Compared to $1349 for this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=404563&is=REG&addedTroughType=search or $1899 for this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=432232&is=REG&addedTroughType=search.

Am I being cheap? Or am I being a smart buyer? You decide ;)

Sorry but you're comparing apples, oranges and Mackinaw peaches, which isn't a valid comparison at all. Your first link is the basic FireStore FS-4, which combined with the HDV upgrade turns it into a FireStore FS-4 HD costing total of $1058. But that's *not* the same thing as your second and third links.

The second link is the FireStore FS-4 Pro HD, which costs about $300 more than the FS-4 HD because it has an additional set of features that aren't available on the FS-4 HD such as time lapse recording, a larger cache buffer, etc. It doesn't matter if you buy the FS-4 or the more expensive FS-4 Pro. The cost to upgrade either one to add HD capability is going to be just the same as if you had simply bought the HD-capable models in the first place.

The third link you gave is for the FireStore FS-100, not an FS-4. This is a different model altogether and is compatible only with Panasonic P2 DVCPRO HD camcorders -- it won't work with the Canon XH series for HD recording. While the FS-4 HD and FS-4 Pro HD FireStore models record 25mbps HDV format video, the FS-100 records 100mbps DVCPRO HD. That's why it's more expensive than the others. Hope this helps,

Sometimes I like comparing apples, oranges and peaches ;)

Just kiddin ya Chris. Thanks for the info.

The live signal from the camera head (non-tape playback signal) is uncompressed analog from the A1. It can be captured with the appropriate hardware, and at least with the XL-H1, the signal is virtually the same as SDI. Wow, this is semi earth shattering news here. But how would a person capture this analog gold spewing freely from the component out port?

"Wow, this is semi earth shattering news here. But how would a person capture this analog gold spewing freely from the component out port?"

Actually I am pretty happy with this news. I don't need genlock... But something tells me there will still be a catch, where the SDI has something the analog does not, that I would like... I am guessing, and hoping someone who actually knows can answer this question.

I believe the addition of an analog-to-digital converter is needed between the camera and the capture card. I am also hoping that at some point the expresscard 34 slots in the side of the new MacBook Pros will eventually hold a card that will allow the connection of the capture card and the sata raid needed to capture 8 bit uncompressed or DVCPRo 1080i. In order to capture these codecs in the field.

Not that I know HDV will not do what I need. I will find out soon enough. But at least I don't have to worry that I bought the wrong camera later. The analog out just made the decision of which camera easier for me.

I've captured both live analog and live SDI and they're basically the same. (Kona LH has HD component inputs) I still think you'd be better off getting an analog HD to HD-SDI converter, and capture SDI this way. You can have much longer cable runs via BNC cables and SDI.

And don't forget that component video output is just that... video only... so you'll have to run audio separately, and there's two more cables for you. The big advantage of SDI is, everything goes through one single cable. Video, Audio, TimeCode, the works.

XH-G1 SDI, that is--big BIG convenience that we don't have with the XL-H1...but at least we have timecode I/O to go dual system easily.

Wow, this is semi earth shattering news here. But how would a person capture this analog gold spewing freely from the component out port?

Actually, that would "digital" gold spewing freely.

You can capture that gold via the Wafian HR-1 recorder.

Thats cool to know but at $17000 the Wafian HR-1 seems to be made of gold. yikes.

...the solution is simple: 2 tape transports on the camera. Load up 2 tapes for simultaneous recording (one tape each field) and viola! enough room for uncomressed (i think) ...ok maybe 3 tape transports (one tape for each color).........

Actually, that would "digital" gold spewing freely.

You can capture that gold via the Wafian HR-1 recorder.

In the above quote you're correcting (I presume) a previous post
about "analog" component out from the A1.

Is it definitely digital? Is it definitely HD? What kind?

Is there ANY other way to capture it than an almost $20K recorder?

"Wow, this is semi earth shattering news here. But how would a person capture this analog gold spewing freely from the component out port?"

Actually I am pretty happy with this news. I don't need genlock... But something tells me there will still be a catch, where the SDI has something the analog does not, that I would like... I am guessing, and hoping someone who actually knows can answer this question.

I believe the addition of an analog-to-digital converter is needed between the camera and the capture card. I am also hoping that at some point the expresscard 34 slots in the side of the new MacBook Pros will eventually hold a card that will allow the connection of the capture card and the sata raid needed to capture 8 bit uncompressed or DVCPRo 1080i. In order to capture these codecs in the field.

Not that I know HDV will not do what I need. I will find out soon enough. But at least I don't have to worry that I bought the wrong camera later. The analog out just made the decision of which camera easier for me.

Why would having analog or digital or whatever it is component out
be so important in making your decision?

I want to buy a camera and I really don't know. Thanks.

Why would having analog or digital or whatever it is component out
be so important in making your decision?


Because I know what I am going to shoot over the next year. (I will be shooting landscape and architecture for DVD w/ future proof HD-DVD), I am unsure of what these cameras and codecs will provide in natural light, where lighting can only be controlled to a small degree. Granted I will use the natural light to my advantage as I do in photography. I am unsure of the abilities and limitations of each camera and codec. Especially because most of the clips displayed are shot with controlled lighting or studio. Disjecta's work with the XLH1 is what brought me here.

I am less concerned with the ability of the physical camera but the HDV codec. And only then during very complex images. Right now I know of 8 different scenes I want to shoot that are very complex in detail and movement. It would be a total of about two minutes of footage. By this time next year that number could be 10 minutes. 10 minutes of what "might" be muddled by codec or "Epic" through clarity.

Is the G1 worth the extra $3000 to me for the SDI, that I am not positive whether I need or not in the first place? No, not really, not for me. I do not need the genlock, or sound and unsure of the timecode. Something tells me I do not need the timecode for my project, it can be applied later.

But what the componet out on the A1 does offer is security. If I find out the HDV is overwhelmed with the very complex images, I will have the ability with a little effort and more money to use the same camera to get the job done. I really don't want to find out this spring I bought the wrong camera trying to save three grand. I can apply that extra money towards a sick tripod, crane, redrock, mattebox and ND grads... Maybe I can get a set of lights to fill in the foreground detail during sunrise and set, so things look more like the eye see them. The more I read and learn the more ideas I have.

I have a dream...
Jay

FireWire is limited to a maximum throughput of just 400Mbps (or 800Mbps if it's FireWire 800). Remember, uncompressed is about 1.5Gbps, so there's no way FireWire can accomodate that.Apart HD-SDI (uncompressed or not, it isn't the point) as well HDV capture, is there any other way to record or capture 1080/24p or 25p footage, let's say DVCPROHD or JPEG2000 or Cineform RAW (less than 400Mbps) via firewire to a laptop? Timecode and audio embedded? (Aside the Canon's 24f or 25f and the 25 Mbps?)

You cant get the data stream coming out of the camera to fit through the firewire. The SDI or analog stream remains at 1.4 Gbps until it is processed by a capture card or software. Kinda like trying to get the water that goes through a firehose, through a garden hose...

In fact the only laptops that can ingest this 1.4 Gbps data-stream, have a Expresscard slot, like the new MacBook Pros. However the card required to go in the expresscard slot is still in development.

Ingesting is just the first challenge...

The second challenge is a hard drive to capture all the data. The hard drive on the laptop is going to be busy converting the 1.4Gbps data-stream to a more usable codec, cineform, DVCPROHD 780 or 1080i. A second drive will be needed to collect all your footage. I don't think that drive can be a firewire drive. I am not sure of the requirements of cineform. You will need a SATA raid drive. This will be able to be connected as well to the same Expresscard as the capture card.

SDI is much more manageable in the studio connected to a true workstation. SDI capture on a laptop is definitely bleeding edge... But soon I think it will be possible.

*note... I am a total newbie putting this puzzle together. I might be wrong on some of this.

Jay

Jay, it sounds like you're doing mostly shots without people in them but
because you're on an island - if you ever need an actor I know one who
lives on Nantucket and is absolutely fantastic and who would also know
many other actors on the island, so if I can help you at all in that
department just let me know.

I'm new so I know this is dumb but just so I understand; is the A1
component out SD video?

"I will have the ability with a little effort and more money to use the
same camera to get the job"

What extra "effort" and "money" (another deck?)
would you be required to do to utilizize the component out? Thanks.

Jim,

Go through this thread and pay particular attention to Barlow Elton, Thomas Smet and Chris Hurd; as their explanations put most the pieces together. Actually it is kinda like reading Greek. But a quick answer about the composite analog datastream on the A1 is it is HD, nearly 1.4 Gbps.

Barlow emphasizes that the Canon HDV codec should not be disregarded, as Chris Hurd seems to make the same argument. Supposedly the Canon HDV codec offers excellent quality. And that quality will will be ample for the normal scene. Thomas argues to convert the HDV to a lesser compressed codec upon capture (DVCPROHD 1080i) to make the editing go smoother and re-compression issues.

I think, these guys might be right and HDV is a perfectly fine codec for the capture of the average scene. That uncompressed capture is expensive and unnecessary.

Some say the HDV although great for capture and simple edits, it can become bogged down during more complex editing. So conversion to a more editing friendly codec is advised, like DVCPROHD 1080i (for FCP users) and Cineform (for PC users). Final delivery is in what ever codec/format you intend.

I also believe, for my purposes, capturing and storing uncompressed footage is unnecessary. But in the rare times where the scene I am shooting is so very complex with detail and movement (lots and lots of data to be compressed to HDV) it might benefit me to capture the uncompressed analog composite feed from the A1 and send it through the necessary hardware to my laptop as DVCPRO 1080i. (I believe the hardware does not exist to do this today, but will bet in 6 months it will be available)

If I was going to be in a studio where it is easier to utilize the professional jackpacks and use multiple cameras. I would pony up and get the G1. But I think for my purposes the A1 will be the perfect camera to cut my teeth on. Honestly though, if it was not for the HD-analog composite connection, I would go with the G1 and still be considering the HVX-200.

In the end I will have a years worth of footage. Some shot in HDV, some uncompressed and captured as DVCPROHD 1080i. All the keeper clips stored on a redundant Raid as DVCPROHD 1080i ready for assembly. I will keep my tapes as archives of everything I shot.

*Actually I wrote this out hoping if there was a flaw in my plans some one would point it out.

Question- to the guys who really know... For a Mac user is there a particular line of digital converters and capture cards I should be looking at?

Jim,

I also have an apartment in the North End, I will be there during the winter. I will be willing to come out and play. Hopefully there are others in the area who need help ad much as I do in all this.

Jay

Question- to the guys who really know... For a Mac user is there a particular line of digital converters and capture cards I should be looking at?

I have a Kona LH, but if you're getting one of the newer Macs with PCI Express, consider the Blackmagic HD Extreme card. Everything you need for a grand.

Now the new MacBook Pro, Blackmagic card or Kona Card coupled with this
http://www.mobl.com/expansion/products/expresscard_expansion/index.html and appropriate harddrive/raid would make a somewhat portable HD-SDI capture solution; Yes?

It might work as far as I can tell.