Don't worry, I'm not looking for a camera, just some sample footage!

If you were here, then we could go out and take some footage.

You mention that you want to use some Nikon Primes. How are you going to attach these to the XL H1?

Are you looking for very long focal lengths?

There is an adaptor that allows you to use 35mm still lenses. I will be shooting wildlife so will need long focal lengths.

I use Nikon lenses, mainly 300mm f2.8 & 600mm ED-IF lenses, but also wide angles and macro etc.
There are a few different companies that make Nikon adapters, but probably the best is Les Bosher (The XL1 adapter fits the XL2 & XL-H1) - he offers superb service and help, and will also make mount adapters for other DV or movie camera systems:

http://www.lesbosher.co.uk/XL1.asp

hi tony: i think the electronics in my EF adapter fritzed. i'm thinking of unloading my Canon gear and switching to Nikkors because my work is buying a RED camera and a set of Nikkors. so i'm interested in the Les Bosher adapter as a possible replacement. does it have much in the way of complicated electronics, can you tell? is it battery operated, like the EF adapter? or....?

hi tony: i think the electronics in my EF adapter fritzed. i'm thinking of unloading my Canon gear and switching to Nikkors because my work is buying a RED camera and a set of Nikkors. so i'm interested in the Les Bosher adapter as a possible replacement. does it have much in the way of complicated electronics, can you tell? is it battery operated, like the EF adapter? or....?

No electronics...just simple high quality metal-built adapter, with full manual control of the Nikkors using the beautiful aperture control ring on the lens...lovely smooth control! The Canon body still relays aperture settings to the viewfinder and controls metering.

Just make sure that you buy Nikkor Manual or AF lenses with aperture rings and NOT any of the latest non-aperture "G" range of digital lenses.

Hi Andrews,

Here is a short edit of three french wildlife clips I've made for you, hoping it's what you are looking for.

It's shot with my XLH1, the EF adapter and the Canon 100-400L 35mm lens, downconverted in PAL SD.

You can download it there (QuickTime movie 35MB):
http://download.yousendit.com/8587C740372F919C

As you can see, the 2 shots on the deer are good because I was not very far from it (average 12 meters) and the lens at 250 & 350mm.
But if you are far away from the subject, the image is not sharp enough, as you can see with the bird (shot from 50 meters @ 400mm). I think it's because atmospheric trouble.

Hope this helps and sorry for my bad english.

Check out Steven Dempsey's stuff. He has shot a lot of H1 stuff. Here is thread where he posted storm footage, but I remember he had beautiful wildlife footage from Yellowstone up at one point. You might have to contact him directly.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=84405

Hi Ronan

Merci beaucoup pour ton email. Je suis gallois mais je parle francais parce-que ma femme est Bretonne!

I couldn't access the file as the site wants me to login.

Andrew Davies

What a shame!
Does someone know a site where I can freely upload a 35MB file without registration, and share the link ?

Ronan

Hello Andrew,

You can try to download the 3 shots in this file :

EDIT: File erased.

Please, let me know when it's done, in order to let me erase it. Thanks.

I've managed to download and view the clip. The quality of the deer footage looks very good.

Many thanks

Andy Davies

Andrew: You are in a technical minefield here. Ultimately this is only partially about content and the beauty or otherwise of what you shoot. It is much more about the C word....compression.

I own an XLH1 and I only produce broadcast work but I only use my XL H1 in certain circumstances. The reality is that as HD becomes more and more a broadcast format, HDV, with all of its compression issues, will not be regarded as acceptable by broadcasters for anything except current affairs, news and the occasional documentary. If you are thinking of creating archive/library footage it is going to have to be exceptional if it is to be acceptable on hdv in the years to come past 2010. In short as with everything else, if you have the only footage ever shot of the lesser spotted purple grebe, it could be on super 8 and it will have value since it is unique, but if you are competing against other footage of the same subject matter that is genuine hd, when it comes to archive sales you will have a problem in the years to come.

The XL H1 is a super camera and its pictures are splendid, and certainly in my view better than any camera in its price range or with 1/3" chips, but once a broadcaster like Discovery who compresses their picture to hell and gone for transmission gets started on the already compressed hdv picture, any engineer will spot that there are problems, as will the consumer watching on their 42 inch hd monitor at home. And that's whether the delivery fomat is hdcam or hdv. HOWEVER, if you shoot hdv, with the broadcaster's agreement for delivery on digibeta for standard def transmission, in most circumstances no one will be able to tell the difference. The key issues here are WHAT you shoot, what the lighting conditions are, what movement there is in shot and so forth. In that sense it is like the difference between 16mm and 35mm. A relatively static talking head, beautifully lit in a studio or room set will look fantastic shot with the XL H1 and up converetd to HD, and it would take an extremely astute engineer to spot the codec and disinter the original hdv format on which it was mastered. However a bird in rapid flight on an autumn day with falling leaves and waving wheat in the foreground will produce all sorts of artifacts that will reveal themselves to the naked eye, leaving aside a broadcast engineer looking to spot something that isn't true hd! It's all about compression and the hdv image is heavily compressed to get all that information onto the tiny tape. It just can't cope with lots of movement, shifts in colour and so on. I may be telling you what you already know but there has been a lot of misguided stuff on this link and what I am saying comes from experience of delivering to UK broadcasters.

If it were me trying to make the decision here, it sounds as if you can't afford a better camera than the XL H1 and therefore you should be telling the people whom you are talking to about this production that they should be lucky they are getting footage shot on this camera rather than on an XL2 or worse still a Z1 or even worse a PD150/170. Of all of these the XL H1 will be way superior as long as the expectation is that the final programme is being delivered on digibeta for standard def transmission. None of the cameras, including the XL H1 is really acceptable for extensive content within a programme to be broadcast in hd, though they might be ok for a small proportion of the overall content. The production company, as long as they have a contract with the BBC, assuming this is an indie and not an in-house BBC Wales production, will know what the delivery format is, and if it is HD, you and they will need the BBC commissioning editor's approval for a percentage of hdv/sd footage which might or might not include what you shoot. If the delivery format is digi, then just go for it (obviously with the prod company's agreement) but be aware of some of the lighting and shooting limitations. Deliver hdv to them, which they will digitise into their avid or whatever as sd, and then they can eventually master their edit to digi from the avid.

It is true, as has been hinted at in this thread, as regards current standard def broadcast, a lot of programmes are being originated with very basic cameras, from pd150's through Z1's and all stops between, but that is standard def broadcast. HD broadcast is another thing entirely.

Hope this is helpful.

Good luck

Jon,

Many thanks for your very informative post. I had surmised that panning shots were going to be real problem and I will be shooting in evening light.

I also want a camera that I will be able to shoot stock footage for the future so high quality HD is required.

Andy

Jon,

Many thanks for your very informative post. I had surmised that panning shots were going to be real problem and I will be shooting in evening light.

I also want a camera that I will be able to shoot stock footage for the future so high quality HD is required.

Andy

Let us not forget that the H1 is capable of streaming uncompressed HD out via the SDI port. This footage can be captured into a more "professional" codec if you choose. While I do not feel that HDV is that bad to start with, surely devices are in the near futre to capture and convert to a lossless codec via SDI. The H1 has some legs to stand on for the forseeable future. It sounds like the only real thing holding it back is the HDV codec. And that can be bypassed. It is just a matter of time until a portable solution becomes available.

Marty

Let us not forget that the H1 is capable of streaming uncompressed HD out via the SDI port. And that can be bypassed. It is just a matter of time until a portable solution becomes available.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Marty...? I work for the BBC as a camerman btw, and we've been having lengthy discussions lately about all things HD and HDV.

Having attended a 2 day HD seminar last week with two of the biggest 'HD boffins' there are, I asked if they felt there was a future for 'low end' production within the HD(V) realm ? They said "yes there was" and I specifically asked about the H1, which they appeared to approve of for now, but come the time (post 2010) when we move to a 100% HD transmission culture, HDV isn't going to make it on air very often. At the moment HDV is treated much the same as DV within the BBC, ok for those furtive journalistic docs etc but not for general consumption.

I asked what the current concerns BBC and Discovery have with HDV into HD transmissions and the answer was simple... "It just stands out like a sore thumb on a large display". Much like mixing let's say dv and digi-beta ?

BBC and other HD channels have a simple sellling point and that's visual quality. They want the HD channels to "jump out" at those who choose to channel hop and that ethos forms the basis of their reluctance to embrace HDV as an acceptable 'HD' broadcast format.

Incidentally, I understand there are some discussions going on aimed at perhaps replacing our Sony Z1 complement with Canon XL-H1's ?

All this whiny talk about HDV compression. It's crap. All of it. Does anyone even bother to LOOK at the results of the footage from the XLH1 before ranting about the horrors of HDV compression.

Every single owner/operator and professional review of Canon's HDV implementation is that it's extraordinary. Even stressful footage captured via HDV has proven to shine.

It's all much ado about nothing. Except fear.

[/rant]

I had surmised that panning shots were going to be real problem and I will be shooting in evening light.

Stop, stop, STOP. Again, more uninformed FUD. There's TONS of footage out there with pans, whip pans, tilts, fast motion and the HDV compression implementation holds fabulously.

I think you've hit the nail on the head Marty...? I work for the BBC as a camerman btw, and we've been having lengthy discussions lately about all things HD and HDV.

Having attended a 2 day HD seminar last week with two of the biggest 'HD boffins' there are, I asked if they felt there was a future for 'low end' production within the HD(V) realm ? They said "yes there was" and I specifically asked about the H1, which they appeared to approve of for now, but come the time (post 2010) when we move to a 100% HD transmission culture, HDV isn't going to make it on air very often. At the moment HDV is treated much the same as DV within the BBC, ok for those furtive journalistic docs etc but not for general consumption.

I asked what the current concerns BBC and Discovery have with HDV into HD transmissions and the answer was simple... "It just stands out like a sore thumb on a large display". Much like mixing let's say dv and digi-beta ?

BBC and other HD channels have a simple sellling point and that's visual quality. They want the HD channels to "jump out" at those who choose to channel hop and that ethos forms the basis of their reluctance to embrace HDV as an acceptable 'HD' broadcast format.

Incidentally, I understand there are some discussions going on aimed at perhaps replacing our Sony Z1 complement with Canon XL-H1's ?

It does NOT stand out like a sore thumb. Did these people actually see this with their own eyes or are they just repeating something they overhead from some engineer?

I shot and edit HDV originated footage with this camera all day long and frequently watch it on a 50" display. It looks gorgeous!

It does NOT stand out like a sore thumb. Did these people actually see this with their own eyes or are they just repeating something they overhead from some engineer?

I shot and edit HDV originated footage with this camera all day long and frequently watch it on a 50" display. It looks gorgeous!

Yes but broadcast HD looks even better...

The main concerns (as ever) are that prosumer HDV cameras suffer from small sensors and cheap lenses. In that respect it's a format that does indeed stand out from the high end broadcast variants that the 'broadcasters' tend to favour.

Yes but broadcast HD looks even better...

The main concerns (as ever) are that prosumer HDV cameras suffer from small sensors and cheap lenses. In that respect it's a format that does indeed stand out from the high end broadcast variants that the 'broadcasters' tend to favour.

A television group in Nevada bought 60 H1s and are using them as both their main field and studio cameras....Spike Lee is shooting his big documentary with the H1 as "A" camera, G1 as "B" camera, and the HV10 as their "low key" camera....and again, Discovery HD has approved the H1 HDV for 100% content....and, and, Robert Sanders has one!!!!!

The main concerns (as ever) are that prosumer HDV cameras suffer from small sensors and cheap lenses.I thought it was about the HDV compression? I won't go so far as cry FUD, but this surely is a conclusion in search of justifications! Ok I'll admit I'm a little tired and irritable this evening so forgive the edge of sarcasm but geez, I don't know how people are getting all these great images with that crappy HDV, small sensors, and cheap lenses?

HDV compression CAN be "broken" meaning the macroblocking becomes easily seen; too obvious. I've done it on purpose specifically to test it, although so far never accidentally (and I ain't that good behind the camera). All the common compressed formats have their own flavor of artifacting. It has also been shown by others that upon close inspection, subtle macroblocking does slip into high-detail shots with persistently large changes from frame to frame, just as DV and DVCProHD can get mosquito noise etc etc.

If broadcasters are rejecting programs out of hand because they were produced in HDV with an XL H1, it is a pity. The many posts peppered around DVinfo.net on this subject demonstrate that some broadcasters have a bias for the intra-frame compression that they're used to dealing with already. A shame, really. But that's part of the marketplace and content producers need to be aware that such a bias may cause them to not sell some great work.

Every technology has it strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. If HDV doesn't work for your purposes, fine, pull out your wallet for a camera that does. You CAN get a better image but it'll cost a bunch more money than the Canon HDV cameras do.

Yes but broadcast HD looks even better...


Some does and some doesn't. The local public TV channel, for example, has attrocious compression. All the things cited here (macroblocking....) are plainly visible if the situation is the least bit dynamic. And while I have seen stuff on other channels that looks sharper, more vibrant etc than XL-H1 images I have to note that if I go stepping frame to frame on XL-H1 footage in which there is lots of motion (panning running dogs past trees with lots of leaves etc) which have been converted to an I only codec I can't tell which were originally I frames and which were B and P. This says to me that the temporal compression is working pretty well.

I have been working on a documentary that was shot with the H1 and I have about 19hours of HDV footage and I can tell you when I watch it on my 50'' DLP HTV the picture looks beautiful.
I watch HD TV all the time ( that's the only thing I watch ) and I can tell you there is no difference in the picture quality that I see, The broadcaster engineer sees different picture then the 99.99% of the viewers and if Discovery and other HD channels turn down HDV projects then they are the one who is losing on good programs and we are the one stuck watching replays because the lack of HD program out there.

The problem is concatenation, when the effects of one compression cycle mightn't be noticeable, but the impact of multiple decompressions and compressions can cause considerable damage. Especially if different compression methods are used in the signal path.

So what might look great played first generation on your TV, has a good chance of being rather downgraded in quality by the time it's been edited, copied onto a master tape and then heavily compressed for transmission by the broadcaster.

Unfortunately, the high compression of HDV isn't a great start to the chain.

Brian,
Shouldn,t the final edited master be as good as the original footage if you firewire everthing back and forth? Right now I'm archiving wildlife footage shot with the XLH1 and I simply firewire my special shots from a Sony 25U deck back into my camera and save on new Sony digital masters and the quality looks exactly like the original footage. I'm sure I could go back and forth all day without generation loss with the same piece of footage. A good editing HDV system should be able to maintain quality as in DV but I can't say for sure as don't have one yet.

The following is not aimed at you Brian.

As far as quality is concerned I'm more than happy with the XLH1, whip pans, fast action, you name it looks good 99% of the time. I snowshoed for hours yesterday tracking a family of lynx and finally managed 30 seconds of footage of the mother, her 3 half grown youngsters I could not find. The point I'm trying to make is, if I was lugging a monster of a camera I wouln't of been able to get the footage I did. So this camera is the best for me, as year in year out this is my style of filming, rough going most of the time. I couln't care less for a little better quality on those full size cameras if they're too heavy to pack far. My camera with lens support, teleconverters and tripod weighs about 22 pounds and when at times you have to carry the mounted camera ready for action in deep snow, I often wish for less weight. At this time I don't know of a better camera than the XLH1 for wildlife filmmaking.

Leon Lorenz
www.wildlifevideos.ca

Brian,
Shouldn,t the final edited master be as good as the original footage if you firewire everthing back and forth? Right now I'm archiving wildlife footage shot with the XLH1 and I simply firewire my special shots from a Sony 25U deck back into my camera and save on new Sony digital masters and the quality looks exactly like the original footage. I'm sure I could go back and forth all day without generation loss with the same piece of footage. A good editing HDV system should be able to maintain quality as in DV but I can't say for sure as don't have one yet.


www.wildlifevideos.ca

Just because it's digital doesn't mean you don't get generational losses, with HDCAM around six generations seems to be regarded as the limit. From my understanding, for best results you don't want to be editing native HDV, best practice is to convert the HDV into full HD video. Of course, you're now into needing lots of extra drive space to store this, but you don't have the GOP and you're working with full frame HD.

It's certainly an area you should carefully think about and plan a workflow that maintains maximum quality. This technology is changing all the time, with new developments coming along every week and it's worth doing some research before making any decisions.

Some does and some doesn't. The local public TV channel, for example, has attrocious compression. All the things cited here (macroblocking....) are plainly visible if the situation is the least bit dynamic. And while I have seen stuff on other channels that looks sharper, more vibrant etc than XL-H1 images I have to note that if I go stepping frame to frame on XL-H1 footage in which there is lots of motion (panning running dogs past trees with lots of leaves etc) which have been converted to an I only codec I can't tell which were originally I frames and which were B and P. This says to me that the temporal compression is working pretty well.

Yes, but I think as others have said, It's a case of how compressed your material is to begin with then how much more compression and manipulation it suffers prior to broadcast. As much as I'd like to see lot's of HDV making it onto the BBC's HD channel and channels to come, I don't really see it happening. They've drawn a line in the sand in terms of it's technical guidelines and unfortunately (at the moment) HDV is considered unacceptable as a genuine "HD" contender.

...best practice is to convert the HDV into full HD video. Of course, you're now into needing lots of extra drive space to store this...Or use an intermediate codec, such as Cineform at approx 35-36GB/hr for "visually Perfect" 8-bit compression...a little LESS than DVCProHD, or about the same disk storage as DVCProHD for 10-bit.

You are technically correct that you still get small amounts of generational loss with compressed formats. Maybe others run a lot of their footage through a half a dozen compressions, but I doubt if I ever have so far. I'll worry about it when I do (although since I'm using Cineform right now, they promise their wavelet codec will give me 15 generations with no visible degradation). And Cineform is just one solution, which I mention because I'm personally familiar with it.

A given broadcaster may have a dogma about HDV; that's unfortunate and a bit hypocritical considering -- as pointed out by AJ -- how most providers bit-starve their broadcasts.

The Cineform looks extremely impressive. It's one reason why I think the lower budget HD future lies with a wavelet compression format, rather than HDV.

Or use an intermediate codec, such as Cineform at approx 35-36GB/hr for "visually Perfect" 8-bit compression...a little LESS than DVCProHD, or about the same disk storage as DVCProHD for 10-bit.

You are technically correct that you still get small amounts of generational loss with compressed formats. Maybe others run a lot of their footage through a half a dozen compressions, but I doubt if I ever have so far. I'll worry about it when I do (although since I'm using Cineform right now, they promise their wavelet codec will give me 15 generations with no visible degradation). And Cineform is just one solution, which I mention because I'm personally familiar with it.

A given broadcaster may have a dogma about HDV; that's unfortunate and a bit hypocritical considering -- as pointed out by AJ -- how most providers bit-starve their broadcasts.

EXACTLY! The comparison's of HDV being used here are not accurate. The normal workflow of acquisition to final delivered product are NOT:
1. Shoot in HDV/m2t
2. Edit in HDV/m2t
3. Color Correct/Composite/Green Screen/Filter-Effects in HDV/m2t
4. Final Render out to HDV/m2t
NO - No -No

You shoot in HDV/m2t THEN you convert to a flavor of HD intermediate codec (Cineform Aspect/Prospet, Canopus HQ) or the many other HD formats that develop independent single frames of high color space from the original HDV/m2t files. The long GOP is ended immediately. You edit in the intermediate HD codec. You deliver in the HD tape format (i.e. DVCProHD, HDCam,etc). THAT's the WORKFLOW to compare, not multiple .mt2 recompressions.

You shoot in HDV/m2t THEN you convert to a flavor of HD intermediate codec (Cineform Aspect/Prospet, Canopus HQ) or the many other HD formats that develop independent single frames of high color space from the original HDV/m2t files. The long GOP is ended immediately. You edit in the intermediate HD codec. You deliver in the HD tape format (i.e. DVCProHD, HDCam,etc). THAT's the WORKFLOW to compare, not multiple .mt2 recompressions.

Using Cineform the files never actually end up on my computer in .m2t format (unless I tell the software to save the .m2t files also). During the capture process it is converted directly to the intermediate codec and I edit from there. Any drawbacks of mpg compression are limited to the very first acquisition written to tape and do not affect any further editing or compositing.

Brian,
Thanks for your feedback. I will keep my eyes peeled for a quality editing system when I'm close to completing the shooting of my first HD wildlife film. I've enjoyed using Edirol's Video Canvas DV-7 since 2002 and was their first Canadian customer, see an article about this on their website under stories. I understand they're working on an HD editing system right now and if it's anything like their DV-7 it will be awesome and should have firewire. On DV editing my final Digital Master is always 4th generation and 5th for Betacam SP for broadcast. I'm sure we should be able to edit HDV just like DV soon with new stuff coming out all the time, and get perfect quality.

Leon Lorenz
www.wildlifevideos.ca

i've been following this thread and this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=84110&highlight=xl+h1+broadcast) and reading for hours, but i can't get my arms around the specifics of what folks are using for an HDV tape to broadcast workflow. is anyone here using FCP who can offer one? i'm hearing what *not* to do, but i'm a bit at a loss regarding what tools and workflow are actively being accepted. i'm going into a field environment where a small unobtrusive form factor is absolutely essential, so XD CAM is out. any uncompressed workflow seems out of the question in this environment. HDV seems the only option. but then what do i do with these tapes to convert them for broadcast? (having never done this before....). desperately searching for a workflow....

Depends on what the station's requirements are. You may be able to load your footage onto a hard drive and let them have it that way (as you would for a lab going to film), or you may have to dub it to Betacam SP, Digibeta, or whatever they might want.

I personally just shot a series of commercials with the H1 in HDV. all the footage was captured as 10bit uncompressed NTSC and it's stunning. it will go from FCP to Fire as uncompressed quicktimes. it will be tweaked and output to d-beta for dubbing and shipped to the networks.

I do not see any visual evidence of compression.

vince

I'm with Meryem... I know that there is a wealth of information on this subject, but it is so scattered and fragmented and opinionated that it's difficult to get a handle on exactly what is the best workflow - and how best technically to implement that workflow. I've worked with FCP since version 1.0, but I am not the type of person that gets a kick out of loading software and/or learning new APs every few weeks - I just don't have the time...

I've made seven short (8 min to 30 min) documentaries and nine commercials in the last year with the H1, all of which have been edited native HDV in FCP and output to SD for broadcast (converted in the timeline) or DVD distribution (using Compressor) - with great success, I might add...

But, I know (from what I've read here and elsewhere) that if I want to be maximizing the potential of shooting HDV I should be converting (AIC - DVPRO HD - whatever?) and editing in a different way...

What I don't know is - how (specifically) do I go about doing that and what (specific) software besides FCP do I need to do it?..

what (specific) software besides FCP do I need to do it?..[/QUOTE]

FCP has all you need as a software solution. You may want to get a Kona or Decklink card if you don't have one. That will allow you to capture your HDV component or SDI into FCP to any I-frame format. You may also need to look at your media storage depenending on the format you choose.

Again, Walter Biscardi at the Cow is finishing for HD broadcast in Final Cut. He does have HDV as the original source in some cases. His workflow is proven.

Vince

Thanks Vince - I do as a matter of fact have a DeckLink card and 1.5t external SATA drives, so I'm good there.. So the drill is to capture via component rather than FW... Ok-a-y....

I just always worry about manipulating original files in any way - I'm from the "don't step on it if you don't have to" school of thought.. I'll check that link out...

thanks, vince, i'll check it out. "proven workflow" sounds good to me!....i feel as if i've seen posted workflows for converting HDV to broadcast here at dvinfo, but at the time, i wasn't in the market, so if any of you link-wrangling wranglers can direct me that way, i'd love it. my searches are not coughing it up....

So the drill is to capture via component rather than FW... Ok-a-y....

HD SDI is even better. Although I'm currently ingesting from component.

vince

Yeah, that's what I'll have to do (HD SDI) because my DeckLink HD Pro card doesn't have Component in.. which means I'm going to have to use the H1 as a deck, which I'm not too happy about...

I'm starting shooting a feature length documentary next month that is going to be labor intensive. I will be shooting over 100 tapes, so that's a lot of wear and tear on my H1... and I will be shooting 24f - I had hoped to use my A1 or buy an HV10 as the deck, but this changes things..

Do you know if this can be done effectively (converting 24f m2t files to DVPRO HD or whatever) from a Firestore?

If you can wait for the hv-20 it has hdmi out, so you could capture through that rather than using the h1 w/ hd-sdi.

If you can wait for the hv-20 it has hdmi out, so you could capture through that rather than using the h1 w/ hd-sdi.

Forgive me for the ignorant question, but what benefit does capturing via HDMI out from an HV20 have if you are using it to play previously recorded HDV material from tape? Other than convenience? I could see a live feed going to the PC/MAC to be encoded directly to a superior codec....but once it goes to tape as HDV is there any real "quality" benefit to capturing vis SDI or HDMI? Isn't the color information gone at this point and the compression already in place? If so why not just convert to Intermediate codec after capture?

The only potential benefit I can see is real-time conversion as it is ingested to the PC/MAC to a better codec. However I find that Aspect HD on the PC converts HDV to Cineform files in almost realtime. In fact, I actually end up with the original .m2t files along with the Cineform .avi files. I can easily archive the .m2t as they are much more "size friendly" and never have to go back to the original tape, unless there is a real emergency.

Si am I missing something here?

Kevin: Yeah, well, the HV-20 advertises 24p... if that means what I think it means, it is the end of 24f...

Marty: See, this is just what I mean when I say I get confused by this conversation... I would assume that HDV is HDV and that other than avoiding additional compression generations there would be no particular advantage..

But I have read many threads warning against editing native HDV - I have done it successfully, as I said above, for a year, but if there is a better way I want to know what it is...

And if I do chose to batch capture HDV into FCP conventionally, how do I batch convert those files to AIC or DVPRO HD? Do I have to sit there and do it one clip at a time?

"Yeah, well, the HV-20 advertises 24p... if that means what I think it means, it is the end of 24f..."

Not sure that this concern is warranted. I believe when the H1 was introduced there was a patent issue with the person who developed the method of getting 24p out the video stream - so Canon opted for the legally safe 24f nomenclature?? I remember reading that someowhere. Now maybe that issue has been resolved and they can now safely call 24f - 24p.

Chris ????

The 24F is dead from the point of view that the HV20 is natively progressive as it uses CMOS chip and thus will record 24P.

The F in 24F/25F/30F only really refers to the way the XL-H1 and XH-A1/G1s produce their progressive footage from interlaced CCDs and has little to do with the legalities of using 24P as a nomenclature it has more to do with being honest with the consumer. Which I applaud.

As we all can see 24F is 24P no matter how it is generated.

TT

Does the interlaced nature of the 24F cause artifact problems with fast pans?

Does the interlaced nature of the 24F cause artifact problems with fast pans?

Not at all.

There are no interlace artefacts at all just a slight drop in resolution. There is a slight stair stepping of bright diagonal edges but no worse than on the HVR-V1.

The "F" just means the progressive frames were cleverly created from and interlaced CCD and _not_ that it is faux progressive.

The green ccd is clocked a field out of sync to the red and blue ccds and then the dsp gets to work reconstructing a full colour progressive frame. Think of it as temporal pixel shifting.

Canon can do this because they are using very high res CCDs in the first place. Other manufacturers are using lower res CCDs and CMOS chips and even though Canon lose 10% of res in progressive mode the outcome is still as good if not better than the competition.

F=P

TT

The point being, however, that the HV20 will probably not serve well as a deck for footage shot 24f w/ the H1/A1/G1... Many have been using the Hv10 for that purpose.. hopefully that little camera will not go away immediately..

Also, it seems likely that the much contemplated successor to the H1 will have progressive CMOS chips and offer true 24p and at even higher resolution than 1080i...