Cheapest Quantum Leap Forward
 

Hey folks,
Have any XHA1 users here also used the HV30 HDMI out to solid state media? And is HDMI compressed? Or is anyone using the SDI HD out on a XHG1, again to solid state or spinning media, and avoiding the HDV tape or firewire compression?
I'm running XHA1 to tape now, but curious as to the actual, visible image quality improvements possible when bypassing HDV compression. I've read a lot of talk and speculation on this and the subject of using the HD Component Out, but I haven't been able to find anyone who is actually using one of these workflows.
I guess my real question is what is the least expensive quantum leap forward in image quality from a three, 1/3" CCD, HDV tape set-up?

I would love to experiment with a bit of footage from the XHA1's component versus HDV on tape - both shot with exactly the same subject material/location etc to get my own objective take on the 4:2:2 colour space with both standard editing/CCing and green screen applications.
But being the poor little videographer with no mates with this kind of gear in little ol' New Zealand at the end of the Earth, I'm out of luck.

Hold me.

Generally speaking, these are mutually exclusive terms.

Chris,
I understand your point, but I'm actually serious. Maybe "quantum leap" was the wrong word to use - what is the price point for a significant, noticeable, improvement in image quality? I don't mean a sideways, incremental move to another brand or model of similarly featured HDV camera, the image quality of which would be subjectively debated by many - I mean a noticeable, objective bump. Is it a question of data rate, imager size, codec - all of these? I've been quite happy with my $4K A1, and under the right circumstances, it is capable of producing some beautiful images, but will a $5K HVX200 produce a noticeably better image? $6K for an EX1? $8K for an HPX300? $11K for an HPX500? $20K for an F335 - Now we start to get close to Epic territory...

$20K for an F335 - Now we start to get close to Epic territory...[/QUOTE]

I meant "Scarlet"

A good measure would be sensor size, I think. Nothing that uses 1/3" sensors or similar size would fit 'quantum leap' IMO. Which makes it sound to me like you need to get up well over $10K to get there.

You can get the Convergent Designs Nanoflash for £2400. This'll give massive improvement over HDV at upto 220 mb/sec.
Steve

Steve,
Yes, this product looks great but that brings me back to my original question: Is anyone doing something like this, and if so, how does it look? It would also require having the discontinued XHG-1 (which I don't have) for its SDI out or else going to an HV40 for HDMI. So, would a $900 HV40 going HDMI to a $3000 Nano Flash yield a better image than what I am getting on my XHA-1?
- Jim

That camcorder has *not* been discontinued. It's simply been replaced by a newer version, the XH G1S.

Chris,
Thanks for the clarification on the G-1.

I wouldn't be on this board if I wasn't an A-1 user, so don't get me wrong, I love the camera - but I'm just looking to improve image quality and am willing to spend some money to do that. And thus far, the only suggestion I've seen is to spend $3,000 for the NanoFlash. So, what would you fellow A-1 users do:

XHG-1s: $6,750
NanoFlash: $3,000
RedRockM2 pkg: $4,100
Used set Nikon Primes: $1,000
Total: $14,850

or

Scarlet with S35 sensor, RedRockMicro Matte & Follow pkg
& same Nikon Primes: $18,000?

The 1st set-up bypasses HDV compression and captures at 4:2:2, full raster 1920X1080, but still goes through 1/3" CCDs.

The 2nd set up shoots at 5K.

What is it going to be used for I reckon is a big question.

I own a A1 and have full access to RED one with a set of Arri master primes and as great as it is I use the A1 stacks more. RED is great but it can be a PIA for general work. Is your end user really going to notice the diff between uncompressed HD compared to HDV after you have stuck it on the web or DVD?

Maybe the Ex1 is the go? Better lowlight, 1/2 " chips, shallower DOF, solid state etc etc.

Or are you shooting for TVC... then maybe Scarlet would be the go?

And when do you need it... knowing RED Scarlet may be here in Sept but could be here for Christmas?

Jonathan - Used for "No-Budget Indies" - I just want the best image possible for the money available - but don't you think most people could notice the difference between those two, no matter the venue?

That's a really interesting question, isn't it? How many people *would* be able to tell the difference, outside possibly of a side-by-side comparison test? When I say 'people', I don't mean video gear and production experts (not that they're not people :-)) who test and examine gear and its output day in and day out. I mean 'lay' people, including clients.

I don't mean to say that kit from RED upwards doesn't produce better quality images than my XH-A1 - I'm just wondering at what point (i.e. how much better you have to get) and in what circumstances (i.e. how the image is presented - TV, cinema screen etc) a reasonably demanding viewer will actually become aware of the improvement.

or straight to a laptop>hard drive?

anybody with any insights on the quality difference? i think CC etc may hold up better, but would the raw image shot with the HV lens be a considerable improvement over the XH A1 shooting HDV?

As always, the cheapest quantum leap forward, is your knowledge & experience in creating "holy crap!" images. For me the holy grail is to get to that point, where it really doesn't matter what equipment I'm using. It's always marvelous to meet people who can do that and watch them work.

Personally I think the technology has advanced so much, it's all just incremental improvements from where you're standing. The only technical advance that makes a big difference to me, is recording with a larger color space like 4:2:2 or 4:4:4. And even then the recorded image won't be a quantum leap above a 4:2:0 image, until after you color correct.

But not having to worry about all that, because you knew how to create a "holy crap!" image in the first place, priceless.

Hmm, hesitant as I am to dip my toe...........
 

This post is almost identical to one I posted over in the (gasp!) Sony EX forum.

Jim, the limitations of both 1/3" sensors and HDV compression are well known and documented.

Get away from those and the picture (literally) gets a lot rosier.

It's the "getting away" that creates the financial problem, and there is currently no cheap solution that I know of, otherwise, I would have done it, as would every other man and his dog (carrying the camera).

Basically the market is a pyramid - at the bottom you have "cheap" but sells in mass quantities, so can be sold so.

Climb that pyramid and it just gets more expensive per unit because so many fewer units are sold, manufaturers have to recover the costs etc yada yada yada.

If someone had a "magic bullet" they'd make a huge killing and everyone could have unlimited bandwidth and super sized chips for nix - except then the "big boys" would demand even better toys and the race starts all over again.

Bottom line, if your income from video doesn't support the purchase of the "bees knees" gear, then it doesn't, and you're at the mercy of the market for every advance you can afford.

Now, why did I make my original post on the EX forum?

With the introduction of HD here in NZ, Freeview were running a freebie HD demo on the Galapogos Islands.

Whilst most of it had been shot with exceedingly up market cameras (no, I mean infinately more upmarket than an A1), detail to die for, no smear on pans etc etc, one small segment had, indeed, been shot on HDV.

It was of marine iguanas and spectacular, again, detail to die for etc UNTIL THEY PANNED THE CAMERA!

What a display of how bad HDV compression and bandwidth limitations can be.

It was like "ohmygod, what happened there?".

It was just good old fashioned bandwidth/ compression taking it's toll on a full HD picture.

Would the "average punter" notice?

Not really the point of this - my missus still can't see it after seeing it over a dozen times, but I bet there's an aweful lot who did.

To me it was like being whacked over the head with a baseball bat - aweful.

My point?

What is it worth to your prospective audience to have the best, and will it put money in your pocket if you use it?

Answer that question and buy the gear to match the answer.

Nothing else you can do in business.

BTW, if you find that "Quantum Leap" do let us know on DVinfo before you inform the planet - please!


CS

this reminded me of a film made by a guy here on the coast I've had the pleasure of working with

YouTube - Tropfest NY 2008 winner, "Mankind Is No Island" by Jason van Genderen

maybe they're not 'holy crap' images but it's a 'holy crap' film - it leaves me breathless, in awe - and it wasn't shot on anything special

Diddo. Amazing vid.

That's it.... if it's a 'holy crap' great film with a great story, great audio, great lighting = Great production.

There is no point in making yourself bankrupt trying to a cam when you can't spend / have the talent for the other sections. It's funny I was watching the deadliest catch last night (haven't watched in in ages) and half of the shots were out of focus even on a couple of the interviews when the boat wasn't moving! ... but hey people love that show and it has a massive audience.

Jonathan,
Yes, I agree - hence the name of this thread. I'm assuming most who frequent this forum have something interesting to say and some skill with which to say it - I'm just asking if there was a proven upgrade to the beautiful images we are all capable of producing with the $3-4K camera we already own, or whether noticeably better pictures would require a noticeable amount of lettuce. I thank all for their helpful comments!
- Jim

Ok its been forever, but there was a user that shot some controlled test footage with his XH-G1 comparing SDI 4:2:2 captures to HDV recorded to tape. The SDI was a tiny tad better, but the differences were much smaller than one would have expected. No end product viewing audience would ever notice the difference, it was that miniscule. The SDI capture might be easier to use for FX or compositing work of course, but for your basic narrative video its pretty much a wash.

What this all really boils down to is that if one cannot make a quality product with the XH-A1 using HDV, then one cannot make a quality product using SDI or HDMI. If a 2% image improvement is what is holding you back, then nothing is holding you back :) Canon's XL-H1 HDV cam was used to shoot "The Signal" which was sold for Two Million dollars at Sundance (2007?). Crank 2 was shot with an XH-A1 and released theatrically. Both features were shot using HDV 4:2:0.

Anyone that owns an XH-A1 is not being held back by their camcorder ;)

Bingo. Well said, Philip, and that's an excellent post, thanks for making it. You've basically stated the Law of Diminishing Returns very clearly. All of the SDI-equipped Canon cameras -- the G1, G1S, H1 and H1S -- are primarily intended to dovetail within existing SDI-equipped facilities, such as small market television stations and the like that already have an established SDI architecture.

The optimal image from the A1 is stellar. But the camera has bad ergonomics, limited dynamic range, poor lowlight performance, no real manual focus, and a bunch of shooting controls buried in sub-menues. You can avoid these limitations altogether by shooting from a tripod in predictable settings with plenty of light. If you shoot in more demanding environments you will have to work creatively on mitigating those limitations.

Having never worked with 4:2:2 footage, I would be curious to see how much you can push it around without grain materialising for those shots where you didn't have optimum lighting or didn't have your camera at an optimum shutter speed/iris etc.
Now before you say "learn to shoot better", I'm still curious as to the advantages of 4:2:2 in that specific situation until I become like soooo totally friggen awseome that I never screw an unrepeatable shot up ever again.
I would also like to see how much of an improvement with dynamic range you have.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think a major factor in working with the lightly (or non) compressed 4:2:2 footage is the lack of image artifacts inherent in the 25Mbps MPEG2 HDV compressed footage. Depending on the particular shot, its possible to push HDV until you start to see image blocking and MPEG "grain". I would guess the actual 4:2:2 color is more important for compositing and FX work, though I could be way off base there :)

I must admit ive been looking at trying a capture card from component out to bypass the hdv compression, especially for Ice skating where the hdv codec is being stressed.
However im not sure if the investment in somthing like the Matrox mini is worth the difference (if any, as the canon hdv codec stands up very well) and then theres the cost of the extra storage space for the larger files as 20 hrs of footage is significant. (especially if its uncompressed!)
For most situations though i think the difference would be nil especially once downconverted for Dvd.
The greatest improvement you can make imho is to light the shot correctly because when its right the image is fantastic.