Canon unveils the XHG1 and XHA1

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I love the way Canon works. They never make a fuss about non-working prototypes.

I agree with you, Canon keep things up their sleeves until they're fully formed and practically ready to ship. The H1 was even more startling, because at the time it was announced a lot of people thought Canon were way off their game, and then bang, they had this beautiful camera on the shelves.

It would be interesting to know what pays off better in terms of sales, the Canon way or the marketing strategy of that other manufacturer - you know, racking up the hyperbole about a work in progress endless months out.

On the other hand, the Canon way can also be a little unsettling. I'm half considering buying an H1 and picking up one of the new puppies later on as a b-camera, but you never know when they're going to spring an H1s on us, and it could be sooner rather than later.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

No, it would not. You're trying to imply that somehow there is some big difference between progressive scan and Canon Frame mode. If you've actually seen it, then you'd know there's practically no discernible difference. Most folks that perpetuate the myth of "true" vs. "fake" progressive scan, have never looked at Frame mode. It pretty much *is* progressive scan, so, no this would not be the biggest thing for the Canon A1, because it's already in there, in the form of Canon Frame mode.

I’m sorry to disagree Chris, but there is a big difference. For starters, 24f doesn’t look nearly as filmic as progressive. All progressive scan footage I have seen looked more filmic than anything I have seen from a XL-H1. Now you may say this is a matter of opinion and subjective, even though I truly think footage from the XL-H1 looks like great video and not filmic at all and the difference is easily discernible to my eyes, but on the top of that and something that is not subjective, there’s the resolution drop when using 24f, while when using progressive, resolution is actually increased in comparison to interlaced. So considering that plus the fact that it could never physically or technically be considered progressive if it doesn’t originate from progressive CCDs, saying it’s pretty much progressive is like saying because the Genesis has a 35mm sized sensor and DOF it *is* pretty much film. Folks perpetuate the myth of "true" vs. "fake" progressive scan because that’s exactly what 24f is, an imitation of progressive scan.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

On the other hand, the Canon way can also be a little unsettling. I'm half considering buying an H1 and picking up one of the new puppies later on as a b-camera, but you never know when they're going to spring an H1s on us, and it could be sooner rather than later.

Well, that can really happen with any manufacturer and it's just the nature of the bizz I guess. See what JVC did releasing the HD110 with just over 8 months of releasing the HD100?

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I truly think footage from the XL-H1 looks like great video and not filmic at all and the difference is easily discernible to my eyes

Are you serious? So you go into a theatre, sit down to watch a low-budget feature, digitally projected, with great lighting, great acting, great directing, great script... but wait, it's immediately apparent that it's been shot on an XL-H1 because it's not filmic at all, not like say, a Panny.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound facetious, but I'm just trying to work out what you're saying because it seems incredible to me, not filmic at all? Perhaps I'm just being defensive because I can't see what you see... I've looked at a lot of H1 footage and it looks wonderful to me, and handled correctly, as filmic as any other 1/3" cam on the market. Admittedly, I've only been in the game five years, but I'm a keen observer. If I can't see it, I wonder if any of my clients, or the viewing public can.

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

..but on the top of that and something that is not subjective, there’s the resolution drop when using 24f, while when using progressive, resolution is actually increased in comparison to interlaced.

Michael, while this is true, in this price bracket it's beside the point. The Canon drops from having WAY more resolution than competing models to having a very respectable resolution, on a par with the JVC, and better than the Sony and the Panny.

So is progressive resolution of 540x540 (HVX) more resolution than frame obtained progressive of 800x540 (Canon)? I'm just quoting Adam's test numbers and trying to figure out your argument. Because surely you have to factor in the base numbers if you're saying there's a drop in resolution. No matter how they achieve it, the Canon's 24f mode is sharper than Panny's 24p.

The DVX and XL2 are "true" progressive, but their res is way way lower (obviously). I don't think you can use a resolution argument to discredit frame mode. It would have to be soley on the basis of cadence.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

Michael, while this is true, in this price bracket it's beside the point. The Canon drops from having WAY more resolution than competing models to having a very respectable resolution, on a par with the JVC, and better than the Sony and the Panny. So is progressive resolution of 540x540 (HVX) more resolution than frame obtained progressive of 800x540 (Canon)?

No, I was talking about 1280x720, which the XL-H1 despite being marketed a 1080 lines camera can’t match when in frame mode and 1280x720 is the least resolution to be considered HD.

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

I'm just quoting Adam's test numbers and trying to figure out your argument. Because surely you have to factor in the base numbers if you're saying there's a drop in resolution. No matter how they achieve it, the Canon's 24f mode is sharper than Panny's 24p.

Who elected the HVX200 as benchmark? The benchmark is the HD standard.

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

Are you serious? So you go into a theatre, sit down to watch a low-budget feature, digitally projected, with great lighting, great acting, great directing, great script... but wait, it's immediately apparent that it's been shot on an XL-H1 because it's not filmic at all, not like say, a Panny.
Sorry, I don't mean to sound facetious, but I'm just trying to work out what you're saying because it seems incredible to me, not filmic at all?

Now I left this one for last because you totally lost me here. What does this have to do with discussing technical aspects of progressive and frame mode and with making a technical point that frame mode does or does not equals to progressive?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I’m sorry to disagree Chris, but there is a big difference. For starters, 24f doesn’t look nearly as filmic as progressive. All progressive scan footage I have seen looked more filmic than anything I have seen from a XL-H1.

No need to say you're sorry to disagree with me, Michael. But you're referring to a side-by-side shoot, where all parameters involved including the lighting, place and time, and most importantly, skill sets of the operator were perfectly identical? Where did you see that? If you're not referring to a side by side comparison shoot, then I suggest that the "filmic" differences you saw were related to factors other than the frame rate, the human equation being the one making the most impact in any visual results.

on the top of that and something that is not subjective, there’s the resolution drop when using 24f, while when using progressive, resolution is actually increased in comparison to interlaced.

Reso, shmeso. Forget numbers, they're an impediment to the creative process. What *visual* difference does it make? What is the audience going to notice? Do you think your average movie goer could pick out the difference between 24P and 24F in a 35mm film out?

So considering that plus the fact that it could never physically or technically be considered progressive if it doesn’t originate from progressive CCDs,

Technically? That's why they call it Frame mode and not progressive scan. Physically? Are we talking about what goes to tape? The answer might surprise you. The distinction is no longer as clear as it used to be.

Folks perpetuate the myth of "true" vs. "fake" progressive scan because that’s exactly what 24f is, an imitation of progressive scan.

Wholeheartedly disagreed. I think the reason why some people perpetuate that myth is because they buy into the marketing hype that tries to make more out of the difference than it's worth. For example, nobody seems to be complaining about the "fake" 24P that comes out of the Sony XDCAM HD camcorders, which record a 24fps image from interlaced CCDs. Why is that? Because there's no progressive scan HD camera in that price range, and therefore no marketing battle to fight, that's why.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

1280x720 is the least resolution to be considered HD.

Woah! Absolutely false. By definition, HD is *any* resolution higher than standard definition. One pixel taller and wider than PAL is high definition. 721x577 is the least resolution to be considered HD.

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

The benchmark is the HD standard.

And that's a very loosely defined benchmark!

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

What does this have to do with discussing technical aspects of progressive and frame mode and with making a technical point that frame mode does or does not equals to progressive?

Well technically they are not the same, I don't think there was ever any argument about that. Chris has certainly never said that, and I didn't mean to imply it. The issue is whether they have the same effect, whether visually they achieve the same outcomes.

You stated that it's very clear to your eye that the H1 is not filmic. That in itself is not a techincal appraisal, but a subjective one, albeit with trained eyes. So - and perhaps it was a folly - I put forward a real world situation, a completed digital film showing in a theatre, because when all is said and done, nobody cares if frame mode IS the same as progressive (by definition it's not) but whether it achieves the same results.

[Simon Wyndham]

If you find the size of the XD discs less friendly than Beta tapes I can't help you. I think the idea is pretty ridiculous, but hey...

Just like the Canons the difference is not noticeable to the eye. Does anyone know how the F mode on the Canon H1 is done? because if it is done the same way as the old GL1 then it is a loss of 30%. Roughly the difference between NTSC and PAL. In other words, most people simply would not notice.

Wayne, progressive scan is progressive scan no matter how it is acheived. If it is running at 24fps with full frames it will have EXACTLY THE SAME cadence as film. There is no disputing this at all. Any notion that there is somehow a difference between an HVX200 running at 24fps, a DVX100 at 24fps and a Canon at 24fps is quite unrealistic IMHO.

In fact I bet if I made a sequence using my usual techniques for filmlook using any of the new HD cameras you would not be able to tell me which was F mode and which was a true P mode.

I have slow motion footage from a PDW-F330. In slow motion the resolution halves to 540 lines. Yet I still find it hard to tell. People have also told me how they thought it was shot using overcranked film in some cases.

There is simply no substitute for actually using a camera, or seeing a well shot programme made with them rather than debating figures.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

if it is done the same way as the old GL1 then it is a loss of 30%.

Nope, this isn't your grandmother's Frame mode. This is the "new and improved" version. Canon has had seven years to completely update Frame mode. It's much better than the old 1997 implementation from the XL1 (and GL1 in 1998).

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

By definition, HD is *any* resolution higher than standard definition. One pixel taller and wider than PAL is high definition. 721x577 is the least resolution to be considered HD.

I've heard this before, but is it an officially accepted definition anywhere? HDTV in particular has specific approved formats of which 720p is the lowest resolution.

[Peter Moore]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Woah! Absolutely false. By definition, HD is *any* resolution higher than standard definition. One pixel taller and wider than PAL is high definition. 721x577 is the least resolution to be considered HD.

And that's a very loosely defined benchmark!

Chris, I'm disappointed! That's not true at all. I suppose we could play semantic games, but, at least today, what is "considered" by the industry and by the consumer to be HD is 720p or higher. That is established in the ATSC HD standards definitively, and undoubtedly if you surveyed home theater owners they would tell you 720p. I would be loathe to consider a camera HD if it couldn't create pictures with true 720p resolution.

[Simon Wyndham]

Good. Well if it is even better than the old frame mode (which I thought was rather good at the time) then there is no excuse not to use it.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Peter Moore

I suppose we could play semantic games, but, at least today, what is "considered" by the industry and by the consumer to be HD is 720p or higher.

All I'm doing with that statement is proving a point... if some folks want to get "technical" about what is or isn't progressive scan, that is, make an argument one way or the other based solely on facts and figures and not by what is actually acceptable by industry standards or consumer experience, then the same folks that want to prove something using numbers or definitions alone need to apply that line of reasoning to everything else, not just those concepts that prove their favorite point of view.

And I'm right. High Definition is defined by the ATSC as any television format with a higher resolution than SDTV. That's a fact.

Now I agree with you that the common practice these days, what the market actually accepts today, starts at 720. Like you, I too would be loathe to consider a camera HD if it couldn't create pictures with true 720p resolution. But if somebody is going to suggest to me that Frame mode isn't progressive from a strictly technical standpoint, I would have to counter that from this very same strictly technical standpoint, HD starts at 721x577. From there, things can go downhill fast.

If that sounds ridiculous, it's meant to be. Strictly technical definitions sometimes are not the best ways to get points across, nor are they the final arbiters of conflicting points of view, nor are they substitutes for real-world experience. The same audience, myself included, that considers 720 as the place where HD starts is the same audience that can't tell the difference between Frame mode and progressive, and wouldn't care if you showed them.

[Zack Birlew]

I'm sorry, I can't see any reason for people to complain. Quite frankly, exactly where else can you get a 1440x1080 resolution 1080i HD camera with a 24p-esque option for less than $8,999 MSRP, or now, $3,999 MSRP?

True, 720p has its advantages but as was stated a long time ago, regardless of whether it is 720p or 1080i, if handled the same, the image will look identical, the only real difference comes with 1080p, but we don't have that yet in this price range. Unfortunately, there is a lacking of progressive cameras compared to the plethora of interlaced cameras and those that we do have are 720p and not the ideal 1080p. But who knows what's around the corner these days?

Granted, manufacturers are using various compression schemes at this point in time for the majority of <$10,000 video cameras, but the image quality is still much better than we could hope for with MiniDV. There's also options for uncompressed HD output if you really want it, look at the HD-SDI option, from what I understand that's an amazing achievment for someone to put that on a camera below $25,000. It also opens many doors for the filmmaker in post.

Looking at the XLH1, I dislike the low resolution LCD viewfinder and default image. I'm a simple guy, I'd prefer it if the camera had a good default image like the DVX or HVX, but that doesn't mean I couldn't get a similar or better image by tweaking the XLH1 to my liking. With the A1 and G1, I've got a better selection of 24fps cameras, regardless of how they get that frame rate, and I have the same options to tweak the image as I would with the XLH1. What is more impressive is that these new cameras are good enough for a film-out right off the bat (even though they might look like something you'd see on the "Regal 20" commercials at some movie theatres :) ). Also, they're cheap, you can get really professional looking 24fps HD for far, far, less than you'd pay for a Panasonic Varicam or Sony F900.

If none of those options are good enough, then either wait for something better or spend extra for a higher up camera that is good enough.