Download eight 1080/24F XH G1 clips provided by Kaku Ito

Marty Hudzik · October 10th, 2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Name the exact clip, please?

24fhndystaticstreet.m2t

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

Piotr Wozniacki · October 10th, 2006, 09:13 AM

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

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

Rafael Lopes · October 10th, 2006, 09:24 AM

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

Marty Hudzik · October 10th, 2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafael Lopes

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

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

Tony Tremble · October 10th, 2006, 09:33 AM

Yes, that's chromatic aberration..BUT

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

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

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

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

TT

Marty Hudzik · October 10th, 2006, 09:41 AM

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

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

Marty Hudzik · October 10th, 2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

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

TT

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

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

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

Peace!

Tony Tremble · October 10th, 2006, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

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

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

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

Peace!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TT

Marty Hudzik · October 10th, 2006, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

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

TT

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Tremble

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

TT

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

Peace!

Floris van Eck · October 10th, 2006, 03:04 PM

Ok, this is what I think about the footage:

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

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

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

Marty Hudzik · October 10th, 2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Floris van Eck

Ok, this is what I think about the footage:

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

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

Peace

Sean Hansen · October 11th, 2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

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

Peace

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

Thomas Smet · October 11th, 2006, 01:13 PM

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

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

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

Marty Hudzik · October 11th, 2006, 01:41 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who knows?

Peace!

Yasser Kassana · October 18th, 2006, 03:01 AM

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

October 10th, 2006, 09:13 AM	#17
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	http://media.dvinfo.net/canonxh/24fhndystaticstreet.m2t - yes, the tree in the upper-left corner looks awful.

October 10th, 2006, 09:24 AM	#18
Rafael Lopes Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro Posts: 1,240	Yes, there's something wrong with the tree. It looks like it was shot using a bad 35mm adapter. I used to get this kind of stuff when I used the first edition of the letus35. The G1/A1 have SO MANY possibilities over image control that it might be related to this. Maybe it's something that could have been fixed on-camera after carrefuly studying all the image control options. I HOPE that's it. If it's lens related then this is really gonna be a deal killer for many people.

October 10th, 2006, 09:33 AM	#20
Tony Tremble Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 451	Yes, that's chromatic aberration..BUT It's really only very limited and in normal viewing condition would not be visible to an audience. This lens is far far superior to the H1 (at least on the two I returned). It's not a problem. For £2300 it's an absolute bargain to get a camera and lens of that quality. Other options you have are to purchase cameras that cannot resolve as much detail as the Canons as they don't require as good lens i.e. HVX200 and any number of DV cameras. If your audience is gazing about looking for image imperfections then your content really isn't up to much. Look how wide that lens is and to have that little CA is remarkable, at the periphery it's only out by a couple of pixels!! TT

October 10th, 2006, 09:41 AM	#21
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	To be fair I am not measurbating here....I have no idea how many pixels is acceptable or not....I am strictly talking about appearances. In this shot you do not need to look for it. It stands out as looking "fuzzy" or "blurry". I'll even go one step further and say it makes me feel a little queasy......reminds me of when I was sick a few times and my eyes saw something like this. I can honestly say I have never seen anything remotely that bad on "my" h1 or my old XL2. The exception with the XL2 was when using the wide angle adapter. Then I saw "exactly" that. The fact that it is not there in many other shots is encouraging.

October 10th, 2006, 03:04 PM	#25
Floris van Eck Major Player Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 993	Ok, this is what I think about the footage: - The Taxi ride looks fabulous. Really good low-light performance. - The band clip shows that this camera has great bokeh (the out of focus area's are smooth and not very harsh) - The tree in the walking footage looks a bit weird - Seeing the footage at 100%, it is really difficult to notice purple-fringing or CA, I am sure you are all seeing it with your magnifiers in photoshop, but I think that is simply not something many people will notice. While watching the footage in 1900x1200.... I do not see it. And I was looking for it. Overall, I think we must wait untill the camera gets in the hands of more people before we are making conclusions. Many of this footage was shot with great passion, but a bit in a hurry. And although we know some of the settings used, we have no insight in all settings/parameters used. And I still hope on some tweaking from Canon's side. For now, I am confident that we get a XL-H1 with fixed lens for $7000, and a XL-H1 with fixed lens and no professional jackpack for $4000. Not too bad.

October 11th, 2006, 01:13 PM	#28
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	You people need to stop getting so worked up over CA. I wish that stupid term would have never come up. Now that it is a well known issue that is all you ever hear anybody talk about. Face it every HDV camera is going to show some kind of artifacts. We can sit hear for the next 15 years and wait for a camera that doesn't have this issue but I don't know if we will ever see one. This same exact thing happens on SD footage as well. I have edited footage that was shot on a SONY DSR-300, SONY DSR-500 and a JVC DV5000 and under ceratin conditions of hitting the light just the right way at the correct angle will give you the same sort of issues. These are all SD cameras but they use large chips so the glass has to be very high quality. In order to get rid of CA on those SD cameras you would have to buy a lens that cost well into the ten thousand price range. With HD it is even worse. I am usually an extremely picky person when it comes to quality but I have to say that this shot doesn't really bother me. Yes the tree looks a little funky but that may have been fixed by just adjusting the angle slightly or any other adjustment of the camera. Look at how good all the other shots are and just look at this clip as how good the camera can still look in the most difficult CA situation. Due to the odd angle, that tree could also be soft due to the focus or depth. The details on the right side of the screen do not show this same effect. If this is the worst the camera can do well then sign me up to buy one. The rest of you just keep saving up your pennies to buy a Cinealta.

October 11th, 2006, 01:41 PM	#29
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Your points are well taken but doesn't change the fact that the issue "is" an issue. Not a big one but one that you must consider when purchasing a camera. I realize that CA may be a catch phrase nowadays but I assure you that I saw this issue with my old XL2 and WA adapter before I ever knew what CA was. It drove me nuts and upon talking to some very knowledgable people at both Canon and Century Optics I was "learned" what it was and that in the price range you are likely to stumble upon it in certain situations. I've been using the H1 for about 6 months and in all the footage I have shot (10-12 hours) I have never seen anything remotely like this. So what is the semi-logical conclusion for me? H1 10-12 hours = no CA G1 3-4 minutes = CA in one shot If I were to jump to conclusions I'd say that the G1 has a bigger CA issue. But I am not going to do that. Instead I am going to scrutinize my H1 footage and see if I can find similar CA that I may have overlooked. However I have to defend myself and I am being completely honest here....I wasn't looking for it in the G1 footage. It was obvious and a distraction that drew my eye to it.....just like when I used that .7x WA adapter. I was hoping those days were over. Who knows? Peace!

October 18th, 2006, 03:01 AM	#30
Yasser Kassana Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: UK Posts: 223	Geez, go out make movies instead of pondering over the CA or some bull. Honestly, if you're a sad geeky videographer like me and you guys, then you would notice, but then general public will not!! Get on with making movies. Oh and the footage looks great, I'm sold.