Today is the day!

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

Michael,

You don't understand about the 30f,25f,24f modes. They are just like when we used to have frame mode on the XL1s. You can scan every other line of the ccd at 60hz or...slow down to half that speed and scan the whole ccd at 30hz, 25hz, or 24hz and pull a full resolution frame out of it. There is NO RESOLUTION LOSS.

-gb-

Frame movie mode is and was not full resolution. It is and was roughly 360 lines on all the Canons and Panasonics that used it.

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff

<snip>The FX1 and Z1 are very successful products, and the HC1 and A1 are now on the market. The Panasonic is still months away and so is the Canon. And neither of them really competes directly with Sony's products.<snip>

I agree totally. Despite the fact that all these cams have the decimal point in the wrong place to be in my budget, I've really enjoyed watching these HD products unfold. And its been quite interesting that none of these products really, well.. compete directly. The HC1 and, to a lesser degree the FX1 have the bottom end wrapped up. In the 5-6K range you've got the Z1 and HD100, which are actually completely different animals. Then the 6-10K bracket is filling out with Pansonic and now Canon delivering also completely different beasts. I think people with 5-10K budgets and a purpose are going to have a good choice of tools by the end of the year.

Now if we could get an HDV cam in the sub 1K price point...

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

Michael,

You have made a few incorrect observations in your post. You don't 'change' the camera over to NTSC or PAL, you 'add' that capability so that you have a camera that does both.

Oh, ok then. That's different. I think I misread it.
But how much will it cost? I don't think it's free. But why not just ship them all multi-standard then? Makes no sense.


[QUOTE=Greg Boston]You don't understand about the 30f,25f,24f modes. They are just like when we used to have frame mode on the XL1s.

That's why I said I was having Deja vus of frame movie mode. That's what I'm most concerned with. I use to have a XL1 and the FMM was awful compared to real progressive.



[QUOTE=Greg Boston] All in all Michael, as with any other new camera introduction, it's quite unfair to write it off until you have seen what it can do.

Well, I can write it off based it cost 9k, and I don't see any advantage over the HD100 which could justify me paying that for the camera. Not for filmmaking aplications.

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

It doesn't matter how it generates 24fps, as long as it looks right coming out of the camera.
-gb-

Well, yes and no. IF there's no resolution loss and image degradation. No pulldown issues and no interlacing "leftovers", like you are able to pull a clean still frame from the footage, well, I guess you could be right. But the XL1 FMM was crap, the Z1 cine frame is crap. So far only real progressive has worked. So, let's wait and see. I'm not holding my breath and that's not all which is wrong with the camera.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Oh, ok then. That's different. I think I misread it.
But how much will it cost? I don't think it's free. But why not just ship them all multi-standard then? Makes no sense.

$500 in the US I believe.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Oh, ok then. That's different. I think I misread it.
But how much will it cost? I don't think it's free. But why not just ship them all multi-standard then? Makes no sense.

Hi Michael,

It's a $500 upgrade. If they included it in the first place, then the price would have been higher than $9K. Plus, I'm willing to bet that well over half of the buyers will never choose this upgrade. It's a good thing, they're not forcing somebody to pay for a feature they might not be not likely to use. If you need the conversion, then send the camera in and get it. If you don't need the conversion, then you never paid for it in the first place.

Also Michael, I can tell you're an intelligent fellow. Perhaps you will agree with me then that the 24F feature shouldn't be judged until it's seen. It is nothing like CineFrame at all.

After you've seen 24F, then feel free to say that I'm full of it, or I'm a cheerleader, or that I don't know what I'm talking about... but please try to reserve judgement until you've seen it for yourself.

I think the HD100 is a great camera and I would love to have one myself.

[Greg Boston]

[QUOTE=Michael Maier]Oh, ok then. That's different. I think I misread it.
But how much will it cost? I don't think it's free. But why not just ship them all multi-standard then? Makes no sense.


[QUOTE=Greg Boston]You don't understand about the 30f,25f,24f modes. They are just like when we used to have frame mode on the XL1s.

That's why I said I was having Deja vus of frame movie mode. That's what I'm most concerned with. I use to have a XL1 and the FMM was awful compared to real progressive.

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

All in all Michael, as with any other new camera introduction, it's quite unfair to write it off until you have seen what it can do.

Well, I can write it off based it cost 9k, and I don't see any advantage over the HD100 which could justify me paying that for the camera. Not for filmmaking aplications.




Well, yes and no. IF there's no resolution loss and image degradation. No pulldown issues and no interlacing "leftovers", like you are able to pull a clean still frame from the footage, well, I guess you could be right. But the XL1 FMM was crap, the Z1 cine frame is crap. So far only real progressive has worked. So, let's wait and see. I'm not holding my breath and that's not all which is wrong with the camera.

The original XL1 frame mode suffered. The XL1s and certainly the XL2 does not. The XLH1 does not. In fact, the XLH1 has an SD card slot and the DIGIG DV II chip can be processing HDV video to tape and high resolution stills to the card at a rate of about 6 per second at the same time. This frame mode is not at all like what the Sony employs.

You certainly seem most happy with the JVC camera. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not fair to denigrate other cameras in the process. That's why we have different camera forums here. I got to mess with the HD100 at NAB and I liked most of what I saw. But, JVC didn't include a w/t rocker on the top handle which I thought was a design flaw on their part. It's an optional add on now. I find that zoom rocker on top to be indespensible when shooting low angle handheld.

And let's also remember that the XL2 sold for retail at the beginning but didn't stay there very long. So, there is hope that the XLH1 won't be a full $9k for long either. Market demand will dictate what the street price ends up at.

-gb-

[Stephen van Vuuren]

[QUOTE=Greg BostonThe original XL1 frame mode suffered. The XL1s and certainly the XL2 does not.
-gb-[/QUOTE]

Greg:

Just a note for clarity.

The XL1s uses the same frame movie mode as the XL1, GL1/2 and various Panny cams. The XL2 is true full resolutions progressive scanning in 24p and 30p modes.

[Greg Boston]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

Greg:

Just a note for clarity.

The XL1s uses the same frame movie mode as the XL1, GL1/2 and various Panny cams. The XL2 is true full resolutions progressive scanning in 24p and 30p modes.

Point taken about it being the same movie mode. But IIRC, the XL1s had higher resolution ccds than the original XL1. That's why I claimed a better result in FMM than the XL1 had.

-gb-

[Mike Marriage]

Could 24F be implemented by simultaneously scanning both fields? Technically that is not progressive but would have the same effect wouldn't it. I am no camera engineer though so I am guessing.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Also Michael, I can tell you're an intelligent fellow. Perhaps you will agree with me then that the 24F feature shouldn't be judged until it's seen. It is nothing like CineFrame at all.

After you've seen 24F, then feel free to say that I'm full of it, or I'm a cheerleader, or that I don't know what I'm talking about... but please try to reserve judgement until you've seen it for yourself.

Chris, I would like to apologize if I came across as saying you are full of it or don't know what you are talking about. That was never what I meant. I have a great deal of admiration for the way you run this forum and this is the only one I post for the same reasons. I do read others, but never post. I like the clean house feel of your place. I also know you do know your stuff.
What I meant was that you most likely saw an example of a pre-production model hooked to a live feed in a trade show set up. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Really hard to judge with any degree of accuracy. But I did say we need to wait and see I believe. All I said was that even if it's really, really good, it's hard to believe it will be as good as progressive, not being real progressive. That was my line of thought. But I really didn't mean to offend you and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

The PAL/NTSC switch makes sense now. But the HD100 does it without upgrades/extra cost. Although not SD. I wonder if it would cost less if it had gone Canon’s route. An interesting approach from Canon though.

[Michael Maier]

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

The original XL1 frame mode suffered. The XL1s and certainly the XL2 does not. -

The XL2 is not frame movie mode. It's real progressive.
About the XLH1 (does anybody else think XH1 would have a nicer sounds XLH1 sounds a bit stressful ;) ) we need to wait and see. I already explained why I'm skeptical. But that's right. We will only know when we see it.

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

You certainly seem most happy with the JVC camera. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not fair to denigrate other cameras in the process.
-gb-

Well, I was not really trying to denigrate it. More like comparing features, from a filmmaking point of view. I did say that for broadcast and studio the H1 is good, or at least made the point.
But it's true. A lot of what I said was speculation based on Canon's current products. But then again they might surprise again, as they did now. But many other things I said was based on what we already know. Like, no manual lens, no real progressive, no progressive or frame mode uncompressed, just to mention some.

[Joe Carney]

I realize I may have sounded dire, but I stand by what I said that Sony should be scared, and for the reasons many disagreed with me for, because of the studio.

Get in the thousands of cable access, educational, not for profit studios and that's a lot of sales. Small rural independent news/tv stations too. For even less than 8bit 4:2:2 SD. The post in another thread about using pro switching equipment...that will make a huge difference. And a studio will be perfect for setting up lighting and sound to avoid the limitations of a 1/3 inch chip. SDI? cool and drool for many who've been waiting for the right combo to come along.

Sony is currently used in most of these places (SD), but when it's time to bid on who runs the stations, and with what... I think things will change. Doesn't mean Sony won't be used (especially in the field which they basically own) but in controlled studio situations, this camera could be the 'it' camera.
I can even see a lot of current Canon owners wanting to make low budget studio type features (fan films anyone?) getting this one.


As for being 6 to 8 months ahead? So what. Really, so what? Still plenty of time left before mandatory change over. Now it will be affordable.

At the very least this event will finally get a lot of people off the fence.

And I still want the JVC, for making features, and for puting out true 24p on tape (yes it does)...unless Heath gives it a resounding thumbs down. I"m willing to learn how to use a 'real' lense.

[Michael Maier]

Now just for a change in line of thought. If the 24f thing turns out to actually be indistinguishable from real progressive, in look, motion, quality and resolution, and they would get the H1 to output 24f,25f,30f, plus variable frame rates, or even if only 50f and 60f in 720p via HD-SDI(if they did 1080p, even better, but since nobody not even F900 can, I don't think it's possible for the H1) Then the H1 could cut right through the HVX200 business. Canon would truly steals Panasonic's thunder. Because I'm sure soon or later, somebody would come up with a away to record the uncompressed HD-SDI converted to DVCPROHD in a FS4 type of drive. If Focus is making one for the HVX, all it would take would be a way to compress the uncompressed HD to DVCPROHD for field recording. That could be very interesting.

[Eric Brown]

The things missing for me (but more "wants' than "needs" are:
1) 60p.
2) A manual lens that comes with the camera or at least a "please check box" option that allows you the choice of either an HD 20x or HD manual lens. (Although to some extent I guess this can be done once the "body only" option is implemeted.
More frame rates.
Lower price. I'm not a rich man.
All and all I'm glad Canon did not do the highly rumored 1080i only thing.
24f or 24p, it doesn't matter to me. If it looks right then it is right as far as I'm concerned.
Go, Canon!
But,..I actually do miss the pearly white paint job.

[James Rhodes]

I like it BUT .

does anyone know how many mega pixels the CCDs are ?

What the Lenses are going to cost ?

Does the " 24F " mode work in a 2:3 pulldown mode ?

what portable drive solutions there are for 1.4Gbps ?


Looks great anyone wanna buy a XL2 with 4 lenses for $6k ?


James