This camera "WILL" be an awesome camera! and must have for indies...

Thomas Smet · September 16th, 2005, 12:52 AM

I was talking about how to get high quality video in other formats either in a deck or converting in a edit system.

Starting with 1080p/f (I am also assuming f is the same as p here) gives you the highest level of HD that you can get. (in terms of format not optics and everything else)

1080i from other cameras would always give you an interpolated lower detail version of 720p. 1080p allows an even down scale with no deinterlacing or field seperating issues. This will give a just as good if not better 720p 24/25/30 than shooting 720p to begin with. The 720p 50p/60p comes from seperating the 60 fields and turning them into 1440x540 frames and then scaling up to 720p. This is the only not so good area but at the same time the only way to get 50p/60p HDV.

I got the frame rate options by adding the service to add 50i/25p to the camera modes basically making it shoot the same way as the Z1. I figured if I was going to pay $9000.00 I might as well add the other $500.00 right away. I'm sure at this point the wife is going to leave me anyways.

I never meant that the camera can convert to those formats just that you now have the option to choose what format you shoot in. You are no longer limited by a certain format.

The JVC HD100 is a great film camera but is really limited for event and broadcast work. You could never shoot any type of 60p or 60i HD video. Plus going from 720p to 1080p isn't as good as going from 1080p to 720p. Scaling down will always look better. You can do it but the results wouldn't be the same.

The HVX200 will be the only other camera that will allow you to shoot every format and even true 720p 60p (although slightly softer than HDV 720p). I'm not sure if it will be able to do NTSC/PAL or just one of the world formats. The HVX on the other hand may not work as well in long format broadcast or event work.

Kevin Wild · September 16th, 2005, 12:59 AM

"Format agnostic camera" Chris's term from another post.

I actually think the term is fine. The camera is pretty much format agnostic. I wouldn't call something that is uncompressed a "format" of any type. The tape drive isn't, however.

Is it just me or do your posts come across as very "attacking?"

Kevin

Michael Maier · September 16th, 2005, 01:08 AM

Not attacking. Just expressing my opinions agaisnt the marketing voodoo that seems to be being thrown on us. Nothing personal against you or anybody. I always say, the fact you can't perceive emotion in the internet, is the biggest commnincation missing link of the medium. Not meaning to be offensive at all and I type this in a very relaxed and kicked back mood.
It just makes no sense to hype a camcorder as a camera. It makes no sense to hype you can rent a HDCAM deck for a 1/3" prosumer camera.

Greg Boston · September 16th, 2005, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Not attacking. Just expressing my opinions agaisnt the marketing voodoo that seems to be being thrown on us. Nothing personal against you or anybody. I always say, the fact you can't perceive emotion in the internet, is the biggest commnincation missing link of the medium. Not meaning to be offensive at all and I type this in a very relaxed and kicked back mood.
It just makes no sense to hype a camcorder as a camera. It makes no sense to hype you can rent a HDCAM deck for a 1/3" prosumer camera.

This prosumer camera is going to find work in many more professional environments than consumer environments if only for the price tag. Canon is even saying it's their first 'professional camera'. Having 1/3" chips is not the image killer except for light sensitivity and DOF and those even have workarounds. With newer cameras such as the Sony HDV, JVC HD100, and Canon XL2, gain can be added without destroying the picture quality. It does make sense to hype that a $9000 camera can feed a deck with such high quality images. Nothing on the market at this point can match the Canon offering at $9K. The next step up for getting HD-SDI is a hefty one. I don't know where you are located (fill in your location please) but the US is going to become all digital broadcasting within the next few years because the FCC is mandating it. Smaller stations are going to need something to get on the HD board with that won't break the bank. This camera is aimed at those small market broadcasters. That's why the camera has genlock and SDI. There will be other HD lenses forthcoming and I see the connector has been retained that will allow for the hi-res monochrome viewfinder. And once again, Canon has managed to retain enough compatibilty with the former XL cameras so that batteries, b/w viewfinder, microphone, etc can be interchanged. So, it also means a less expensive upgrade for XL owners because they can bring forward some of their accesories.

-gb-

Simon Wyndham · September 16th, 2005, 02:09 AM

1/3" is an image killer below f5.

Guy Barwood · September 16th, 2005, 03:04 AM

JVC detailed quite some time ago that they will have a studio version of the HD100 with HD-SDI out, the estimate was by the end of this year, possibly before the Canon hits the market.

This Canon is unlikely to be a great option for film producers though having an interlaced only CCD. In this respect the JVC still wins with a native progressive CCD block. The Canon is also looking to be 63% more expensive than the HD100 out of the box, which is already around 20% more expensive than the the Z1 out of the box.

Jay Gladwell · September 16th, 2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

So, it also means a less expensive upgrade for XL owners because they can bring forward some of their accesories.

Lens caps, batteries, filters, what else am I missing?

Jay

Greg Boston · September 16th, 2005, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Gladwell

Lens caps, batteries, filters, what else am I missing?

Jay

Perhaps an important one. The high res b/w viewfinder. The connector is still there under the color v/f connector so I am 'assuming' that it accepts the FU-1000. If it has the same intelligent shoe on top, then the DM50 shotgun mike, MA300(for two additional XLR jacks). The MA300 might catch on pretty well with the sound now able to attain 192khz on 4 channels. The EF adapter is forward compatible also.

What I think would be really fun is to slap the new 20X HD lens on my XL2 and see if the pictue quality improves. As Symon Wyndham points out on his website, even though the Sony DSR570 records to 25mbps DVCAM, it has a higher image quality due to processing internally, and the better glass on the front of the camera.

-gb-

Mike Marriage · September 16th, 2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

... the Sony DSR570 records to 25mbps DVCAM, it has a higher image quality due to processing internally, and the better glass on the front of the camera.

Don't forget the 2/3" chips, they probably make the biggest difference.

Greg Boston · September 16th, 2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

Don't forget the 2/3" chips, they probably make the biggest difference.

For certain aspects yes. Mainly low light sensitivity and DOF. Of course, Sonys of all flavors have a 'look' that most folks find visually pleasing. I think it's the way they process skintones so well that does it. They seem to have that down pat.

-gb-

Jacques Mersereau · September 16th, 2005, 09:24 AM

If you want to rent a F900 package for a week be my guest. Have you
checked on price? You'd have the HD1 half paid off.

I make nature documentaries and run a video studio. I would need to
rent a camera for a summer, not a week to shoot a nature doc.
An HD1, though expensive for me on my University salary,
will provide amazing results via HDSDI that even National Geo, BBC and
Discovery will accept.

In the studio, guess what?
I HAVE lights and CAN shoot at almost whatever Fstop I want.
1/3" chips can do an amazing job given the right support.
ANY camera's output can look horrible with bad lighting.

I don't have $120,000.00 for a F900. I don't have $60K for a Varicam
that needs a $25,000.00 lens.

I do HAVE:

A Canon EOS adapter, 100-400 lens, 16-35 Lens, a Apple 2g/2g G5
and a fibre channel array. The HD1 interfaces like a dream come true.

Yes, HD decks cost lots of money, but actually less than my Avid Xpress
cost years ago. Will someone make a device inexpensively that can
capture HD-SDI? It is only a matter of time IMO. (HELLO CANON?)

Remember people, this camera will give HIGH END results. You gotta pay
to play, but with the HD1, that cost as just dropped $50,000.00!
Those who can pony $10K can give the real pros a run in the quality dept.
Heck, even the $20K SDX900 when put side to side with a XL2 by no means
looked better, so I expect the HD1 will rock the middle world of film and video because it's all about the glass and it's removable :)

Thomas Smet · September 16th, 2005, 09:49 AM

The only down side to the JVC HD100 camera with the SDI port is that they take out the HDV tape deck making it a studio only camera. You now have no options at all for shooting outside of the studio. With the XLH1 you can shoot some killer video in a studio or on a nice set but then still go into the woods and shoot HDV. THE XLH1 might cost a lot but at the same time it does a lot.

Steven White · September 16th, 2005, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Will someone make a device inexpensively that can
capture HD-SDI?

If you're in a studio, such devices already exist. In specific, you could check out the BlackMagic cards, or the cards offered in Cineform's turnkey ProspectHD systems. For $12k, you can have a fully loaded editing suite that captures HD-SDI in an excellent editing codec (better than DVCPRO-HD).

Yeah yeah... $12k is a little steep - but you could do it for less with a little computer know how and wizardry.

-Steve

Mike Marriage · September 16th, 2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

For certain aspects yes. Mainly low light sensitivity and DOF. Of course, Sonys of all flavors have a 'look' that most folks find visually pleasing. I think it's the way they process skintones so well that does it. They seem to have that down pat.

Also signal to noise ratio, sensitivity (although you kinda covered that) and exposure latitude. It does make a big difference. I have just been editing a project shot on a DSR-570 and I had to intercut a few pieces shot on a VX2000/PD150. The difference is clear. You don't notice the amount of noise on a 1/3" until you put the footage next to a 2/3" camera.

I know what you mean about Sony's skin tones, they are pretty good. I don't like the skin tones the XL2 produces, so I hope the XLH1 does better. The JVC HD100 is a bit iffy on skin tones as well.

Simon Wyndham · September 16th, 2005, 10:00 AM

Jacques you might have lights in your studio, but you won't have them when you are out making nature documentaries.

As for renting an F900, or F750, I am talking about making a living from video. If you are just at university or are an individual who is making videos for fun or out of your own finances then one of these handycams will be ideal for your purposes. Nobody is suggesting you go out and buy or rent something costing $100,000 just because an HDV camera isn't the most ideal camera in the world. Some people will be happy with an HDV camera. I however would not be.

But generally broadcast work etc is commissioned. As such they will generally have the budgets for an F900 or equivilent such as the Varicam.

There are owners of F900's and Varicams too. The prices they charge for their work reflect that. You get what you pay for. Someone who owns and runs an F900 is not going to be charging $250 a day.

If someone wants me to make them something in HD I will give them all the options that are available. If it was a small local company that wanted something in HD (I have no idea why they would want this at the present time but its just an example) I would probably recommend something shot on HDV because that is the only likely HD format that is within their budget. In that case I'll hire in a Z1 etc. I'll probably curse every second of having to use it, but if thats what the client wants I have to go along with it.

If someone wants me to make something for broadcast, and wants something very highly polished, I'll recommend them HDCAM or DVDproHD. I'll rent accordingly.

With Standard Def I am generally covered. My 510 isn't the highest level SD camera as it cannot record to any of the 50Mbps formats. However it still covers me for the vast majority of jobs I am needed for, and makes me look good in the process. It will be a long time until there is an equivilent camera to the DSR450 and PDW510 in total cost. One of the big hold ups is the cost of glass.

HD has a lot of infrastructure needed before it becomes anywhere near standard. As it stands I am not prepared to be an experimenter. I just do not see the point of offering HDV if I have no way of delivering a widely viewable master to my clients. By the time everything has settled down and there is an easy way for everyone to distribute HD video there will be a second or third generation of cameras out.

September 16th, 2005, 09:24 AM	#41
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	If you want to rent a F900 package for a week be my guest. Have you checked on price? You'd have the HD1 half paid off. I make nature documentaries and run a video studio. I would need to rent a camera for a summer, not a week to shoot a nature doc. An HD1, though expensive for me on my University salary, will provide amazing results via HDSDI that even National Geo, BBC and Discovery will accept. In the studio, guess what? I HAVE lights and CAN shoot at almost whatever Fstop I want. 1/3" chips can do an amazing job given the right support. ANY camera's output can look horrible with bad lighting. I don't have $120,000.00 for a F900. I don't have $60K for a Varicam that needs a $25,000.00 lens. I do HAVE: A Canon EOS adapter, 100-400 lens, 16-35 Lens, a Apple 2g/2g G5 and a fibre channel array. The HD1 interfaces like a dream come true. Yes, HD decks cost lots of money, but actually less than my Avid Xpress cost years ago. Will someone make a device inexpensively that can capture HD-SDI? It is only a matter of time IMO. (HELLO CANON?) Remember people, this camera will give HIGH END results. You gotta pay to play, but with the HD1, that cost as just dropped $50,000.00! Those who can pony $10K can give the real pros a run in the quality dept. Heck, even the $20K SDX900 when put side to side with a XL2 by no means looked better, so I expect the HD1 will rock the middle world of film and video because it's all about the glass and it's removable :) __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager

September 16th, 2005, 12:52 AM	#31
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	I was talking about how to get high quality video in other formats either in a deck or converting in a edit system. Starting with 1080p/f (I am also assuming f is the same as p here) gives you the highest level of HD that you can get. (in terms of format not optics and everything else) 1080i from other cameras would always give you an interpolated lower detail version of 720p. 1080p allows an even down scale with no deinterlacing or field seperating issues. This will give a just as good if not better 720p 24/25/30 than shooting 720p to begin with. The 720p 50p/60p comes from seperating the 60 fields and turning them into 1440x540 frames and then scaling up to 720p. This is the only not so good area but at the same time the only way to get 50p/60p HDV. I got the frame rate options by adding the service to add 50i/25p to the camera modes basically making it shoot the same way as the Z1. I figured if I was going to pay $9000.00 I might as well add the other $500.00 right away. I'm sure at this point the wife is going to leave me anyways. I never meant that the camera can convert to those formats just that you now have the option to choose what format you shoot in. You are no longer limited by a certain format. The JVC HD100 is a great film camera but is really limited for event and broadcast work. You could never shoot any type of 60p or 60i HD video. Plus going from 720p to 1080p isn't as good as going from 1080p to 720p. Scaling down will always look better. You can do it but the results wouldn't be the same. The HVX200 will be the only other camera that will allow you to shoot every format and even true 720p 60p (although slightly softer than HDV 720p). I'm not sure if it will be able to do NTSC/PAL or just one of the world formats. The HVX on the other hand may not work as well in long format broadcast or event work.

September 16th, 2005, 12:59 AM	#32
Kevin Wild Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 540	"Format agnostic camera" Chris's term from another post. I actually think the term is fine. The camera is pretty much format agnostic. I wouldn't call something that is uncompressed a "format" of any type. The tape drive isn't, however. Is it just me or do your posts come across as very "attacking?" Kevin

September 16th, 2005, 01:08 AM	#33
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Not attacking. Just expressing my opinions agaisnt the marketing voodoo that seems to be being thrown on us. Nothing personal against you or anybody. I always say, the fact you can't perceive emotion in the internet, is the biggest commnincation missing link of the medium. Not meaning to be offensive at all and I type this in a very relaxed and kicked back mood. It just makes no sense to hype a camcorder as a camera. It makes no sense to hype you can rent a HDCAM deck for a 1/3" prosumer camera.

September 16th, 2005, 02:09 AM	#35
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	1/3" is an image killer below f5.

September 16th, 2005, 03:04 AM	#36
Guy Barwood Major Player Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 423	JVC detailed quite some time ago that they will have a studio version of the HD100 with HD-SDI out, the estimate was by the end of this year, possibly before the Canon hits the market. This Canon is unlikely to be a great option for film producers though having an interlaced only CCD. In this respect the JVC still wins with a native progressive CCD block. The Canon is also looking to be 63% more expensive than the HD100 out of the box, which is already around 20% more expensive than the the Z1 out of the box.

September 16th, 2005, 09:49 AM	#42
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	The only down side to the JVC HD100 camera with the SDI port is that they take out the HDV tape deck making it a studio only camera. You now have no options at all for shooting outside of the studio. With the XLH1 you can shoot some killer video in a studio or on a nice set but then still go into the woods and shoot HDV. THE XLH1 might cost a lot but at the same time it does a lot.

September 16th, 2005, 10:00 AM	#45
Simon Wyndham Trustee Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Malvern UK Posts: 1,931	Jacques you might have lights in your studio, but you won't have them when you are out making nature documentaries. As for renting an F900, or F750, I am talking about making a living from video. If you are just at university or are an individual who is making videos for fun or out of your own finances then one of these handycams will be ideal for your purposes. Nobody is suggesting you go out and buy or rent something costing $100,000 just because an HDV camera isn't the most ideal camera in the world. Some people will be happy with an HDV camera. I however would not be. But generally broadcast work etc is commissioned. As such they will generally have the budgets for an F900 or equivilent such as the Varicam. There are owners of F900's and Varicams too. The prices they charge for their work reflect that. You get what you pay for. Someone who owns and runs an F900 is not going to be charging $250 a day. If someone wants me to make them something in HD I will give them all the options that are available. If it was a small local company that wanted something in HD (I have no idea why they would want this at the present time but its just an example) I would probably recommend something shot on HDV because that is the only likely HD format that is within their budget. In that case I'll hire in a Z1 etc. I'll probably curse every second of having to use it, but if thats what the client wants I have to go along with it. If someone wants me to make something for broadcast, and wants something very highly polished, I'll recommend them HDCAM or DVDproHD. I'll rent accordingly. With Standard Def I am generally covered. My 510 isn't the highest level SD camera as it cannot record to any of the 50Mbps formats. However it still covers me for the vast majority of jobs I am needed for, and makes me look good in the process. It will be a long time until there is an equivilent camera to the DSR450 and PDW510 in total cost. One of the big hold ups is the cost of glass. HD has a lot of infrastructure needed before it becomes anywhere near standard. As it stands I am not prepared to be an experimenter. I just do not see the point of offering HDV if I have no way of delivering a widely viewable master to my clients. By the time everything has settled down and there is an easy way for everyone to distribute HD video there will be a second or third generation of cameras out.