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

[Chris Hurd]

Finding a proper, healthy mixture of both types of discussions (that is, tools as well as techniques) is the real challenge to greatness, methinks.

[Bill Pryor]

If you haven't helped push 3 quad machines up ramp into a truck to haul them away, then you haven't lived in the video world long enough to diss any camera. I was in love with one-nch machines at one time because they were so small and the tape was so cheap. Life is relative.

We live in a world in which a 1/3" HDV "prosumer" camera looks better than the Ikegami HL79 state-of-the-art-high-end-envy-of-all did a scant 20 years ago. And a $10,000 1/2" chip camera actually looks better than a $35,000 2/3" chip camera of 15 years ago.

I can't say the 1/3" chip Z1 looks better than a DSR500WS, but from what I've seen, it's probably as close to the 500 in image quality as the 500 is to a Digibeta camcorder.

If I were in the market for a camera today for the types of things I do, this upcoming Canon HDV camera would cause me to come to a screeching halt before I signed up for a bank loan for a DSR570 (or equivalent) package. I'm not saying a 1/3" chip HDV camera is better than a 2/3" chip DVCAM camera, but it may be close enough to make some people decide that maybe they should give HDV a go. Even if you pay list price for the Canon, and buy a Sony HDV deck, you'v still spent less than half of what a DSR570 package would cost with a minimal quality lens.

I'm also not saying I would rush out and switch over to HDV at this time. But, IF I needed to scrap the current camera because of its age, I would most definitely give this approach serious consideration.

As for those who look at the statistics and read the opinions and say that HDV isn't good enough--well, it's better than DV shot with the same camera. The only thing I've seen is the Z1, and if I had not known the stuff I saw (on DVD on a 35" monitor) had been shot with a Z1, I would have guessed it came from a 2/3" chip camera. I was an HDV naysayer until I saw some decent footage shot by a professional.

In the past I was also a bit of a naysayer about the XL1. All the stuff I saw was oversaturated and had highlight blowouts. Then I saw a documentary shot by a real pro, and discovered it came from an XL1. I also saw an HBO short that came from an XL1 and it was incredibly good.

The thing about a 2/3" chip camera--it's a hell of a lot easier to get good footage under different conditions than it is with a 1/3" chip camera. But in the right hands, a very tweakable camera such as the Z1 or the upcoming Canon or the JVC, can turn out great stuff.

I learned some time ago to not trust most of what I read on the boards, and even some allegedly apples-to-apples comparative tests have been suspect sometimes. In the early days of DV, there was all the buzz that said it's not as good as Betacam, you can't chroma key it, it has artifacts. I rented a DVCAM camera and found that it looked better than the Betacam camera I had, I could indeed chroma key the footage, and there were no noticeable artifacts. Just as HDV won't be as good, from the same camera, as HDCAM SR, DVCAM from a DSR500WS isn't as good as Digibeta from a DVW700. But it's good enough for the types of TV spots, documentaries, corporate sales and training videos, and the occasional transfer to 35mm film that I do. I suspect that HDV would also be as good, depending on the camera chosen. And the quality I have seen so far makes me think that, in the proper hands, a 1/3" chip camera could be successfully used in many professional contexts.

Having said all that, however, I wouldn't buy one without renting first and testing thoroughly, just as I did with DVCAM before buying.

[John McGinley]

Nice thread grenade you dropped Shannon. You type one message about how excited you are about the new camera and it explodes. :-)

[Bill Porter]

I think the credit goes the Canon, not the thread starter, LOL

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

The art of filmmaking isn't just in the mind's eye; it is what the mind's eye can do to express itself with the tools available. If there is an affordable but better tool to help me both challenge my skill and present broadened creative opportunities, you can bet I'll be after it. If that's wankery, well, WANK ON!

Sports example: Would Lance Armstrong still be a great cyclist if he rode on a $200 mountain bike? Yep. Could he win the Tour de France once, let alone seven times, if he believed that computer-modeled low-drag titanium bike frames, etc, etc, was wankery? (Do I need to answer that?)
;-)

Besides, it is hard for me to understand how someone could have a passion for creating cinema and not care about cameras. Whatever someone's hobby or beloved vocation, an enthusiasm for the stuff that makes it possible seems an innate part of the equation.

Mind you; you perhaps should have refrained from further elaboration after such a true statement as: "it is what the mind's eye can do to express itself with the tools available."

I'll assume what you actually meant was "the tools that remain unavailable at this point - but promised enough that those that are currently available should be avoided".

It's reassuring that if you think something is affordable then everyone else should naturally find it so also.

As for your sports example - perhaps the example of the fine artist would be slightly more appropriate. While many a painter would dearly love the most expensive sable brushes, gold oxide based Madders and the finest French linen canvas, the simple fact is that owning them doesn't make the artist wielding them a genius - just as owning the same bike that Lance Armstrong rides won't make everyone a Tour de France winner.

And oh me oh my... Sacre Bleu!! I own some of those lesser HDV camcorders! I guess that means in your eyes I'm indifferent to the tools of my craft...

[Steve Connor]

1st year film student with an F950 or Tarantino with a domestic VHS camera, which movie would you go and watch?

[Steve Mullen]

"At the 30 Frame rate, broadcasters can capture high motion, like sports with confidence that each frame is captured individually and completely."

Anyone who has shot 30p kmows thus is utter nonsense! Shooting with 30p yields painful to watch strobing from the double images from the well known "eye tracking artifacts."

Whoever wrote this is writing fiction which casts doubt on on everything else Canon claims about the camera.

FOX originally wanted to go DTV via 480p30 until they say what sports looked like. They then when to 720p60 because it is the best for sports.

[Simon Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Steve Connor

1st year film student with an F950 or Tarantino with a domestic VHS camera, which movie would you go and watch?

If Kill Bill 2 is anything to go by I'll take the 1st year film students work thanks.

[Federico Martini Crotti]

I love the soft and warm image quality of my 1997 PAL XL1 in frame mode. I don't like the rugged and cold quality of PAL Sonys I've tried. (VXs, etc.)

(To some people it might be the complete opposite in terms of warmth)

Now I want to get the best HD camera for shooting a small live action feature with a small crew, having 2TB of LaCie FW storage and a PB G4, thinking in a 35 transfer later on. What would be the best below $10,000? I do want the best possible definition to tell a best possible story.

Are the image qualities (looks, feels, styles of what you end up seeing in the monitor) sustained by the different camera brands in their evolutions to HD? If I love the XL1 feel, will I find it in the XLH1?

The HVX200 + FireStore seems the most appropriate overall, but will it shoot as "beautiful" as the XL1 shoots in DV?

[James Emory]

After reading this thread up to this point and seeing all of the debates, differing opinions and specifications on the latest gear, here is the answer. This is the latest device and some say the must have accessory for all complex gear. It is the solution to ALL of your questions, issues, discrepancies, etc., costs only $4.99 and most importantly, works on all formats, makes and models worldwide!

www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51321

[Robert J. Wolff]

Good Morning, Folks.

After taking several days to read and digest the contents of this thread, it appears to me to be nothing but the same old same, that was posted prior to the release of the XL-1s, and the XL-2.

Kennelmaster, which way to the fire plug??!

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

If Kill Bill 2 is anything to go by I'll take the 1st year film students work thanks.

Haha, you got in there before me Simon!

[Matthew Nayman]

I bought an XL2 in May of this year. With all the accessories, a wide angle lense, matte box, follow focus, dual BP 945s, charger, ETC, It cost me about $13,000 Canadian (So like $20 american), anyhoo, I love it. I have used DVx 100a's, All the sony and JVC cams you can shake a stick at (including their HDV offerings, though the HD100 is incredibly nice), but I still love my SD XL2. I am modern guy, I live in a big house, have a nice computer for editing, can afford a camera package liek this, and my Dad is one of the highest-ups at the CBC (canadian broadcasting Corp.), But we don't own a sinlge HD TV, Infact, I only have one friend with an HDTV, and he doesnt get any HDTV channels!

Short story, I think Mandatory HD is still a ways away, and the added resolution doesn't mean squat if the picture is bad. You cant deny it.

[Jacques Mersereau]

If you want to get your nature documentary aired (or even considered)
on National Geo or Discovery now you have to shoot in HD. So,
for my work, equipment and image quality do indeed matter a lot.

[Pete Bauer]

James Emory:
That Easy Button is dynamite! I'll take two!

Steve Connor:
I guess don't see a 1st year film student with an F950 vs Tarantino with VHS as being apples-to-apples...that's more like, oh, grapes vs papaya. If you want apples-to-apples, it is any filmmaker with VHS vs that same filmmaker with a Cinealta. (Scientifically speaking -- sorry, I AM a scientist! -- to evaluate a variable, you must have constants).

Steve Crisdale:
Two admin points:
- I've got thick skin, so personal derision has little effect on me. However, see the DVinfo.net Policy. Even if you disagree, please don't make it personal with other members.
- Selecting particular sentences, rearranging them, and then displaying them as a continuous quote would be "misquoting" and is potentially libelous behavior most anywhere. Don't do it.

Please clarify the following points on which I am confused:
- Where did I say that because I personally find a camera affordable, that any other person should also? We're just here in this particular thread discussing a newly-announced camera.
- Why is your HDV camera "lesser?" I'm shooting with an SD camera presently (XL2). I don't see where I accused you of being indifferent to the tools of your craft and wouldn't think you are...after all, you have a higher rez camera than do I and you're posting in a thread about an upcoming camera that lots of folks are excited to learn more about and discuss, whether or not they'll be buying it. I think my generic comment about people being interested in the tools of their hobbies or professions is self-evident, as your alternative example of an artist desiring sable brushes, etc. also illustrates.

A reminder to everyone else, including myself:
DVinfo is not keen to see people camp out in a camera forum just to make disparaging comments about it, or most especially the people posting about it. If you have something constructive to say -- whether it be a new on-topic fact, comments in agreement, or a polite counterpoint -- that's what the forum is here for. I hope that this is the end of the acrimony that has plagued this thread...it was started by someone who is enthusiastic to explore how this might be a great indie camera. Let's discuss that.

WANK ON!
;-)