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

[Lauri Kettunen]

Originally Posted by 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.

I have same kind of thoughts.

For me the new XL H1 raises immediately couple questions. At first, is the DV image of XL H1 as good as that of XL2? If so, the option to capture also in HDV is pretty tempting.

Second, is there anybody who could say something realiable on the HDV images? In shooting landscapes the HDV will quite likely be stunning and clearly an improvement compared to DV. But, what about taking footages of moving objects such as flying birds?

Having technical background, can't avoid sceptical thoughts that HDV is bit like putting a basket ball through the eye of a needle. There must be some price for the increased resolution. My assumption is that it should show up in pan and tilt, and when something moves.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Lauri Kettunen

Second, is there anybody who could say something realiable on the HDV images? ... There must be some price for the increased resolution. My assumption is that it should show up in pan and tilt, and when something moves.

At the Canon Global Expo last week, Canon Inc. displayed some HDV video from the H1 which was shot in Florence, Italy. It was a mix of static shots and moving images. As you might suspect the camera was locked down for most of this, but there were a few slow, careful pans. Those are the best kind of pans anyway.

[James Emory]

Originally Posted by Pete Bauer

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

Glad to help! I think everything should have an easy button!

Originally Posted by 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.

As for Discovery, did you hear this first hand? If so, is it for certain types of content such as what you described or for ALL new recent content. I have shot for a couple of Discovery networks recently and HD was not a requirement. There is alot of DV, Beta SP and Digibeta still being shot. Now, with that being said, I did work on a show where they shot 16x9 for future syndication when 16x9 sets will eventually dominate but at the time, it aired in 4:3. Most of the shows that I have shot were 4:3 though. The budgets for most of these reality shows are tight for SD, not to mention HD. I would think HD would be reserved for nature documentaries and special features where the bugdets are larger and the photography could be appreciated more. The rates that I have seen for an HD EFP package are around $2000 per day and that's just for the gear wheras a complete beta package with crew is around $1300-$1500 and a DV crew with gear is around $1000-1200 per day with all of these before OT on labor.

[Charles Papert]

I wish I could comment on the H1, but on the JVC HD100 I was surprised to see so few issues on pans of varying speeds after all that I had heard about the HDV format--in fact, I was unable to duplicate any of these issues, all the pans I did were fine, within the parameters of 24 frame panning "rules" (which are applicable to film also).

[Bill Porter]

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?

Ha! Good one.

[Steven White]

The funny thing about breaking HDV is that by the time you do it, even if the picture was perfect, you wouldn't be able to see what they heck was going on because you'd be panning, shaking, zooming, and jumping up and down like you were having a seizure (read: The Bourne Supremacy).

Any half-watchable camera work will come through the HDV format admirably. However, subjectively, no matter how hard I've tried, I cannot get HDV to look worse than DV... the codec is just too smart.

It isn't the best format for post - we all know that. But DV users talk like HDV is a step backwards - in reality it's the kind of step forwards we should consider at all levels of acquisition. You could have 4:4:4 4k resolution at the data rates of HDCAM SR.

-Steve

[Heath McKnight]

Charles,

That's good to hear. When the HD10 came out, you couldn't go handheld, and they said it was HDV, but in fact it was the one ccd (non-CMOS) that did it.

heath

[Bill Porter]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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.

"Scant" is relative too. Scant is a long time to some of the readers around here. Some are under 20 years old! NOT me... ;)

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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.

Typo? Did you mean 'Just as DV won't be as good,' etc? Because you then say "I suspect that HDV would also be as good."

???

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

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.

I don't think there's any "could" about it. They are successfully used for feature motion pictures and in other professional contexts already, in increasing numbers!

:)

[Lauri Kettunen]

Originally Posted by Steven White

However, subjectively, no matter how hard I've tried, I cannot get HDV to look worse than DV... the codec is just too smart.
... But DV users talk like HDV is a step backwards - in reality it's the kind of step forwards we should consider at all levels of acquisition.

Steve, thanks a lot for your comment. Coming from the cold north (the first snow came already last Saturday) I appreciate your calm and justified comments free of unnecessary fuzz.

Since I'm in wildlife filming, any kind of HD format would guarantee longer life span for the material which often cannot be retaken. Hearing the HDV format is a real step forward makes the new XL H1 very tempting. Especially, for sooner or later portable recording devices will replace the miniDV tape completely, and then, the HD-SDI output will become a real asset.

[Steve Connor]

I have had exactly the same experience with HDV- ignore the merchants of doom who only look at the tech specs and not the pictures!

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Steven White

<snip>Any half-watchable camera work will come through the HDV format admirably. However, subjectively, no matter how hard I've tried, I cannot get HDV to look worse than DV... the codec is just too smart.<snip>

Just about all the HDV footage I've seen, including the 15 GOP clips from the FX1/Z1 has been technically pretty impressive. I doubt any DV footage blown up to HD resolutions would compete.

I think maybe the problem a lot of people have with HDV is they don't understand codecs. You know, if you compressed the same video twice, once into a late 90s cinepack codec based quicktime movie and again into a quicktime movie using the latest Sorenson codec, what would we find? The cinepack file would be relatively huge and look awful. The Sorenson version would have a relatively tiny file size and look fantastic. No one would argue the results, yet if we apply the same reasoning to 25mbps HDV and DV people suddenly just say "You can't fit quality HD into the same data rate".
I've seen huge threads on other sites based pretty much on that premise. Otherwise perfectly intelligent videographers that probably have not even used HDV denouncing it like they're in a holy war. All because "you can't fit HD into the same bandwith as DV SD video".

Oh well.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

[Bill Taka]

Lauri-

I also produce wildlife films. I will seriously consider the XLX1 when available however my main concern is all the long prime lenses that may look a bit soft with the XLX1. As it is now with my XL2 using the 4:3 aspect and a 9.6 factor, I cannot hardly use my 600mm anymore due to distortion. I wonder what multiplication factor the HD will be?

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Bill Taka

...with my XL2 using the 4:3 aspect and a 9.6 factor, I cannot hardly use my 600mm anymore due to distortion. I wonder what multiplication factor the HD will be?

Hi Bill, it'll be 7.8x with the XL H1.

[Bill Taka]

Thanks Chris-

I kind of thought that since the XL2 in 16:9 is also 7.8. At the show, did any of the booths try out an EF lense?

[Chris Hurd]

Hi Bill,

At no time during the show did I see an H1 with an EOS lens attached, but the EF adapter is listed as a fully compatible accessory.