How close to 35mm?

[Stephen L. Noe]

Originally Posted by Michael Wisniewski

BUT!
Keeping that in mind, I did do a bunch of fast pans using the 24F and 30F modes with the HD monitors and didn't see any of the artifacts that I associate with the Sony modes, just the normal video motion signatures I'm accustomed to. Whatever Canon's doing with their frame mode, it's different from Sony.

You said the camera was hooked up HD-SDI so of course you wouldn't see any artifacts. The signal was not processed by the onboard codec when coming out SDI. We'll have to wait and see what the m2t's look like off of a tape. Remember GOP is 15 with this camera just like the Sony. That's not saying that they've performed the same math as Sony for perspective, positioning, scaling and rotation with their codec though. JVC has done an incredible job with their codec on the HD-100. If Canon has done as good a job as JVC it should be beautiful images and motion.

We'll see...

[Dave Eanton]

Nice one Bill:)

[John M Burkhart]

I hereby accuse Chris of being a corporate shill for Sony, JVC, and Panasonic.

Obviously by NOT mentioning the video quality of the Cannon camera, he is trying to hide the fact that this camcorder image is very good indeed, and thus INTENTIONALLY PUSHING HIS READERS to buy their cameras from these other manufacturers.

It was blatant corporate favoritism of the worst kind, and in my disgust I refuse to be a part of this slanted, biased and wholly disreputable web site any longer (or at least until such time as I sign up with another user name).

(sorry for the OT, but it's not a discussion forum unless you're "damned if you do..")

[Michael Wisniewski]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

You said the camera was hooked up HD-SDI so of course you wouldn't see any artifacts.

Yup, that was the problem in a nutshell. I did try to convince the guys to let me sneak a tape out, I even tried some good old New Yorker charm (which probably didn't work since I'm from California). Anyway, half-jokingly, they said they'd have to tackle me before I would be able to leave the convention hall. Go figure.

The HDV Florence video was also perfect and beautiful, so there's not much use commenting there. we'll have to wait for Canon to release some HDV video.

[Edwin Hernandez]

Originally Posted by John M Burkhart

Obviously by NOT mentioning the video quality of the Cannon camera, he is trying to hide the fact that this camcorder image is very good indeed, and thus INTENTIONALLY PUSHING HIS READERS to buy their cameras from these other manufacturers.

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

but what I can tell you is that in my opinion it would be to Canon USA's advantage if they can secure some of the Florence material to display at U.S. tradeshows. Hope this helps,

I don't know Chris personally, nor have ever emailed with him. But, by judging his posts on the XL H1 image quality (considering that it's inappropiate for him to sound as if he is pushing any manufacturer) I think he has been very subtle in implying that this is a very good camera indeed.

In fact John, I think that by not saying it all it makes us want to know more about it and delay any purchase on already released cameras.

[Chris Hurd]

Thanks Edwin, but I think John had his tongue firmly in cheek for that post, at least I hope so!

[Obin Olson]

right on Ash, more of a D O F issue then anything for the "film" look ;)

don't forget the power of RAW too, as in 10 stops of range from a RAW output from the dvx vs. what 6-7 on dv tape?

[Luis Caffesse]

don't forget the power of RAW too, as in 10 stops of range from a RAW output from the dvx vs. what 6-7 on dv tape?

That's a GREAT point Obin.

Can we expect a greater dyamic range from the HDSDI output even if it's 8bit instead of 10bit? (which hasn't been confirmed either way yet as far as I know).

[Obin Olson]

for that answer, I think we need info on what is being done to the HD-SDI stream before it comes out the side.

I can tell you from shooting RAW on the dvx you almost can't use the viewfinder on it as you must overexpose so much to get things right on RAW, it's really amazing how much more room you get in RAW. My dream is that one day we will have a video camera like the Canon20D still system, RAW and compression, no HDSDI no Analog, no friggen firewire with HDV, and no DVCPROHD, all the formats are sooo limited in color, dynamic range, and resolution. arrggg...

how hard is it to create a DIRECT capture path of RAW data from a CCD/CMOS chip? not easy, but I can tell you it would be MUCH less work then all the compression etc that goes on inside ALL video cameras!

seems that people in the CAMERA industry, now including CANON don't get it, they are all still thinking "video" and "standards" instead of .tiff or .raw FILES on a disk.....dunno why....I guess they take the time to 2nd guess us all and feed us what they *think* we want to be fed. I get better images from an $80 Digital still camera then ANY of the "HD" prosumer stuff!


sad really to see all this HDV crap out now and not a SINGLE system of un-compressed RAW ...not even Canon....with NO "pro" market to protect(I guess they are just afraid of what SONY JVC PANA would do if they came to dinner with RAW recording on a disk....what whimps!)


but then again if you have $150k I guess it's not an issue, oh, wait, the CineAlta is STILL compressed and has tiny 2/3rd inch ccds.....


Someone will rise up and take the challenge, and at this rate it will NOT be Sony JVC PANA CANON....

who will it be?

[Zack Birlew]

RAw? (Yes, the small "w" was intentional to show how weird of an idea it is)

RAW files and such are indeed nice, but that's for still images. If you want RAW quality then you get film. Yes, the digital cameras of today can make RAW files and maybe even capture a few clips of video, albeit at 3-15fps. Only thing is that video is different in that it's not just about resolution, you've got sound, color, exposure, shutter speed, and the limitations of what video can be output to. Yes, a hard drive would be good, but most people wouldn't know how to use it like we would. The things I've listed above may sound odd considering that most of those things go into still photography as well, but the big problem is that videocameras today are trying to emulate film. Had there not been such hoopla about wanting film quality at digital levels, we'd have FX1/Z1-HD-like footage on small little consumer cameras for about $400. But with all of the small little tidbits about wanting that film-look with slight grain, but not too much, with softness, but a lot of sharp detail, and ect. ect. Some small features get in versus having digital cameras that provide full-on resolution a'la still cameras of today. The digital cameras aren't known to be like film, they took what they could get and coexist with film based on the fact that film looks different and has a certain look that some are willing to go the extra mile for financially (ie. film development versus PC print). Same argument with video, but different war. We video guys want film dead, we want film to be obsolete, we want the easier and cheaper editing but with the same qualities as film. That's why you aren't going to get RAW out of anybody, nobody wants to make a camera that does individual frames, that's too much like film editing, they want straight video files via P2, hard drive, tape, or DVD/HD-discs. RAW may have more resoltuion, the Andromeda system shows us some potential (or implies it right now as they are *STILL* beta testing the things), but the trade offs for resolution is overexposure, altered filming techniques, color correcting in post, and the need for more baggage to carry the laptop and hard drives. Other than all that, RAW could be implemented but the companies would rather find a different format to make things easier on them and us (plus you'd be buying their tapes/hard drives/ect.). If you want RAW video now, then you can shoot something with still cameras like that one guy did in the resolution forum.

Me, I think the movie world will make the same decision that film is film and video is video, they can look alike but won't have the same qualities. Besides, film has quite a way to go if you know how little of the actual film frame actually goes into a movie. =)

[Obin Olson]

Wow, do we live on the same planet?

I guess you are the reason that the companies don't have a RAW or "RAw" option!

I was not saying that we need RAW only camera systems, but ONE SINLGE OPTION would be nice as hell, anyone that works in VFX or on a big production will know the reasons for RAW vs. compressed to broadcast level HDV.

Arri D-20 is "RAW"

VIPER is "RAW"

Panavisions digital is "RAW"

but then again maybe that is not your line of work, and I would guess that is not 99% of people buying cams are not in that line of work. Maybe this is the reason we don't have "RAW"?

So what about the market that could and would spend $10k - $25k on a "raw" enabled XL3 or HVX200? I would also take a guess that we have more then 3 people in the world that want to make films and do VFX work on a "raw" camera.

I would NEVER dream of shooting somthing that I DON'T do color work on in post.

I can make a digital RAW file look EXACTLY like a film stock if I spend enough time working with it's colors etc.

We would only get ++'s with raw, and loose NOTHING in the process. Why not have 10bit raw RGB out the side of the canon instead of this "standards" based HD-SDI? or better yet have a "raw" port on it along side the HD-SDI.

Frames in post are hard for you to deal with? howcome? "video" IS A SET OF FRAMES in a wrapper!! RAW is the same thing, but BETTER as you have OPTIONS with codecs, compressors, frame rates, frame sizes bit depth etc, etc.

I can understand if you want to keep the "Video" world "Video" but I see no reason on earth as a RAW file is the most pure form of what was captured.
Would you accept a low quality MP3 file as your master? We accept HDV, dvcproHD etc because that's all they dish out.

One day this will change, just as it did with Digital SLR. but it will take YEARS as 4 companies have almost total control of the market.

And everyone else does not have the money/time/skills to break this circle.

[Zack Birlew]

Whoa, yeah okay, they can have RAW cameras, but I was talking at this price level (under $10k). And I'm not making it my personal statement or a personal thing towards you Obin, I'm just looking at it from an observation on the history of video vs. film thus far. No disrespect, but from a business standpoint, it would be a weird option for a while since there's the case of simplicity for the prosumer (if going for the under $10k route) and, currently, things are working pretty well with tape-based SD/HD/hybrid (ie.HDV) cameras since manufacturers can sell people the tapes of varying formats, the decks to play them back on, and (for those who need it) upgraded computers/RAID arrays/realtime NLE accelerators/ect. It just goes through and through the list. RAW could save money, true, but then there's less money being made by the tech companies as a whole, only Firestores would be selling like hotcakes instead of being a commodity as they are now =).

Yes, I know of the Arri's, Viper's, and some of Panavision's stuff using RAW for their recording mediums, but that's just it, they're specialty cameras. When's the last time anybody's heard of a movie being shot on a Viper? Or with one of these other RAW cameras? Not too common unless you're in the bizz and know what they're talking about. Compare this to features done with a DVX or XL-line camera, that makes big news, Time magazine big! Same goes for professional cameras, you mostly hear about the Varicam and the Sony F900-series. Of course there's been shows and business work done with RAW cameras and maybe some special effects shots here and there, but not often you hear about or even see that stuff here in the US. RAW's got some pretty good pluses, but some things are just working better for people right now. But you're right, Obin, we don't know what tommorow's gonna bring, so we'll see. That's all I'm saying.

[Gentry Underwood]

obin,

i too have spent much time -- first with a canon eos-d30, then a d60, then a 10d, and now (if i could still afford to play this game) a 20d, 350d, and a 5d -- wanting, wishing, hoping, and dreaming of a camera with a similar-sized sensor and an ef-mount body that could churn out 24 frames/second of uncompressed RAW goodness. hell, i'd even record all sound separately if it meant i could have a decent resolution, good color, and real dof.

i've even (in my more optimistic moments) convinced myself that it's on the way. with all the work canon has done perfecting the cmos sensor in their prosumer dslrs (the 5d sensor is full-frame (35mm equivalent), the $750 Rebel XT sensor is 22mm wide), i've figured it's only a matter of (short) time before they roll out a motion version... or before someone hacks a Rebel XT and slaps on a large hard disk, selling the combo for $5K.

the math on the data transfer usually sobers me up, though. a single RAW frame from the Rebel XT comes in at around 8MB. Transmitting 24 of those per second would require a pipe big enough to write 192MB (or 1.5Gbits) per second (to compare, firewire-400 -- 'normal' firewire -- can handle just over 1/4 of that bandwidth). A full hour of uncompressed 24fps RAW Rebel XT (or 20D) sensor data would require almost 700GB, and that's before you add any sound.

That's enough to halt any personal plans of striking it rich by hacking Rebel XT's. The data is staggering. And that's not even taking into account the processing time required to 'develop' every single frame of RAW (think about how long Adobe Camera RAW or Phase One takes to process 20 stills in high quality). We're talking about serious data... shoot a film with 100 hours of footage and you're looking at 70TB *before* filters, color correction, etc... i.e. you're looking at data rates equivalent to what Hollywood digital remastering labs deal with.

This is about the point where I start thinking about codecs ("OK -- forget RAW... give me lots of high quality JPEGS instead... wait... how do you compress 24 of them per second.... wait... oh yeah, that's what MPEG-2 is...")...

but i'm still at a loss about why canon (and everyone else) insists on such small sensors for their high-end DV/HDV cams. the XLH1 has 3 sensors that are each about 8.5mm wide. Why not fab larger sensors? When canon can sell $750 Rebel XT's with single cmos sensors that are almost 3 times the size of those in the 1H, it's hard to imagine the reason is prohibitive cost...and wouldn't we all go nuts about a camera with 1" sensors?

it's quite likely i'm missing something. or lots of somethings. forgive the ignorance....

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Gentry Underwood

the XLH1 has 3 sensors that are each about 8.5mm wide.

Just for clarification, the 1/3" sensors are nowhere NEAR 8.5 mm wide. A 1/3" 16:9 CCD is around 5.25 mm wide. That's not just in the Canon, that's just how big 1/3" 16:9 sensors are.

[Dylan Pank]

For the same angle of view, a bigger CCD requires bigger, heavier more expensive lenses, unless you're going to go with primes, like the old turret mount 16mm cameras did.

I'm surprised that the XL H1 didn't go for a 1/2" CCD (like the JVC GY500) since it's already pretty big, but then a bigger CCD would have cut some magnification of the zoom end of the stock lens, unless, once again, they go with an even bigger lens.