I'm a believer... Now where can I get a cup holder.

[Michael Pappas]

[QUOTE=Nick Hiltgen]Yeah the plan is to shoot with a mini 35 and zeiss super speed primes,/QUOTE]

Nick, Birns & Sawyer did tests with prime lenses. The results were amazing what I hear. There Lens guy is well known, and he just was very very pleased with the quality the primes added.

Good luck Nick!

[Michael Pappas]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

Michael...but it might!

If you switch the HVX-200 to its 1080p24 mode....it MIGHT do 800 lines. Don't chaya think?

No ETA on the footage. I think imma just give the tape to Nick and let him do it with his sexy new Canon XL-H1.

- ShannonRawls.com

I hope your right Shannon. Again Canon used the f900/HD750 type of HD cameras as a target. That's why the camera is so good. Panasonic didn't use the Varicam or f900 as their target for the HVX200 to get to. Again, I hope your right. The HVX200 is an awesome camera to. Lots to offer it does, the HVX200.

>pappas

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Shannon Rawls

If you switch the HVX-200 to its 1080p24 mode....it MIGHT do 800 lines. Don't chaya think?

Exactly. On the interlaced Canon, switching into 24F mode causes a significant drop in resolution. On the HVX, it's native progressive, so that's the mode where it will get the most res.

Resolution charts are subject to a few variables anyway -- framing, how "square" they are to the camera, and the subjective interpretation of the individual doing the reading of the charts. The only way to fairly compare them would be to have the same shooter shoot the same chart to the same standards of framing/etc., and have one individual read both charts, applying their same subjective standards to the reading of the wedges.

[Michael Pappas]

Very true Barry! I will say this, the film-outs from the HVX200 were very good indeed.

The HVX200 and H1 are both great new additions, you can't go wrong with either one.


>pappas

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Exactly. On the interlaced Canon, switching into 24F mode causes a significant drop in resolution. On the HVX, it's native progressive, so that's the mode where it will get the most res.

Resolution charts are subject to a few variables anyway -- framing, how "square" they are to the camera, and the subjective interpretation of the individual doing the reading of the charts. The only way to fairly compare them would be to have the same shooter shoot the same chart to the same standards of framing/etc., and have one individual read both charts, applying their same subjective standards to the reading of the wedges.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Barry the 24f function was my biggest concern with this camera, if I'm going to suggest to a producer (and not just a producer my good friends as well) that we use this camera instead of an f900 I'm going to make sure I run it through and give the best analysis I can give. The resolution of the 24F function definitly is not that of a 900 but I sincerely believe that the estamates of 810 are pretty accurate, I don't know how they do it, but a solid resolution test did seem to confirm this to me. Hopefully someone will also be able to do some res tests and confirm this or that I did something wrong, but until then I'll go with the 810 estimate.

Further the drop between 1080i and 1080 24F did not seem that drastic, though again I will admit that the 60i looks REALLY good, sharper then the 60i. Anyhow I am really excited about working with this setup and reporting some feedback on the process.

Oh here's something that maybe someone can shed some light on. The producer called up canon and asked about using other lenses with the mini 35 and if there was any problems with it. The canon person said that there wouldn't be any problem in SD but it wouldn't work with HD. Now I'm assuming the canon person just got confused and thought he was talking about the old canon glass, but for those of you that have used the 35 with this camera or seen the results, were there any issues?

[Michael Pappas]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

but for those of you that have used the 35 with this camera or seen the results, were there any issues?

Nick, give Birns & Sawyer a call! Talk to Jim Martin, he is a really nice guy. Tell Jim Pappas sent you to him. They have hooked primes up to the H1 already!

Birns & Sawyer P# 1.323.466.8211

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/

[Michael Pappas]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

The resolution of the 24F function definitly is not that of a 900 but I sincerely believe that the estamates of 810 are pretty accurate but until then I'll go with the 810 estimate .

That's better than Varicam on a res chart! Wow! The H1 is performing damn hot! Again Nick, thanks for all your time and I look forward to future reports

>pappas

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

Hopefully someone will also be able to do some res tests and confirm this or that I did something wrong, but until then I'll go with the 810 estimate.

Are you saying you got 810 in 24F? That doesn't match up with anyone else's report... Pete Bauer shows a chart that gets around 600, and David Newman said 650.

In 60i the res is higher, yes, but in 24F it loses somewhere around 150 to 200 lines.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Well there you go, Maybe my res chart is off, but the still of it on shannon's site was pretty much what we got. Seemed to resolve around 800, maybe my set-up was wrong (entirely possible) but I mean I was alternating between the 900 and this camera and the canon seemed to me to hit 800, I guess I'm wrong.

I would say that maybe I just was reading it wrong but when we hooked up the z1u we could see the degredation in signal and lines resolved (this was with the z1 in 60i mode.) Like I said it's entirely possible I read the results wrong, but TO ME it seemed to resolve @800 lines. There was a slight difference between the HDV and the straight HD-SDI out but definitely not 100-150 lines worth.

Maybe the discrepency is in my chart, It is after all primarily intended for color alignment but it has the "hyberbolic resolution trumpets" on it. If you're using a full on HD Resolution chart then I'm sure your results are more accurate, I was just reporting it as I saw it, I think anyone interested should definitely double check them. Out of curiosity what do your charts read an f900's resolution as?

Oh and Michael I'll swing by burns on my way into work tomorrow and talk to jim in person and see if he has any suggestions.

[Shannon Rawls]

600 & 650? *smaking my head*
six hundred and six hundred and fifty WHAT?? Lines of Resolution?????

Lord no. I shutter at the thought of even remotely thinking my man David Newman did someting wrong, but he MUST have to claim this camera can only pull 600 lines. Now I will say this....Maybe our CamAlign resolution chart was no good and the manufacturer did someting wrong in making it, but it was the newest version and I think it was OK. Other then that, as long as the chart is accurate, the HD monitor don't lie. The sweet thing about res charts is they are no-brainers. Only way to report an inaccurate number is if somebody don't wanna "BELEIVE" in what they are seeing. it's an easy setup:
1. Camera must be on Manual
2. The chart must be illuminated with adequate lighting.
3. Camera must be square on the chart for X-Axis & Z-Axis. (Y-Axis can be off a tad bit, results wont change)
4. and....most importantly, the field of view must line up with the chart markers in all 4 corners. You can be further back and get LESS resolution results, but being closer in is cheating. In our case, we backed up from the chart further then we had to be, and the results were still clearly better then 650 lines of resolution. See for yourself: http://www.cinemahill.com/hidef/xlh1...s/IMG_0115.jpg and that is a horrible compressed .jpeg image captured from moving tape. Belevive me when I tell you, looking at that monitor in Bennett Studios is a night & day difference from that .jpg photo.

and YES, we're talking 24f mode. When the camera was switched to 60i to see the results, ummmmm. Well, let me say this, and I didn't mention it to Nick. But I want a re-test! *smile* because when we switched to interlaced mode...it kinda seemed like it got worse then 24f mode. I COULD BE WRONG ..... we were moving fast and I wasn't really interested in 60i anyhow. But for some odd reason I kinda sorta remember 60i getting a tad bit worse. Either way, I CAN CONFIRM that the 24f mode was @ 800 verticle scan lines and went off the chart (800+) for the horizontal lines, no question.

The Z1U was tested as well. To me, it came in at around 700 lines in 60i mode. I read somewhere back in the day that somebody got about 775 out of an FX1, but I don't see how. If that's true, then me and Nick and his editor must have did something wrong and ultimately not giving the XL-H1 true justice. Because if all truths are being parallel, then that means if an FX1 can come in at 775, then the Canon XL-H1 can EASILY touch 900 verticle scan lines of resolution on a chart when charted correctly. One thing is for sure.....if we messed up, we messed up to give the camera a WORST report card, not a better one. We didn't test the CineFrames on the Z1U.

The Sony F900 wasn't worth testing....it went off the chart in all modes. *smile*

I only wish we had a chart that went to 1920 like the new more expensive color ones do. Allot of people are 'printing out their own' resolution charts from downloads they find on the internet. LOL Dude, you can't do that, print it out on a 8.5x11 sheet of cheap copier paper with a brightness of 82 on your 300dpi printer and expect to run a resolution chart test....that's no good.

Anyhow...I know the Canon XL-H1 is right at about 800 verticaly. The Sony Z1U in 60i mode (no cf24 or cf30) is at about 680 to 700.

And Nick, yes the Canon rep was confused. A Mini35 in HD is fine for this camera as long as you use good glass on the front end. No more visually worse then an F900 using a Pro35 (which is done all the time).

- ShannonRawls.com

[Michael Pappas]

Lets just say your res chart is off Nick!

Who cares!

Better than the res chart is the fact that you two were doing A/B between each camera on the fly and finding that the H1 was getting close and.......Sometimes you guys couldn't tell which one was which one the monitor,

So that tells me that the H1 is closer to a F900.

Now if it was only doing 600 lines on a a/b switch it would have looked like crap compared to a f900 output. Unless you had vaseline on the F900 lens- that A/B says more than the res chart. Your eyes don't lie!

BTW Nick, I must ask, did you have vaseline on the f900 lens, just to be sure.


>Pappas

Originally Posted by Nick Hiltgen

Well there you go, Maybe my res chart is off, but the still of it on shannon's site was pretty much what we got. Seemed to resolve around 800, maybe my set-up was wrong (entirely possible) but I mean I was alternating between the 900 and this camera and the canon seemed to me to hit 800, I guess I'm wrong.

I would say that maybe I just was reading it wrong but when we hooked up the z1u we could see the degredation in signal and lines resolved (this was with the z1 in 60i mode.) Like I said it's entirely possible I read the results wrong, but TO ME it seemed to resolve @800 lines. There was a slight difference between the HDV and the straight HD-SDI out but definitely not 100-150 lines worth.

Maybe the discrepency is in my chart, It is after all primarily intended for color alignment but it has the "hyberbolic resolution trumpets" on it. If you're using a full on HD Resolution chart then I'm sure your results are more accurate, I was just reporting it as I saw it, I think anyone interested should definitely double check them. Out of curiosity what do your charts read an f900's resolution as?

Oh and Michael I'll swing by burns on my way into work tomorrow and talk to jim in person and see if he has any reccomendations.

[Nick Hiltgen]

Hmm I re-read the posts about steve mullens article, it seemed to be a theory that @800 was accurate for still images. This was a locked off shot and a locked off res-chart, so perhaps that's why it clocked in at 800? I suppose next time we could put the camera and chart on a dolly and... nah nevermind. I'm sorry I don't have a full on res-chart but to be honest I really don't have much need for them (at least not more of a need then an alignment chart)

Shannon, thanks for the input dude, I'm really looking forward to working with the camera with a mini 35, and seeing what we can pull off. I'll try to get my shots up as soon as I can, but I'm pretty sure I won't have the camera in my hands (it's being shipped to me) until mid next week at the earliest, and I feel sorry for all the people waiting. But I'll do my best to also get some of the footage from our prep day (jan 5th) up before we start the process, I realize that's like 2 weeks away, sorry.

Michael:
No vaseline on the f900 lens just a soft fx 2 ;)

[Obin Olson]

How would you guys like an HD-SDI recorder, with NO compression, much like the CitiDisk.but out the HD-SDI port?

We are working on one, would you buy it?

Also, I am reading about softness issues from the mini35, are you sure it's all good and sharp WIDE OPEN on the HD cam?

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Obin Olson

How would you guys like an HD-SDI recorder, with NO compression, much like the CitiDisk.but out the HD-SDI port?

We are working on one, would you buy it?

Also, I am reading about softness issues from the mini35, are you sure it's all good and sharp WIDE OPEN on the HD cam?

YES! YES!! YES!!! YESSSSSSS!!!!!

I just recorded some H1 SDI output into my Kona card. It looks quite good, even though it's still compressed into DVCPRO HD, but I would much prefer a full raster capture.

[Shannon Rawls]

Originally Posted by Obin Olson

How would you guys like an HD-SDI recorder, with NO compression, much like the CitiDisk.but out the HD-SDI port?

We are working on one, would you buy it?

Stop teasing us. *smile*

But seriously, I WOULD NOT WANT ONE, and here's the reason why.....

For starters, I can get a 100gb HDV compatible CitiDisk that ALSO records audio & (coming soon)timecode for $850 bucks out the door. That's about 8 hours of HD video & audio with timecode in one small package.

Now the Canon XL-H1's HD-SDI port contains the video stream ONLY. No audio, no timecode......ever! So the only advantage a portable/compact HD-SDI recorder would give me is 4:2:2 uncompressed video.
Is it worth it? NO
Why not? BECAUSE.....
How would I get my audio? I AM FORCED TO USE DOUBLE SYSTEM SOUND.
How would I get my timecode to sync that audio with all those uncompressed hd-sdi recorded video clips? I DON'T, I AM S.O.L.

So this is why a citidisk-like HD-SDI recorder really wouldn't really help at all. I mean, it might for those who do not need audio, but how rare is that?

Recording HD-SDI is "ONLY" helpful if you have a deck recorder or computer that will also record Audio 'and' accept Timecode IN or create it's own timecode track that syncs with the recorded audio.

- ShannonRawls.com