H1 as Hubble Telescope Replacement at DVinfo.net

Shannon Rawls · January 2nd, 2006, 11:27 AM

......*shrugging shoulders*...Why not?

Look people, everything can be an "Alternative" for everything but not a replacement. 35mm replacement? 16mm replacement? HDCAM replacement? no. Why, because it depends on the nature of your "project" you are shooting. So in reality, nothing is a replacement for nothing! Each camera is in a class of its own. Let's keep it real here.

What would be the motivation for shooting a Panasonic HVX-200 or Canon XL-H1 over the Sony F950 CineAlta??

You got it... MONEY MONEY MONEY MOOONNNEEEYYY! *smile*

There is no way on this planet the Canon XL-H1 can "replace" a 16mm or 35mm film camera! Please get that out of your heads! Replace it?? Heck no. But it can be used as an ALTERNATIVE to it. That's more down to earth. because if shooting film costs the SAME AMOUNT as shooting DV, this website would not be here. If shooting F900 costs the same amount as shooting XL-H1 this forum category wouldn't be here.

I seen the XL-H1 side by side next to an F900 via HD-SDI @ a studio under ideal lighting conditions on a HD Reference Monitor.....
- The F900 is BETTER. Hands down, no question. Laugh at anybody else who claimes to see otherwise.
- Is the F900 $1,200.00/day in rental + crazy post production costs better? HELL NO, not in my opinion. I'd rather Buy and OWN a Canon XL-H1 and give that extra money to my DP, make the same movie, and 90% of the viewers won't know the difference. But like I said, of course, that all depends on the TYPE OF MOVIE I am shooting....

I, Shannon Rawls of sound mind & body, cannot, even with all my efforts and resources, re-make The Matrix using my Canon XL-H1. Sorry.
But I betcha I can re-shoot Barbershop or Sideways and most guys won't be able to tell. *smile*

These are HANDYCAMS guys. Say it with me... HAN-DEE-CAMS. *smile* Use them as alternatives to spending more money to receive a 'comparable' picure in the end.

- ShannonRawls.com

Steve Connor · January 2nd, 2006, 11:49 AM

Shannon - Stop making sense!

Pete Tomov · January 2nd, 2006, 12:24 PM

Oh, cut The Matrix talk!You could have gotten the same colors by grading black and white film stock!
The red looked nice and punchy,I'll give 'em that,but there was red only in like 2 places in the whole trilogy.

P.S. The first one looked the best.
...and I agree with the rest.

Alister Chapman · January 2nd, 2006, 12:59 PM

Spot on Shannon. Any camera is just a tool, and as any mechanic will tell you always use the right tool for the job. That may or may not be the most expensive, or the one with the shinyest chrome, but simply the one that fits the application best.

Hi Steve... I get my XL H1 on Friday! Then I'll borrow a friends HD100 and we can set up a H1, HD100, Z1, HC1 shootout. Ummm.. Panasonic Broadcasts European HQ is less than a mile away, I wonder if they have any PAL HVX200's yet.

Steve Connor · January 2nd, 2006, 01:14 PM

We MUST do some HDSDI - uncompressed 10 bit capture at Cardinal with it, I'm sure a few people on the forum would be interested in those results.

John Mercer · January 2nd, 2006, 01:26 PM

I totally agree Shannon, except for one small point:

I think HD certainly can rival 16mm. Infact I think it is almost a logical replacement in broadcast drama. Series like the BBC's Bleak House (do you get that stateside?) look exactly like very good modern fine grained Super 16mm, and in the UK all made for TV drama was traditionally shot on 16mm, so I think HD is naturally taking its place.

I think the Canon, Panasonic and JVC are also capable of very film like images that can easily compare to 16mm too. I think this is where low cost HD is going to be really exciting - not aping big budget Hollywood but low cost genre pictures that used to be shot on 16mm by the likes of Romero and Tobe Hooper or good TV drama.

Randy Donato · January 2nd, 2006, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Connor

We MUST do some HDSDI - uncompressed 10 bit capture at Cardinal with it, I'm sure a few people on the forum would be interested in those results.

Not to be too of topic but is it 10 or 8 bit? I thought Newman said it was 8.

Barlow Elton · January 2nd, 2006, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Connor

Shannon - Stop making sense!

Hey, come to think of it, that Talking Heads concert movie could be just as good for 90% of the audience if it was redone on H1's. *smile*

Barlow Elton · January 2nd, 2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Donato

Not to be too of topic but is it 10 or 8 bit? I thought Newman said it was 8.

Nominally 10bit for SMPTE compliance, but it's essentially an 8 bit quantized image once it hits the SDI spigot...according to a Canon rep at DVExpo.

Jim Giberti · January 2nd, 2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Mercer

I totally agree Shannon, except for one small point:

I think HD certainly can rival 16mm. Infact I think it is almost a logical replacement in broadcast drama. Series like the BBC's Bleak House (do you get that stateside?) look exactly like very good modern fine grained Super 16mm, and in the UK all made for TV drama was traditionally shot on 16mm, so I think HD is naturally taking its place.

I think the Canon, Panasonic and JVC are also capable of very film like images that can easily compare to 16mm too. I think this is where low cost HD is going to be really exciting - not aping big budget Hollywood but low cost genre pictures that used to be shot on 16mm by the likes of Romero and Tobe Hooper or good TV drama.

That's exactly where I think this new wave of affordable HD/HDV is ideally suited. I wrote something recently about films like Sideways where I would expect either a Panasonic or Canon could deliver a great image for the vast majority of viewers given the same production values.

And absolutely regarding TV content. They're going to be ideally suited to TV drama and other weekly content.

It's one of the primary reasons we're moving there now and really my biggest issue is workflow versus which camera will out perform the other regarding image.

I just got off the phone with my nephew who's crewed with us over the years. He's over in London for a year and just interviewed and got offered a production position with a European broadcast group that wants to go from 10% to 90% self produced content.

He was asking me about which way I was going and that he and his new boss were just discussing the Panasonic versus the Canon (amazingly he told me that the boss already has a 24f prejudice).

Anyway, the reality of HD is becoming more and more apparent around me, including another program I'm just dealing with that's being done in HD with a small crew. As much as I'd like to just work with our current paradigm, given the availability and low cost, I really can't make sense of shooting either of two pilots this winter in anything but HD.

I'm probably going to rent both cameras and shoot an initial project with both to do a real world comparison. The format and workflows are so different that I really need to deal with them in real time in post before I go for a wholseale change over...although the SDI to DVC PROHD deck option on the XL has got a real leg up.

Ashley Hosking · January 2nd, 2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randy Donato

Not to be too of topic but is it 10 or 8 bit? I thought Newman said it was 8.

It is 8 Bit, However from what I have been told it starts as a 10 bit stream and then the 2 least important parts get dropped once it hits SDI. Dont ask me how or what parts of the image but the Canon tech guys told me I wouldn't miss the extra 2 bits... *shrugs*

Randy Donato · January 2nd, 2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashley Hosking

It is 8 Bit, However from what I have been told it starts as a 10 bit stream and then the 2 least important parts get dropped once it hits SDI. Dont ask me how or what parts of the image but the Canon tech guys told me I wouldn't miss the extra 2 bits... *shrugs*

OK ....I hear that is what they told you and no reflection on you BUT that is silly...sounds like marketing's way(hype) of saying that 10 bit and the depth it brings isn't important. Why have HD-SDI and not go all the way....I don't get it...

Ashley Hosking · January 3rd, 2006, 07:39 AM

Randy, I was only passing on the information because it may of been of use to you, seeing you were asking the question... I think its just as silly as you do.. I was just trying to keep a neutral stance on it.

The two "unmissed bits" are probably something to do with the uncompressed audio channels we seem to be *cough* MISSING from are lovely SDI output... *smile*

Either way it is sad it's not 10 bit HD-SDI / Uncompressed audio out via SDI, but its still alot better then anything else so far in the price range.

I just cant wait to pick mine up and start saving some more money towards the RED camera coming, its just a shame everything in Australia is so much more expensive then the States *half smile*

Cheers,
Ash

January 2nd, 2006, 11:27 AM	#1
Shannon Rawls Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 853	H1 as Hubble Telescope Replacement ......shrugging shoulders...Why not? Look people, everything can be an "Alternative" for everything but not a replacement. 35mm replacement? 16mm replacement? HDCAM replacement? no. Why, because it depends on the nature of your "project" you are shooting. So in reality, nothing is a replacement for nothing! Each camera is in a class of its own. Let's keep it real here. What would be the motivation for shooting a Panasonic HVX-200 or Canon XL-H1 over the Sony F950 CineAlta?? You got it... MONEY MONEY MONEY MOOONNNEEEYYY! smile There is no way on this planet the Canon XL-H1 can "replace" a 16mm or 35mm film camera! Please get that out of your heads! Replace it?? Heck no. But it can be used as an ALTERNATIVE to it. That's more down to earth. because if shooting film costs the SAME AMOUNT as shooting DV, this website would not be here. If shooting F900 costs the same amount as shooting XL-H1 this forum category wouldn't be here. I seen the XL-H1 side by side next to an F900 via HD-SDI @ a studio under ideal lighting conditions on a HD Reference Monitor..... - The F900 is BETTER. Hands down, no question. Laugh at anybody else who claimes to see otherwise. - Is the F900 $1,200.00/day in rental + crazy post production costs better? HELL NO, not in my opinion. I'd rather Buy and OWN a Canon XL-H1 and give that extra money to my DP, make the same movie, and 90% of the viewers won't know the difference. But like I said, of course, that all depends on the TYPE OF MOVIE I am shooting.... I, Shannon Rawls of sound mind & body, cannot, even with all my efforts and resources, re-make The Matrix using my Canon XL-H1. Sorry. But I betcha I can re-shoot Barbershop or Sideways and most guys won't be able to tell. smile These are HANDYCAMS guys. Say it with me... HAN-DEE-CAMS. smile Use them as alternatives to spending more money to receive a 'comparable' picure in the end. - ShannonRawls.com __________________ Shannon W. Rawls ~ Motion Picture Producer & huge advocate of Digital Acquisition.

January 2nd, 2006, 12:59 PM	#4
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	Spot on Shannon. Any camera is just a tool, and as any mechanic will tell you always use the right tool for the job. That may or may not be the most expensive, or the one with the shinyest chrome, but simply the one that fits the application best. Hi Steve... I get my XL H1 on Friday! Then I'll borrow a friends HD100 and we can set up a H1, HD100, Z1, HC1 shootout. Ummm.. Panasonic Broadcasts European HQ is less than a mile away, I wonder if they have any PAL HVX200's yet. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

January 2nd, 2006, 11:49 AM	#2
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	Shannon - Stop making sense!

January 2nd, 2006, 12:24 PM	#3
Pete Tomov Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 106	Oh, cut The Matrix talk!You could have gotten the same colors by grading black and white film stock! The red looked nice and punchy,I'll give 'em that,but there was red only in like 2 places in the whole trilogy. P.S. The first one looked the best. ...and I agree with the rest.

January 2nd, 2006, 01:14 PM	#5
Steve Connor Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: UK Posts: 383	We MUST do some HDSDI - uncompressed 10 bit capture at Cardinal with it, I'm sure a few people on the forum would be interested in those results.

January 2nd, 2006, 01:26 PM	#6
John Mercer Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Spain Posts: 73	I totally agree Shannon, except for one small point: I think HD certainly can rival 16mm. Infact I think it is almost a logical replacement in broadcast drama. Series like the BBC's Bleak House (do you get that stateside?) look exactly like very good modern fine grained Super 16mm, and in the UK all made for TV drama was traditionally shot on 16mm, so I think HD is naturally taking its place. I think the Canon, Panasonic and JVC are also capable of very film like images that can easily compare to 16mm too. I think this is where low cost HD is going to be really exciting - not aping big budget Hollywood but low cost genre pictures that used to be shot on 16mm by the likes of Romero and Tobe Hooper or good TV drama.

January 3rd, 2006, 07:39 AM	#13
Ashley Hosking Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 77	Randy, I was only passing on the information because it may of been of use to you, seeing you were asking the question... I think its just as silly as you do.. I was just trying to keep a neutral stance on it. The two "unmissed bits" are probably something to do with the uncompressed audio channels we seem to be cough MISSING from are lovely SDI output... smile Either way it is sad it's not 10 bit HD-SDI / Uncompressed audio out via SDI, but its still alot better then anything else so far in the price range. I just cant wait to pick mine up and start saving some more money towards the RED camera coming, its just a shame everything in Australia is so much more expensive then the States half smile Cheers, Ash