Xl-H1 is it good enough for TV documentary ?

Jarrod Whaley · June 17th, 2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Ojjeh

I don't know maybe that was not true HD display from a DVD.

Nope. It wasn't. DVD's are SD-only.

Pete Bauer · June 17th, 2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

I wonder if we could get an update from Discovery Channel?

Anyone have any contact with Discovery HD Theater?

Steve Rosen · June 18th, 2006, 09:19 AM

Really I think the point here is not whether the H1 is good enough for broadcast - it certainly is .. the real issue is how HDV is handled in post production, and that is still somewhat experimental because it's so new...

I've been using FCP since version 1.0 and am not inclined to change. I am editing HDV in FCP and planning to take my harddrive to a post house for broadcast specs... At this point I'm not getting a specific answer from the tech people anywhere because they seem to be vascilating about things..

In 1997-99 I was producing documentaries about public education for syndicated broadcast in California. At that time I was shooting DVCAM and editing with the newly implemented firewire on my computer. The tech people insisted on only using my edit as an off-line and re-editing the entire show weekly from my EDL to BetaSp on an analog system - a huge unnecessary expense of money and time - and it took me nearly two years to convince them that the edit out of my computer was actually better - as well as cheaper..

I think we will be experiencing some of that resistance to change in the coming year(s)...

Michael Ojjeh · June 18th, 2006, 04:47 PM

Steve.. you made a good point my first concern was the right camera and what I have gathered so far from everyone here that the XL-H1 is good enough for a TV documentary.
Now I know that is just the easy part choosing the XLH1 and what comes next is going to be my challenge, I edit with Vegas6 and I hope that is going to be Ok for HD, I will need CineForm and maybe Decklink Extreme or Multibridge Extreme from Blackmagic design for viewing and downloading and uploading HD. I am new in the HD production and I have to take one step at a time and experiment with it until I get the result that I want ( well it is the result that they want ) so I am going for it and I am going to get the XLH1 and hope for the best.

Steve Rosen · June 18th, 2006, 05:23 PM

From what Shannon Rawls has said in posts here and elsewhere, you probably have a good system with Vegas6...

In the early days of DV production on-line editors [those BetaSP die hards] were running for the hills screaming "compression artifacts!, compression artifacts!" Most people with human eyeballs couldn't even see what they were talking about.

Since then DV, as we all know, has even been used to create films for projection in theaters.. It's kind of funny to hear and read all the panic about compression artifacts again with HDV..

My opinion, and understand that it isn't an opinion shared by everyone, is that if it's a good film, well shot, and looks good to the better-than-average viewer, then, artifacts or no artifacts [and engineers be damned to an eternal life in Hell], it deserves to be on TV more than 90% of the technically approved garbage that does get broadcast...

June 18th, 2006, 09:19 AM	#18
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Really I think the point here is not whether the H1 is good enough for broadcast - it certainly is .. the real issue is how HDV is handled in post production, and that is still somewhat experimental because it's so new... I've been using FCP since version 1.0 and am not inclined to change. I am editing HDV in FCP and planning to take my harddrive to a post house for broadcast specs... At this point I'm not getting a specific answer from the tech people anywhere because they seem to be vascilating about things.. In 1997-99 I was producing documentaries about public education for syndicated broadcast in California. At that time I was shooting DVCAM and editing with the newly implemented firewire on my computer. The tech people insisted on only using my edit as an off-line and re-editing the entire show weekly from my EDL to BetaSp on an analog system - a huge unnecessary expense of money and time - and it took me nearly two years to convince them that the edit out of my computer was actually better - as well as cheaper.. I think we will be experiencing some of that resistance to change in the coming year(s)...

June 18th, 2006, 04:47 PM	#19
Michael Ojjeh Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 338	Steve.. you made a good point my first concern was the right camera and what I have gathered so far from everyone here that the XL-H1 is good enough for a TV documentary. Now I know that is just the easy part choosing the XLH1 and what comes next is going to be my challenge, I edit with Vegas6 and I hope that is going to be Ok for HD, I will need CineForm and maybe Decklink Extreme or Multibridge Extreme from Blackmagic design for viewing and downloading and uploading HD. I am new in the HD production and I have to take one step at a time and experiment with it until I get the result that I want ( well it is the result that they want ) so I am going for it and I am going to get the XLH1 and hope for the best.

June 18th, 2006, 05:23 PM	#20
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	From what Shannon Rawls has said in posts here and elsewhere, you probably have a good system with Vegas6... In the early days of DV production on-line editors [those BetaSP die hards] were running for the hills screaming "compression artifacts!, compression artifacts!" Most people with human eyeballs couldn't even see what they were talking about. Since then DV, as we all know, has even been used to create films for projection in theaters.. It's kind of funny to hear and read all the panic about compression artifacts again with HDV.. My opinion, and understand that it isn't an opinion shared by everyone, is that if it's a good film, well shot, and looks good to the better-than-average viewer, then, artifacts or no artifacts [and engineers be damned to an eternal life in Hell], it deserves to be on TV more than 90% of the technically approved garbage that does get broadcast...