OT: Canon Goes HD.... Finally :)
FrigidNDEditing
wrote on 9/14/2005, 8:52 AM
Comments
Coursedesign
wrote on 9/14/2005, 10:18 AM
Looks great in every way, except strange that it doesn't have 24P when the XL2 has it.
p@mast3rs
wrote on 9/14/2005, 10:54 AM
I saw the 24p mode.
"# Under the "HDV1080i" (HDV) specifications, 1440 x 1080 (16:9) images in 60 fields (or 50 fields for PAL*) are recorded. (60i/50i recording)
</li>
# Under the "HDV1080i" (HDV) specifications, 1440 x 1080 (16:9) images in 30 frames (or 25 frames for PAL*) are recorded. (30F/25F recording)
# Under the "HDV1080i" (HDV) specifications, 1440 x 1080 (16:9) images in 24 frames are recorded. (24F recording)"
Looks sweet, bet it costs a fortune.
"# Under the "HDV1080i" (HDV) specifications, 1440 x 1080 (16:9) images in 60 fields (or 50 fields for PAL*) are recorded. (60i/50i recording)
</li>
# Under the "HDV1080i" (HDV) specifications, 1440 x 1080 (16:9) images in 30 frames (or 25 frames for PAL*) are recorded. (30F/25F recording)
# Under the "HDV1080i" (HDV) specifications, 1440 x 1080 (16:9) images in 24 frames are recorded. (24F recording)"
Looks sweet, bet it costs a fortune.
filmy
wrote on 9/14/2005, 11:02 AM
Looks great but comes at a cost.
>>>According to the source close to Canon USA, the new model will fall somewhere in the price range from $10,000 - $12,000, with a lens<<<
Also the 24 mode doesn't seem to be "real" 24p - they just call it a 24F (frame) mode. XL-HD1 Has a 60i, 30F and a 24F mode but doesn't really define if it is actually shooting 24 fps or if it is just doing a pulldown assignment and/or blending like other cameras that have "frame modes" are.
I think more offical news will be coming out today here in New York. There is a new forum at:
http://www.xlhdv.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2
>>>According to the source close to Canon USA, the new model will fall somewhere in the price range from $10,000 - $12,000, with a lens<<<
Also the 24 mode doesn't seem to be "real" 24p - they just call it a 24F (frame) mode. XL-HD1 Has a 60i, 30F and a 24F mode but doesn't really define if it is actually shooting 24 fps or if it is just doing a pulldown assignment and/or blending like other cameras that have "frame modes" are.
I think more offical news will be coming out today here in New York. There is a new forum at:
http://www.xlhdv.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2
MUTTLEY
wrote on 9/14/2005, 11:04 AM
jkrepner
wrote on 9/14/2005, 11:43 AM
Cool, I'll be able to keep my XL1 Portabrace bag when and if I go to HD-land! I'm sure this has to sell for under 6K, I'd guess around 5K.
Edit: I can't believe Canon didn't have this at NAB this year to show.
Edit: I can't believe Canon didn't have this at NAB this year to show.
p@mast3rs
wrote on 9/14/2005, 12:02 PM
"I'm sure this has to sell for under 6K, I'd guess around 5K. "
No way. I wish it was but Id say closer to $10k. SDI and BNC connectors. This thing is loaded big time. If it does go to $5-6k, they will take a chunk of the Sony market for sure.
No way. I wish it was but Id say closer to $10k. SDI and BNC connectors. This thing is loaded big time. If it does go to $5-6k, they will take a chunk of the Sony market for sure.
RalphM
wrote on 9/14/2005, 12:14 PM
One encouraging note: this is listed on Canon's consumer site. that usually implies a price level that should be well below 5 figures.
jetdv
wrote on 9/14/2005, 12:15 PM
According to this page the MSRP is $9000
jkrepner
wrote on 9/14/2005, 12:18 PM
pmasters, yeah you're right - I didn't notice the SDI in/out when I posted. But I guess the thing that sort of makes me think it HAS to be well under 10K is that it is still a 1/3 CCD camcorder. The new Sony HDV cams are not that much more money than the SD models they seem poised to replace, so I can't see why Canon would be any different. In fact, the SDI i/o seems sort of weird on this camera. You would think that the *normal* XL1/2 owner would naturally be moving towards the XLH1 and as far as I can tell, there isn't people demanding SD/HD-SDI i/o. If its like the XL1, it is not really designed for the harsh ENG world and they don't seem designed for use as studio cameras either. I guess the idea is with SD/HD-SDI out, the footage can be more easily ingested in high-end post gear.
I'm still going to wait a few more months to see the Panny HVX200 with the variable frame rate feature (as in overcrank/undercrank), or the JVC with a *real* manual lens. The new canon looks to have another servo controlled hunker like on my XL1. Which I hate!
I'm still going to wait a few more months to see the Panny HVX200 with the variable frame rate feature (as in overcrank/undercrank), or the JVC with a *real* manual lens. The new canon looks to have another servo controlled hunker like on my XL1. Which I hate!
Coursedesign
wrote on 9/14/2005, 1:38 PM
dvinfo.net says:
The Canon 30F and 24F frame rates and the technology which creates them are related in no way whatsoever to the current Sony HDV implementations known as CineFrame 30 and CineFrame 24 (which have been commonly referred to as CF30 and CF24). Instead, the Canon 30F and 24F frame rates are identical to the 30P and 24P results produced by progressive scan CCDs. The Canon XL H1 CCD block is interlace, not progressive, therefore the 30fps and 24fps frame rates cannot be referred to technically as 30P and 24P. However, 30F and 24F from the XL H1 appear identical to 30P and 24P, as they are basically the same results as progressive, but produced by different means. When the XL H1 is set to Frame recording, the CCDs are actually clocked at 24 frames per second. The video signal remains at 24fps as it is passed from the CCD block to the baseband LSI, and through the HD Codec LSI. Only when it reaches the recording output stage is it resampled to 60i via a 3:2 pull-up method.
Same results, with interlaced CCDs? I don't think so. Time will have passed between the odd line scan and the even line scan. Anything moving will have shifted.
The Canon 30F and 24F frame rates and the technology which creates them are related in no way whatsoever to the current Sony HDV implementations known as CineFrame 30 and CineFrame 24 (which have been commonly referred to as CF30 and CF24). Instead, the Canon 30F and 24F frame rates are identical to the 30P and 24P results produced by progressive scan CCDs. The Canon XL H1 CCD block is interlace, not progressive, therefore the 30fps and 24fps frame rates cannot be referred to technically as 30P and 24P. However, 30F and 24F from the XL H1 appear identical to 30P and 24P, as they are basically the same results as progressive, but produced by different means. When the XL H1 is set to Frame recording, the CCDs are actually clocked at 24 frames per second. The video signal remains at 24fps as it is passed from the CCD block to the baseband LSI, and through the HD Codec LSI. Only when it reaches the recording output stage is it resampled to 60i via a 3:2 pull-up method.
Same results, with interlaced CCDs? I don't think so. Time will have passed between the odd line scan and the even line scan. Anything moving will have shifted.
Jay Gladwell
wrote on 9/14/2005, 1:41 PM
For $9,000 I am underwhelmed.
filmy
wrote on 9/14/2005, 4:06 PM
According to the website I mentioned :
In the next few hours we'll have some video from the CanonExpo2005 press conference where they debuted the HDV XLH1 this morning.
In the next few hours we'll have some video from the CanonExpo2005 press conference where they debuted the HDV XLH1 this morning.
winrockpost
wrote on 9/14/2005, 4:20 PM
Ok, what I been witing for to join the hdv boys and girls ,but $$$$$$$ ouch.
FrigidNDEditing
wrote on 9/14/2005, 6:05 PM
($)/\($)
(--)/\(--)
($)/\($)
($)/\($)
No kidding :) BIG bux
Dave
(--)/\(--)
($)/\($)
($)/\($)
No kidding :) BIG bux
Dave
jlafferty
wrote on 9/15/2005, 2:05 PM
For $9,000 I am underwhelmed.
I agree.
I agree.
farss
wrote on 9/15/2005, 2:50 PM
Info I've read indicates that the CCDs are scanned in true progressive mode for 24F and in interlaced for 60i. All the confusion comes from the fact that it writes the frame as two fields, they are however taken at the same point in time, ergo, this is true progressive scan. To the best of my knowledge no camera writes full frames to tape as no tapes system can handle that.
This is one awesome beast, apart from the HD SDI output you also get genlock inputs, this is what you need for multicamera shoots.
The HD SDI output would seem to be 4.2.2 or one can also get SD SDI output to feed a digibetacam deck, truly awsome stuff.
If you think it's expensive, compare the price to what you'd pay to get a SD Sony camera with the same capability, then factor in that, as an added bonus it'll shoot HD! Also you get enough image tweaks to keep you playing for months and you can save your setups to a SD card, if only the Z1 had that capability.
Bob.
This is one awesome beast, apart from the HD SDI output you also get genlock inputs, this is what you need for multicamera shoots.
The HD SDI output would seem to be 4.2.2 or one can also get SD SDI output to feed a digibetacam deck, truly awsome stuff.
If you think it's expensive, compare the price to what you'd pay to get a SD Sony camera with the same capability, then factor in that, as an added bonus it'll shoot HD! Also you get enough image tweaks to keep you playing for months and you can save your setups to a SD card, if only the Z1 had that capability.
Bob.
p@mast3rs
wrote on 9/15/2005, 2:57 PM
Canon definitely has upped the ante with regards to Sony. Anyone care to guess how Sony responds? If money wasnt an issue, Id have the Canon no doubt. Hopefully this will spark the other players to bring more to the table when it comes to HDV cams.
farss
wrote on 9/15/2005, 3:18 PM
You've got to feel sorry for Panasonic, no I don't, if they'd put as much effort into R&D as they did in sending out their minions to spread FUD about the Z1 maybe they wouldn't be in this position.
Still the Canon uses only 1/3" CCDs and that is an issue. I'd say they've gone as far as one would want to with 1/3" CCDs and upping the CCD size means way more cost and a bigger form factor.
Bob.
Still the Canon uses only 1/3" CCDs and that is an issue. I'd say they've gone as far as one would want to with 1/3" CCDs and upping the CCD size means way more cost and a bigger form factor.
Bob.
SimonW
wrote on 9/16/2005, 12:59 AM
The whole HD thing is FUD. "You need to buy new equipment or your business will die". "Everyone will laugh at you if you don't have an HD camera"...
Fact is that a 1/3"ccd camera cannot resolve HD resolutions above f5 anyway. Funny how the manufacturers never mention that in their PR!
Fact is that a 1/3"ccd camera cannot resolve HD resolutions above f5 anyway. Funny how the manufacturers never mention that in their PR!
Grazie
wrote on 9/16/2005, 3:24 AM
"Fact is that a 1/3"ccd camera cannot resolve HD resolutions above f5 anyway."
Oh yes? . .. Interesting ..
Grazie
Oh yes? . .. Interesting ..
Grazie
Spot|DSE
wrote on 9/16/2005, 4:53 AM
Not me. If you're going to do an interchangeable lens system, and don't want to suffer what JVC is suffering, you put out a cam that has great glass on the front end. The JVC looks pretty good with the 10k Fuji lens on it, I just saw one last night. So....a 16k camera for lens and body if you want the JVC to look decent, even though it's still only 720p. Canon seems to have compromised, putting great glass on the cam with a solid and trustworthy back end.
Glass is easily the second most important component in the system, and the primary most important component overall. Canon doesn't do cheap glass, so you can expect that even on the far end of the lens, I'll wager this camera looks great. And a huge part of the 9k retail cost....is the lens.
Glass is easily the second most important component in the system, and the primary most important component overall. Canon doesn't do cheap glass, so you can expect that even on the far end of the lens, I'll wager this camera looks great. And a huge part of the 9k retail cost....is the lens.
jlafferty
wrote on 9/16/2005, 5:06 AM
Feel sorry for Panasonic? I'm sorry but I just don't get that... FUD about the Z1? What are you talking about?
Coursedesign
wrote on 9/16/2005, 7:46 AM
Info I've read indicates that the CCDs are scanned in true progressive mode for 24F and in interlaced for 60i.
Unfortunately that doesn't fit in with Canon's description. Scanning CCDs in progressive mode leads to a number of signal problems that must be solved, the end result is not practical unless the CCDs are designed for progressive use.
CCDs are ugly beasts! The only company that has truly tamed the beast is Thompson with their Viper Film Stream camera, what they do is equivalent to making elephants dance. They can change resolution, pixel aspect ratio and a lot of other things "on the fly."
All the confusion comes from the fact that it writes the frame as two fields, they are however taken at the same point in time, ergo, this is true progressive scan. To the best of my knowledge no camera writes full frames to tape as no tapes system can handle that.
Sony calls it 24PsF, as in "24P segemented frames, ir. stored as two fields that are not temporally separate however.
Unfortunately that doesn't fit in with Canon's description. Scanning CCDs in progressive mode leads to a number of signal problems that must be solved, the end result is not practical unless the CCDs are designed for progressive use.
CCDs are ugly beasts! The only company that has truly tamed the beast is Thompson with their Viper Film Stream camera, what they do is equivalent to making elephants dance. They can change resolution, pixel aspect ratio and a lot of other things "on the fly."
All the confusion comes from the fact that it writes the frame as two fields, they are however taken at the same point in time, ergo, this is true progressive scan. To the best of my knowledge no camera writes full frames to tape as no tapes system can handle that.
Sony calls it 24PsF, as in "24P segemented frames, ir. stored as two fields that are not temporally separate however.
farss
wrote on 9/16/2005, 8:32 AM
I don't know of any problems scanning a CCD in progressive mode other than you have half the time to do it in, which can be quite a challenge. Panasonic seem to have solved this with their DVX 100 although a HD CCD would present a further challenge given the higher pixel count.
I can think of no reason why if you can scan all the pixels in the allocated time why you can't scan every second line in half that time.
One thing I don't understand though, if as I understand it CCDs are scanned, not all read at once, and those little capacitors are still being hit by light while they're being scanned then the last ones to be scanned have been more affected by the light than the first ones to be scanned.
Bob.
I can think of no reason why if you can scan all the pixels in the allocated time why you can't scan every second line in half that time.
One thing I don't understand though, if as I understand it CCDs are scanned, not all read at once, and those little capacitors are still being hit by light while they're being scanned then the last ones to be scanned have been more affected by the light than the first ones to be scanned.
Bob.