Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Barlow Elton on Mar 11, 2006 at 9:36:34 pm
SDI mostly...but also consider the TC in/out and Genlock for live TV or multicam production. I own the camera and think the price is justified, although it would be a bigger hit if it were signifigantly less expensive.
Basically, the H1 gets much closer to HDCAM quality than even the Z1U, with more pro features, so it's a price point that makes one pause when given the alternatives, but Canon believes in their products' worthiness of the price tag, but the free market will decide.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Leo Baker on Mar 11, 2006 at 11:42:21 pm
Hello,
That's what I said today as well the SDI out and the Timecode in and out thats what seems to be the big price difference. I am not keen on the lens as not a proper lens with aperture and focus marks as I like a lens with a start and stop point.
Warm Regards,
LEO BAKER
SYNC FILMS
Web: www.syncfilms.com
E-Mail: leo@syncfilms.com
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Ed on Mar 12, 2006 at 5:48:03 pm
I've been reading a lot of posts on a lot of forums and lists, because I have to make a decision as to which camera
to buy, and I would say *none* of the HDV cameras, or the Panasonic HVX200, should be compared to HDCam.
In the tests that Adam Wilt participated in with Barry Green, and in the field tests with all the resulting clips posted on-line,
none of these under $10,000 USD cameras stood out as a clear winner, or compared well to HDCam or Varicam. The decision to buy one over another other comes
down to brand preference, features like interchangeable lenses, P2 vs tape, etc. The differences in noise, banding, and sensitivity
have been argued ad nauseum, argued even before some cameras existed "The Panasonic, with its real HD format is going
to blow away the HDV cameras". I'm amazed at how many thousands of HVX200 cameras were presold based on the hype, and
when the camera was released, and the once-secret chip size was released, the issues of noise and banding put a damper
on the excitement, with a lot of dissappointed buyers. The people who knew not to expect $70,000 performance from a $5-6,000
camera are generally pleased though.
Ed
[frederic castiau]"The canon is an other league of camera, you should compare it with hdcam gear!"
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Barlow Elton on Mar 12, 2006 at 6:14:39 pm
Actually, I think you can compare the XL-H1 to HDCAM, but not with outrageous expectations. It's my belief that Canon's target level was HDCAM, and many that have experience with the Sony gear have said it compares quite favorably, especially when factoring price. No, it's picture quality isn't identical, but it's already been used in multi-cam productions with HDCAM's and held up quite well. The limitations are of course, obvious, in that it's a bit noisier and has less DOF than the 2/3" cameras, but overall people are very happy with the image it produces.
I think the question for this camera category is which camera comes closest to the quality of the big boys? Well, IMHO, the H1 has to be considered a front runner in that dept.
[Leo Baker]"This seems interesting when some users say the Canon HDV is like a HDCAM. it would be very interesting to see some side by side comprasions?"
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Ed on Mar 12, 2006 at 7:31:18 pm
The Adam Wilt, Barry Green, Jay Nemeth, et al test was pretty representative of most user reports. Here are some excerpts
related to the Canon:
Ed
Amongst the 1/3" cameras, all aside from the Sony Z1 had noticeably noisier images than the 2/3" cameras. The Z1 looked almost as clean as the 2/3" cameras. The Z1 lagged in sharpness and aliasing, tying (as I saw it) with the HVX200, and its highlight handling was a bit less accomplished than the others.
...The Canon XL H1 was the resolution champ amongst the 1/3" cameras, with a crisper, visibly more detailed image than its compatriots.
...In 60i, vertical resolution (of the Canon) was a solid 700+ lines; in 24f mode, we thought it looked like half-resolution material on the monitors, consistent with what you'd get with field-doubling. Looking at the captured clips, especially the Combi-2.3's bullseyes, I'd have to say that it certainly looks like field-doubled vertical sampling, with about 540 TV lines usable, although certain aspects of the image "feel" sharper. I'm not sure how to describe it, but perhaps Canon's secret sauce for creating 24f results in a perceptually sharper picture than plain field-doubling, even if the clues I can glean from the interference patterns on the bullseyes would indicate otherwise.
...The Canon clipped highlights a bit more harshly than the HVX did
... HVX200 was not the resolution winner, but it did a very good job on skin tones, handling highlights cleanly. It showed less noise than the Canon by a slight amount,
...While the Canon was slightly crisper, the JVC rendered a more naturalistic, more alias-free image while yielding only a little ground in terms of raw resolution
...All the 1/3" cameras clustered together more tightly than we expected. Each camera excelled at some aspect of image rendering, but all of them were more alike than different; none stood out as being clearly superior all around.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Barlow Elton on Mar 12, 2006 at 8:10:32 pm
OK, enough with the res tests and other esoterica. Here are some nice XL-H1 shots from Michael Pappas. He used the XL2 16x manual lens to boot! You'll need VLC player on either Mac or PC, and I think the latest WMP also plays the raw m2t's.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Steve Connor on Mar 12, 2006 at 10:27:13 pm
Of all the lower budget HD cameras the H1 is the best to use alongside HDCam if you want a B roll camera, it can cut in with HDCam very well - I know because we've done it.
Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television
Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Ed on Mar 13, 2006 at 1:02:39 am
Have you used the JVC, Sony, and Panasonic too? You say the Canon is the best; based on shooting with them all
and deciding which was the best, or just the Canon, which obviously looked good to you? It may seem nitpicky, but if you've only
cut Canon footage with HDCam, then it may be valid to say it looks good, but hard to say it's the best (without shooting
with them all).
Ed
[Steve Connor]"Of all the lower budget HD cameras the H1 is the best to use alongside HDCam if you want a B roll camera, it can cut in with HDCam very well - I know because we've done it."
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Ken Hodson on Mar 13, 2006 at 2:29:01 am
Well logic would say that the Canon would intercut best with interlaced HD cams while the JVC would intercut best with progressive. Both the HVX and FX/Z1 are quite a bit lower rez based on the rez chart test comparisons.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Ken Hodson on Mar 13, 2006 at 7:09:44 am
Oh it would intercut fine, but it wouldn't be optimal. When comparing progressive, 24F is rated at about 540+ TV lines, where as the JVC is rated at 700+ TV lines. HDCAM is closer to 1000 TV lines when shooting 1080p.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Inkling on Mar 13, 2006 at 8:48:16 am
I don't have any practical experience with HD yet, so let me see if I can get my mind wrapped around this. I'm trying to understand the technical nature of the various resolutions and how to handle them.
Where do HD's extra scan lines go in Standard Definition? If an HD or HDV frame is larger than an SD 500-some line screen, must you crop the top and sides of the frame to view it in SD?
Assuming something like this is the case: When intercutting different HD resolutions for an SD program, is it fair to say that 24F's 540+ TV lines are more than enough for SD and, therefore, no worse than the JVC's 700+ TV lines (as far as SD is concerned)?
When dealing with various flavors of HD on an HD monitor, what exactly happens with the lines of resolution? Is lower-rez footage being blown up to fit the higher-resolution screen, resulting in larger pixels?
I'm having a hard time articulating my questions; hopefully this is making some kind of sense.
Ken Hodson: "Oh it would intercut fine, but it wouldn't be optimal. When comparing progressive, 24F is rated at about 540+ TV lines, where as the JVC is rated at 700+ TV lines. HDCAM is closer to 1000 TV lines when shooting 1080p."
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Inkling on Mar 13, 2006 at 9:14:01 am
Also, let me see if I have this straight: Maximum resolution in the HD spec is 1920x1080 for 1080i and 1280x720 for 720p? Does "full raster" refer to having the maximum resolution? Or does it refer to pixel sampling? Or something else entirely?
How can the XL-H1 with its 1440x1080-pixel CCDs be considered 16:9? They're different ratios.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Steven L. Gotz on Mar 13, 2006 at 2:37:02 pm
If you take into account that the 1440 pixels are one third wider than they are tall, they take up the same space as 1920 pixels (1440/1.333=1920) then the 16:9 makes sense.
[Steven L. Gotz]"If you take into account that the 1440 pixels are one third wider than they are tall, they take up the same space as 1920 pixels (1440/1.333=1920) then the 16:9 makes sense."
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Steve Connor on Mar 13, 2006 at 7:56:17 pm
[Ed]"Have you used the JVC, Sony, and Panasonic too? You say the Canon is the best; based on shooting with them all
and deciding which was the best, or just the Canon, which obviously looked good to you? It may seem nitpicky, but if you've only
cut Canon footage with HDCam, then it may be valid to say it looks good, but hard to say it's the best (without shooting
with them all"
I've edited with footgage from all of them apart from the Panasonic which, from the footage I have downloaded does not have quite the resolution of the Canon.
If I was shooting With a Varicam I'd use the HVX for B roll.
Steve Connor
Adrenalin Television
Have you tried "Search Posts"? Enlightenment may be there.
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Ed on Mar 13, 2006 at 9:04:46 pm
You've intercut *all* of them with HDCam? Hmmm. I must live too far in the boonies. We don't get that much
variety here.
Ed
[Steve Connor]"[Ed] "Have you used the JVC, Sony, and Panasonic too? You say the Canon is the best; based on shooting with them all
and deciding which was the best, or just the Canon, which obviously looked good to you? It may seem nitpicky, but if you've only
cut Canon footage with HDCam, then it may be valid to say it looks good, but hard to say it's the best (without shooting
with them all"
I've edited with footgage from all of them apart from the Panasonic which, from the footage I have downloaded does not have quite the resolution of the Canon.
If I was shooting With a Varicam I'd use the HVX for B roll."
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by Borjis on Mar 13, 2006 at 9:59:41 pm
[Ed]"'m amazed at how many thousands of HVX200 cameras were presold based on the hype, and
when the camera was released, and the once-secret chip size was released, the issues of noise and banding put a damper
on the excitement, with a lot of dissappointed buyers."
[Borjis]"[Ed] "'m amazed at how many thousands of HVX200 cameras were presold based on the hype, and
when the camera was released, and the once-secret chip size was released, the issues of noise and banding put a damper
on the excitement, with a lot of dissappointed buyers."
Re: Canon XL H1 why so expensive? by BillM on Mar 13, 2006 at 2:37:11 pm
This past Saturday I attended a video expo in the Boston area. Don Berube gave a presentation on the Canon XL H1. Don said the H1 was designed primarily for the broadcast industry. That is one reason why it has a 1.5Gbps SDI output. Considering the camera is targeted for the broadcast industry, has the same Digilogic processor that Canon's high end $8,000 digital still camera has, comes with a newly designed L series lens HD lens, the price seems appropriate at this point in time. Don hinted there may be other variations of the H1 available in the future. I'm hoping Canon offers a model without the SDI output targeted for event videographers at a much lower price point. We should hear more at NAB.
