XL H1

Lindsay Mann · September 28, 2005

reading on macworld.com about the new Canon XL H1, I found that "Canon doesn?t state this explicitly, but the HDV specifications allows for 1,920-x-1,080 capture only at 60i... 30p and 24p are captured at 1,440-x-720."

A) why would this be the case?

B) is this the case with the new HD Panasonic coming out also?

C) I've strongly considered getting an XL 2, should I even bother with Standard Def anymore? Should I save and buy the new HD cam, or wait until it comes out so the XL2's price drops?

Been needing a decent camera for a very long time.

All suggestions welcome. Maybe I should just scrap the idea and find a super 8 camera.

Jay Gladwell · September 30, 2005

To get the best of what this camera does out of it, you'd have to use this in a studio. The uncompressed option requires ship-loads of storage. If you're simply going to record to mini-DV, then buy a less expensive camera. Or get the XL2.

The real drawback to all HDV at this time is there is no way to deliver HD, unless you're going to a network broadcast or the web, and that's an oxymoron, in my opinion.

Jay

Daniel Smith · January 15, 2007

Sorry if this has been answered, I searched in this place and elsewhere but couldn't find anything.

What exactly DOES the 'F' mode do?

The best I can think it does is deinterlace only the moving pixels. Like a smart deinterlace.

Thanks.

Oron Cohen · January 15, 2007

Sorry if this has been answered, I searched in this place and elsewhere but couldn't find anything.

What exactly DOES the 'F' mode do?

The best I can think it does is deinterlace only the moving pixels. Like a smart deinterlace.

Thanks.

here you go, hope it will hellp.

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...7194&hl=24f

Troy Warr · January 15, 2007

Hi Lindsay,

I agree with Jay in that, assuming price is an important factor in your decision of camera, the Canon XL-H1 is best reserved for studio shooting. Its major advantage over a much cheaper camera like the Canon XH-A1 is that it features HD-SDI output, which tethers you to an uncompressed HD capture device, hence is (in most conditions) limited to the studio for recording in that way. Other than that, it differs from the XH-A1 in basically the same ways that the XL-2 differs from the GL-2.

As for the macworld.com quote, I can't quite wrap my head around that claim, unless the XL-H1 somehow circumvents the HDV codec when recording to tape. I'm assuming that they meant to say that the HDV spec calls for 1080/60i only, and that 30p and 24p have to be somehow encoded within that stream (as some brands now do). All 1080i encoding in HDV is done at 1440x1080 resolution - that's a limitation of the format, and you won't ever get full 1920x1080 resolution in the HDV format to the best of my knowledge. 720p is a different story, as the HDV format allows for full-frame resolution (1280x720) there. I'm not sure where the 1440x720 resolution in the quote comes from - but I think that has to be a mix-up, since HDV 1080i is 1440x1080, and HDV 720p is 1280x720 - there is no 1440x720. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

In sum, any HDV camera, not just the XL-H1, is going to have to follow these specifications when recording to DV tape. Some HDV cameras offer outputs (HD-SDI, HDMI) that allow you to bypass the lossy HDV compression and record to an external device, though again, that will likely limit you the studio, or will at least require you to tether the camera to a PC in the field - which may or may not be OK, depending on your needs when shooting. Here's a chart of the HDV spec that I Googled - not sure about the source but I've seen the bulk of this information corroborated by a number of reliable sources. There's also a Wikipedia article that's worth a read.

Still, I think it's worth seriously considering HD if you're looking for a camera that's going to last you a while. True, HDTV is far from widespread adoption, but if you have any plans or hopes for film-out, or for material that's going to be optimally viewable in a few years, I think HD is still the way to go.

What kind of stuff do you shoot, and what are your needs in a camera? Perhaps we can recommend something based on that. BTW, which HD Panasonic are you referring to?

Daniel Smith · January 16, 2007

Ok thanks Oren.

How much difference in quality is there between the compressed HDV and the DV recordings? What I'm saying is, will it be worth recording uncompressed directly into an SDI card or will some JVC HDV tapes be fine.

Are we talking a visible difference, or does it just all come down to overhead for grading during post. (less latitude e.t.c.)

Cheers.

(This question applying to the JVC HDV models mostly)

Edited January 16, 2007 by Daniel Ashley-Smith

Michael Hydzik · January 22, 2007

How much difference in quality is there between the compressed HDV and the DV recordings? What I'm saying is, will it be worth recording uncompressed directly into an SDI card or will some JVC HDV tapes be fine.

Are we talking a visible difference, or does it just all come down to overhead for grading during post. (less latitude e.t.c.)

Cheers.

(This question applying to the JVC HDV models mostly)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may also depend on what you final output will be. But aslo remember uncompressed footage will take up a lot of hard drive space. Tapes usualy work fine for me, but if size isnt a factor go for it.