Jump to content


Photo

BOO


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 DOsborne

DOsborne
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Student
  • NYC

Posted 20 March 2006 - 04:12 AM

Why couldn't Canon have a progressive scan option? Is that really a prohibitively expensive addition? I'm of the belief that HDV- Mpeg compression sucks but everything else about this camera is thoroughly desirable.

The HD-SDI output is great; I could capture an uncompressed signal with a Decklink HD card or compress that signal with something like DVCPRO HD as it comes in to my computer. Drawback: the darn thing has to be tethered to my computer but I could take full advantage of the 1440x1080 CCDs and avoid subjecting the images to mpeg encoding. BUT, of course, the material getting pumped out of the CCDs is interlaced. BOOOO!

Ok so here's a question. I'm livid that the HVX-200 has CCDs that belong on an SD camera and thus, suffers a horrendous loss in the resolution department. I love the idea of 1080p but not when it only seems (to one's eye and a vectorscope) to have only 540 lines of resolution (i base the evidence of this bizzare tyraid on the results from the 6 camera shootout that seems to be posted everywhere). It seems kind of like printing the output of my GL-1 onto IMAX film, after pixel shifting it of course which supposedly saves the day. So anyways back to that question...

It's kind of a subjective question but whatever, would anyone see value in using the XL H1 for the sole purpose of tethering it to an HD-SDI card? If using a 50m cable this doesn't seem so bad. I really want a 24 fps look and a 24p final output to possibly print to film. Is the higher resolution of the canon worth the loss of progressively scanned images? Does the 24f nonsense look that bad when viewed progressively? I've seen some frame grabs where the interlacing is apparent but what do I know.

I read a long thread in which someone named Shannon or Shelly who owned an XL H1 said the 24f looked really good and also that the interlaced data flying out of the imaging device was somehow pulled down and run through a 3:2 conversion to be written like 24p on the tape, does this data come out of the HD-SDI port? Meaning if I were capturing the HD-SDI output of the camera while in 24f mode would i be getting the data with 3:2 pulled-down info (assumedly repeated frames or whatnot) or would i be just getting straight 60i or 48i?

Thank you all for your help. I'm producing my thesis for film school, shooting at the end of June and clearly, if this post gets timestamped, I'm losing sleep wishing I could afford a varicam, viper or f900 but trying to get the best that I can with what I have in hopes of not short-changing the potential of the story.

Even I check out prematurely sometimes when I see something that looks crappy (or I should say, something that doesn't look like what I'm used to seeing at the cineplex/what i've come to associate with overall quality)
  • 0

#2 Robert Sanders

Robert Sanders
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Director
  • Studio City, CA

Posted 23 March 2006 - 12:44 PM

Don't jump to conclusions based on a white paper.

The CCDs are clocked at 48Hz and are cleverly de-interlaced uising both fields, clocked simultaneously, plus some mild pixel-shifting to creating an extremely convcing and believable progressive images. The HD-SDI feed is full raster 1920x1080 4:2:2 progressive and/or interlaced images depending on which mode you have the camera switched to. Also, all comparison tests between the H1, HVX, and JVC have shown that the Canon produces the highest resolution with the least objectionable noise characterisitcs.

I have recently shot a Disney project completely on a greenscreen with the camera tethered to my PowerMac and a DeckLink Pro HD card. I captured to both DVProHD (at 1440x1080, 30P) and MotionJPEG (at full raster) in 30P. Both with exceptional results. The footage keys gorgeously.

Also, Scott Billups has shot some side by side comparison tests with the H1 and the F900 and he was blown away at how well the H1 held up next to F900. He mentioned that the H1 actually keys better.

Also, Billups had the footage filmed out to 35mm at Fotokem and everyone involved with the tests were blown away by the results.

Also, the Wafian HR-1 recorder using the Cineform codec (which will be ported to Quiktime soon) is a very viable solution rather than hauling around a mobile IT department or a $100k HDCAM-SR deck.

Am I biased toward the Canon H1? You betcha. I put my money on it and have loved everything I've shot with it. Is it perfect. No it isn't. But I don't expect any 1/3" camera to be the holy grail either.
  • 0

#3 PappasArts

PappasArts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 March 2006 - 04:53 PM

Robert Sanders is right; don't jump to any conclusions. However Canon does it, it's not a de-interlace. Canon is very smart at this so they have developed an amazing formula to make it work. Below are Pics from Billups own tests. I also recommend going to Sanders web site and checking out his night time 2:35:1 ( which is my favorite aspect ratio ) footage looking over the skyline in LA. Excellent stuff!

Here are the tests and story:
http://cineform.blogspot.com/

http://www.cineform....orChart-D2D.zip
http://www.cineform....orChart-HDV.zip
http://www.cineform....icChart-D2D.zip
http://www.cineform....icChart-HDV.zip
http://www.cineform....esChart-D2D.zip


MORE XLH1 FOOTAGE AND FRAME GRABS:

LINK: http://homepage.mac....&cty=US&lang=en

You will need this VLC player to view m2t's
http://www.videolan.org/

Michael Pappas
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 FOOTAGE AND FRAME GRABS:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts


[quote name='Starway2001' date='Mar 23 2006, 09:44 AM' post='97263']
Don't jump to conclusions based on a white paper.
  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 28 March 2006 - 08:00 PM

Hi,

> Also, all comparison tests between the H1, HVX, and JVC have shown that the Canon produces the
> highest resolution with the least objectionable noise characterisitcs.

At least one published review - which I know of because I wrote it - concluded that the XLH1 progressive output and the HD100 progressive output were close enough in resolution, off HDV tape, to make further testing necessary, even with the ropey lens on the HD100.

I hope to perform this testing sometime before NAB, using uncompressed recording. Although the XLH1 lens is good, and the interlaced picture is certainly best in class, it's far from clear what the best way to go for progressive output is. I strongly suspect that a software deinterlace in post would be much better than the in-camera interpolation, which is pretty poor by anyone's standards.

> it's not a de-interlace.

Yes it is. That's exactly what it is.

> Canon is very smart at this so they have developed an amazing formula to make it work.

Looks like a fairly coarse 2:1 resample to me. Normally this sort of thing is determined by how much processing power you have on the DSP. Doing properly weighted resampling is a pretty big deal.

Phil
  • 0

#5 PappasArts

PappasArts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 03:00 AM

My findings as well. Since I own both the HD100 and XLH1. I get to test them daily and see the nuts and bolts on the res. Pretty much within a nod of each other as res is concerned if you leave them in there generic frame size. XLH1 is cleaner under blow up tests. However the biggest of them all is the Resolution Convergence Factor. Converging detail is nearly twice as large on the H1 because the frame of the H1 is larger! When we import efx work from the HD100, and up-convert to 1080p the frame gets softer where as the H1 is at it's starting gate at 1080p. We can up-convert the H1 to Cineon files whereas out HD100 just can't go anywhere near that. If the HD100 with it's same ccd sent out to a 1080p frame size, that would have been awesome.

Here you can see the cams in action:
http://homepage.mac....hotoAlbum4.html

Clips from both cameras Here:
http://homepage.mac....&cty=US&lang=en


Michael Pappas
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts
Arrfilms@hotmail.com
PappasArts & Arrfilms Main site
CONTACT VIA AOL INSTANT MESSENGER
AT { PAPPASARTS2 }
XLH1 and HVX200 frame grabs and news here:
http://www.pbase.com/Arrfilms
http://www.PappasArts.com
http://www.Myspace.com/PappasArts



Hi,
At least one published review - which I know of because I wrote it - concluded that the XLH1 progressive output and the HD100 progressive output were close enough in resolution, off HDV tape, to make further testing necessary, even with the ropey lens on the HD100.
Phil


  • 0

#6 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 04:11 AM

The XLH1 is 1080i not 1080p. None of the HDV cameras are 1080p.

Certainly the Canon has more pixels on its sensors than the JVC. However, 720p seems to be pushing the current limits of the 1/3" ccd cameras and 1080p is (at present) only found on the larger chip cameras.
  • 0

#7 PappasArts

PappasArts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 05:40 AM

I was talking about it's 24F/Progressive capture that is PsF into a 1080i host. However if you capture the file from FireWire it's true 24FPS not PsF at all! That's what I was talking about, sorry I didn't clarify! As I said since I own both, I can be a very good judge of both cameras. We run both signals to the Sony BVM-A24E1WU 24-Inch HD monitors and it's no secret in 24FPS which one is the sharpest and has the most detail.

However what Scott Billups said today is worth gold for Canon. Here are a few observations from an event in NewYork. However we here knew this since we work with these cams daily.

One thing is for sure with all these great cameras to pick from; It's become an embarrassment of riches.


---- Galvan Wrote: Scott Billups story!

So I went to a Canon presentation today in NYC that had many of the major Canon people responsible for the XL-H1. They had a full presentation on the XL-H1 along with footage that was shown on these huge 50+" HD screens.

All I can say is DAMN ... what nice looking stuff. I'm certainly glad I purchased this camera.

But what was interesting was Scott Billups was also at the presentation and gave a mini presentation himself on his thoughts on the XL-H1. He surprised me a little on some of his comments in regards to the camera. He did a lot of comparisons between the Canon and the Sony F900, saying that going out of the HD-SDI to a high quality recording format from the Canon gave superior results than from the Sony F900 HDCam.

He also showed comparisons of the Canon alongside the Thompson Viper and said that the difference in quality is so little, it's really unbelieveable. And watching the footage from both cameras side by side at the presentation certainly showed what he meant.

Another thing that was interesting to me was that he actually said that the CCDs of the Canon are very comparable to the CCDs of the F900, saying that even though they are 1/3" chips, they are so new and represent the latest in this technology and they are very similar to the quality of the Sony's 2/3" chips. When someone asked him about the lattitude of the camera, he also said that the lattitude of the XL-H1 was pretty much equal to the F900, when coming out of the HD-SDI.

Regardless, he gave nothing but praise for this camera, and was seriously adament about its abilities, especially for work destined for a filmout. It was interesting to hear this from someone like himself.
__________________
Galvan



The XLH1 is 1080i not 1080p. None of the HDV cameras are 1080p.

Certainly the Canon has more pixels on its sensors than the JVC. However, 720p seems to be pushing the current limits of the 1/3" ccd cameras and 1080p is (at present) only found on the larger chip cameras.


  • 0

#8 PappasArts

PappasArts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 12:12 PM

To add to that; Billups said this as well about the 24f mode:

"""He also had high praise for 24F, saying it is indistinguishable from film motion and 24P. I also heard him saying to the Canon people after the event that he wouldn't of have come and talked about the camera in this light if he didn't really believe in its abilities for film work ... truly great words from an industry guy ...""

Edited by PappasArts, 30 March 2006 - 12:13 PM.

  • 0

#9 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 01:21 PM

Certainly fitting a hard drive that records 4.2.2 would really bring the Canon & JVC up closer to the 3.1.1 F900. With some clever working both the JVC and Canon could have a hard drive fitted. For one thing it could improve the hand hold capability of the Canon, which is poorly designed in this regard. It would also need to be something that's extremely robust and doesn't involve cabling up laptops and other add ons.
  • 0

#10 PappasArts

PappasArts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 04:17 PM

However Brian the SDI is a true 1920x1080 24F/progressive PsF to whatever codec you want via SDI. The JVC can never output a frame twice as big to get where the H1 is just starting....

Brian if you have doubts of it's Progressive--- - Scott Billups also had this to say about Progressive """He also had high praise for 24F, saying it is indistinguishable from film motion and 24P""" As he said ( And 24P ).....


Brian do you own one of these cameras?

Brian- Billups also put up full frames from the SDI vs HDV of the same res chart and green a blue screen fabric tests as well a color chart. There is only a marginal difference which is amazing and very telling of how good Canon designed their Mpeg2 codec engine parallel with their Digic processor from their DSLR systems.


Pappas





Certainly fitting a hard drive that records 4.2.2 would really bring the Canon & JVC up closer to the 3.1.1 F900. With some clever working both the JVC and Canon could have a hard drive fitted. For one thing it could improve the hand hold capability of the Canon, which is poorly designed in this regard. It would also need to be something that's extremely robust and doesn't involve cabling up laptops and other add ons.


  • 0

#11 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 05:08 PM

No, I'm just curious.

I'm currently testing the JVC for some low budget features, but I did mention the Canon with the HD SDI into a hard drive as an interesting approach to the producer. However, given the timescale I don't think the hard drive would be an option. It would need to be fully set up and tested for shooting on productions with a tight schedule.

So far, I like the ergonomics of the JVC, although the lens supplied with the camera isn't wonderful. The dealer is supposed to be supplying a 2/3" adapter, so I'm hoping to try out a SD Canon wide angle zoom on it.
  • 0

#12 PappasArts

PappasArts
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 March 2006 - 08:35 PM

Brian,

If you can, try the 13x wide on the JVC! Wow! Yeah it's sharp with the Fuji 16x, however drop on the 13x wide, and the JVC gets even better. The JVC is pro to bone I like to say. I don't like the look of my XLH1. It's knobs and buttons are consumer blahhhh. It's built tough, and the XL series has 9 years of development on internals and reliability. I know the canon team, and their tech never sees many XL systems. They have had some time to refine the system. That said, the JVC though is my favorite all around. The JVC is more closer to the rigs I have been working with for 20 years. If the JVC had the bigger frame, no question it would be the JVC all the way for me. Next time JVC will go to 1080 I'm sure- and i can't wait!

Keeps us updated on your films!

Pappas


No, I'm just curious.

I'm currently testing the JVC for some low budget features, but I did mention the Canon with the HD SDI into a hard drive as an interesting approach to the producer. However, given the timescale I don't think the hard drive would be an option. It would need to be fully set up and tested for shooting on productions with a tight schedule.

So far, I like the ergonomics of the JVC, although the lens supplied with the camera isn't wonderful. The dealer is supposed to be supplying a 2/3" adapter, so I'm hoping to try out a SD Canon wide angle zoom on it.


  • 0

#13 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 31 March 2006 - 04:44 AM

I tried to get the 13 x wide angle for the tests (without success), but it's on the requested equipment list for the productions. I've seen the tests done by the guys on DVInfo with the 13 x wide and it looks like it's really worth paying the extra.

A friend, who had an XL series Canon, has bought the JVC and he loves it. If you're you're used to the high end cameras the JVC is totally natural to use. The focus assist really helps when using the LCD screens. It's also light enough to do all those PD150 type moves, but heavy enough to be be stable.

Edited by Brian Drysdale, 31 March 2006 - 04:44 AM.

  • 0


FJS International, LLC

CineLab

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Opal

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Visual Products