Jump to content


Canon XLH1


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2005 - 11:40 AM

Personally I was a bit disappointed.... When I heard that it was HD I go all excited, but then found out that it's only HD in the interlaced mode. It uses 25F just like Sony. Apparently it's going on sale at about £5,000. Although they said that about the XL2.

I won't be getting it, XL2 for me. The second Canon bring out a HD progressive scan camera for under 5 grand then I'll think about it.

Not sure what you guys think, but I'm not so keen. Nice design though..

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith, 31 October 2005 - 11:42 AM.

  • 0

#2 Chance Shirley

Chance Shirley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts
  • Director

Posted 31 October 2005 - 11:53 AM

I'm with you. What's up with all these hi-def cameras that won't do progressive scan? Plus, for us NTSC people, they won't do 24p. First Sony, now Canon -- both these guys should know better.

I'm really more of a film guy, and these companies aren't doing anything to make me interested in hi-def.

I have heard that Panasonic and JVC both have progressive scan HD cams coming out sometime soon...
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 October 2005 - 03:23 PM

Hi,

You could get an HVX-200.

But then you'd have to deal with - shudder - P2. And a fixed lens.

Rent instead.

Phil
  • 0

#4 Benji Wade

Benji Wade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts
  • Student

Posted 03 November 2005 - 05:01 PM

At this point, variable lens or not, I think the HVX200 is the way to go. I think solid state memory is going to be very efficient, personally, even though it's very expensive.

The clips I've seen of the XLH1 are amazing though.
  • 0

#5 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 03 November 2005 - 05:46 PM

I would recomend the JVC HD-100U only because it actually does 720p (in true progressive fassion) it does true 24p and you can get more lenses out of it. in fact with the mini35 and a couple of good primes I think you can get somewhere close to film (although it will look a little soft, a little harsh due to most consumer sensors dynamic range.) it will have the focal qualities of 35, then jsut be careful with your lighting.
  • 0

#6 matthew david burton

matthew david burton
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2005 - 06:20 PM

Having never shot with the new canon hd i could not coment on the performance but it looks like a real disapointment.
I hated seeing the same design as the xl2 that i own myself. I've had so many issues with the design of the xl2 it's not funny.
HDV is looking like a bum format and is dooming any camera that uses it. Also i shoot quite a bit in wide angle and any camera with a fixed lens is un thinkable
ie:
panasonic

When the heck are they gona release a cam i actualy want for under £5-6000 ?

were waiting ..........
  • 0

#7 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2005 - 12:12 PM

I don't get why they couldn't just use the same system, just improve the colour and resolution.

They must know that progressive scan is what indie film makers look for.

Well either way I'm happy with using the XL2... I mean at the end of the day it's not about the camera. It's about the lighting and compositon.

But none the less I hate interlaced, that's the ONE feature I don't look for.
  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 06 November 2005 - 01:06 PM

At this point, variable lens or not, I think the HVX200 is the way to go.


Hi,

It's not yet available, so it's not even an option!

Stephen
  • 0

#9 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2005 - 01:33 PM

According to the articles I've read about the XLH1, the 25F feature is implemented in a different manner to Sonys' offering. Before we all get up in arms about the lack of true progressive scan, we should wait and see just how good or bad the XLH1 actually is
  • 0

#10 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2005 - 07:38 PM

According to the articles I've read about the XLH1, the 25F feature is implemented in a different manner to Sonys' offering. Before we all get up in arms about the lack of true progressive scan, we should wait and see just how good or bad the XLH1 actually is


Well either way it doesn't do true progressive scan. Which, just sucks. Probably very nice for news broadcasts n' stuff though.

Edited by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith, 06 November 2005 - 07:39 PM.

  • 0

#11 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 November 2005 - 04:43 AM

Well either way it doesn't do true progressive scan. Which, just sucks. Probably very nice for news broadcasts n' stuff though.


Hi,

The reason why cheaper cameras don't do true progressive is its patented! They have to pay to a license fee to Robert Faber to use his concept!

Stephen
  • 0

#12 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 07 November 2005 - 06:44 AM

Hi,

The reason why cheaper cameras don't do true progressive is its patented! They have to pay to a license fee to Robert Faber to use his concept!

Stephen


And I license is how much?
  • 0

#13 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 November 2005 - 07:37 AM

And I license is how much?


Daniel,

You would have to ask Robert Farber of Filmlook Inc. I would guess many tens of thousands of Dollers if not millions!

When he thought of the idear in the 1970's nobody was interested is such a strange concept! Why would anybody want that....

Stephen
  • 0

#14 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 07 November 2005 - 08:19 AM

Fair enough but I don't see how you can patent cheaper cameras using progressive scan. I mean.. I have the idea of shooting 35mm at the speed of 50 fps and then interlacing the frames digitally in post. Can I patent that?
  • 0

#15 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 November 2005 - 08:37 AM

Fair enough but I don't see how you can patent cheaper cameras using progressive scan. I mean.. I have the idea of shooting 35mm at the speed of 50 fps and then interlacing the frames digitally in post. Can I patent that?


Daniel,

No you can't, its not a new and unique idea! Anyway it wont look the same 25p!

Remember video had always worked in fields, Roberts patent includes 24p, grey scale modifications and 24psf output. If you subscribe to CML HDTV there was a long thread a few months ago and Robert was involved in the discussion.

Stephen
  • 0

#16 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 07 November 2005 - 10:40 AM

I think his patent deals with embedded progressive scan.

Progessive scan dates back to the dawn of television.

The 1936 Berlin Olympic games were transmitted - via cable - in 100 line progressive. (don't know the frame rate).

-Sam
  • 0

#17 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 07 November 2005 - 10:55 AM

I think his patent deals with embedded progressive scan.

Progessive scan dates back to the dawn of television.

The 1936 Berlin Olympic games were transmitted - via cable - in 100 line progressive. (don't know the frame rate).

-Sam


Sam,

I quote from www.filmlook.com:-

"These patents are directed toward the emulation of motion picture film within a digital camera. The invention(s) is a progressive scan camera. The 24 progressively scanned frames per second image is processed and converted to an interlaced (or segmented frame) output. The technology is equally applicable to standard definition, 720 or 1080 lines for 25, 30, or 60fps. The two companies presently hold patent rights on this technology in the United States, Japan and Europe."

Stephen
  • 0

#18 Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Daniel J. Ashley-Smith
  • Guests

Posted 07 November 2005 - 12:04 PM

Daniel,

No you can't, its not a new and unique idea! Anyway it wont look the same 25p!



Ah but it hasn't been patented. Well.. either way, they should sometime bring out a cheap HD progressive scan camera. It may even be worth it. I mean the XL1 and 2 were worth it. Unless there's a patent on cheap "HD" progressive scan cameras.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

The Slider

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Visual Products

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

CineTape