Budgeting for new HDVcamera - opinions please

Tech Diver wrote on 8/20/2006, 6:49 AM
I am planning to purchase a new HDV camera (with lens) in about a year and have budgeted around $7500. I am considering the Cannon XL-H1 or the JVC GY-HD110U (or 200U). I currently own a Sony HVR-A1 which is OK in some limited situations, is very portable, but lacks a great many features that I really need like interchangeable lenses, manual controls for aperture, shutter, and volume.

I entered the video world through still photography and cinematography, and would like the camcorder to support true 24p or simulate it so well that I can't tell the difference. In my editing, I work with a lot of 24p video that was converted from film. I have been supplementing that footage with my own 60i footage that I convert to 24p in Vegas. I really hate the effects of the conversion because it makes frame-by-frame masking difficult, which is why I need the real stuff. I know the JVC has 24p but I think the Cannon only simulates it (something called 24f ?? ). However, it looks like the JVC is does not shoot 1080/60i, which I feel is a serious shortcoming. I have not yet seen actual footage from either of these units.

If someone has experience or opinions regarding these two cameras, I would love to hear them. Also, if there is another camera that I should be considering, please let me know.

Peter

Comments

John_Cline wrote on 8/20/2006, 8:13 AM
If you're looking to purchase an HDV camcorder a year from now, there will, no doubt, be many more choices. While it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the current selection of HDV camcorders, I think your question might be a little premature.

John
VOGuy wrote on 8/20/2006, 10:46 AM
Hi Peter.

I'm not a pro "video" guy, but I work with a lot of them. Word I've heard is that if you're expecting a "film-like" look during your editing experience, you will be greatly disappointed with ALL of the sub $30K cameras -- and EVERYTHING HDV. The HDV encoding process causes all sorts of "artifacting" that cannot be removed - you'll continue to see the problems whenever you look at individual frames shot during periods of motion.

That said, it IS possible to create a film-like experience for the viewer, who will find it difficult to discern the difference between HDV and real film - if the project is shot and processed properly. One person said "It's amazing -- they've managed to combine all the disadvantages of film and video in one complete package!"

John's right, there are some interesting developments that may change all of this shortly - one may be viewed at: www.red.com.


GlennChan wrote on 8/20/2006, 12:22 PM
In my editing, I work with a lot of 24p video that was converted from film. I have been supplementing that footage with my own 60i footage that I convert to 24p in Vegas. I really hate the effects of the conversion because it makes frame-by-frame masking difficult, which is why I need the real stuff.
Which conversion are you talking about?

Vegas' 60i --> 24p, or adding pulldown to the film-originated material?
Tech Diver wrote on 8/20/2006, 1:02 PM
Glen: The conversion I am refering to in this case, is going from 60i to 24p. Any interlaced-to-progressive conversion will yield unsharp "double" images when there is motion. By the way, I also dislike going the other way because of the 2-3 pulldown blending.

VOGuy: I'm not trying to use video to achieve the film look. I fully realize that nothing can quite equate to film yet. What I do need is to work with 24p footage where each frame is "pure". By this I mean that no part of another frame should be combined during any conversion process. This requirement comes from my extensive use of accurately defined masks to place footage from one video into another (like the commercials where someone is placed into the scenes of a classic movie). If the masks are not accurate, the result is not convincing.

John: I realize that there much new technology coming out, but I do not want to spend the money that it takes to be on the leading edge. The two cameras that I mentioned in this post are going to come down in price fairly substantially over the next 12 months, and their feature set seems to be what I need. So, I am still interested in hearing some opinions about these two systems.
Cliff Etzel wrote on 8/20/2006, 7:51 PM
Peter,

From our previous discussions, I take it you are currently using the A1 in a housing...

Question I have to ask is why the interchangeable lens option??? I know the Canon will take all EOS lenses, but the fixed lenses on the current crop of HD cameras are pretty damn nice from what I have seen - add an HD compatable Century Optics w/a lens adapter for above water and you're good as gold. As divers following the KISS rule applies more so to us than other shooters. I guess you would need to ask yourself just how often you would really need to swap out lenses.

I went freediving with my TRV950 this weekend and found that the 80 degree wide angle port on my L&M Blue Fin housing gave me some nice coverage. If wide angle is what you need, contact Pam or John at Gates Housings and ask them about their high end lenses for their housings - they are da bomb!!! Check out the 120degree lens for their housings at http://www.gateshousings.com/superwide.html - tell em I sent ya.. ;-)
Coursedesign wrote on 8/20/2006, 8:42 PM
Any interlaced-to-progressive conversion will yield unsharp "double" images when there is motion.

But you can do much better than with Vegas deinterlacing.

Magic Bullet is quite good, and if you have After Effects there are several plug-ins that can create a far better deinterlacing than Vegas (for less than $90 too), albeit with a little bit of manual tweaking.
DJPadre wrote on 8/21/2006, 3:07 AM
personally, i was hankering for the HVX, however with my current line of work and the ongoing need to archive (ie sit on work for months before even editing) it wasnt going to work for me.
Theres also the NLE factor, byt cineform and raylight have worked arounf that...

DVCProHD IMO is an incredible format, and for HD frame sizes, u really do need that extra bandwidth, depsite waht people think.
Lets face it, our runnin 2 to 2.5 time higher res, at the SAME btrate as DV... to me, it jstu doesnt make sense... heres hoping for a MP4 tape solution sooner rather than later.
Moving on.. i was in your situation tossing up cameras and working out which will work for me, and as i have the Z1's which havent really offered any added value to the product (save from HD and 16:9, its time to rethink my current equipment library.

Canon announced their A1, and if SDI isnt an issue, its the perfect solution, especially if your considering the H1. If the H1 is any indicator, its low light performance, sharpness, colour gradation (wth teh help of Digic) shoul dbe a screamer when it comes to tape based HDV options. We all know the H1 is teh king of HDV camcorders, however id removable lenses isnt a priority, id seriously consider it.
Im considering it now, as cost is relatively small for the performance and tweakability of these units.
I thought about the HD101, and even though its native res is nice and clean, ther ehave been too many issues with the camera for my own liking. The H1 is overpriced and the Z1 is overrated. The HVX is (at this time) ahead of its time due to the format and recording methods (ie it literally simulates a film camera)

For me, if teh HVX isnt improved upon anytime soon (ie with either a native HD CCD, r P2 capacity, then the Canon A1 (not to be confused with Sony's) will be my next weapon of choice
BrianStanding wrote on 8/21/2006, 6:36 AM
I agree with John Cline. If you're looking at buying a camera a year from now, ask the same question again next year. Low and mid-end HD cameras are a highly competitive and emerging market -- it's quite possible there will be new offerings by all the major players by then. (Maybe a Sony Z2u?) And God only knows what impact the Red and Silicon Imaging uber-cameras are going to have on the rest of the market, if they live up to their potential. From my research, all the current crop of HDV cameras seem to me to be lacking in some regard -- especially since we still don't have a way to deliver HD footage to a broad section of the consumer public. I see no harm in waiting.

Even if there aren't new cameras out by then, you'll have the benefit of hearing from others about the as-yet not released cameras from JVC and Canon. The JVC HD-200 looks very promising -- I especially like the support for PL-mount super 16mm lenses. The Canon A-1 is also interesting. But, given camera manufacturers' recent history of releasing buggy early serial number cameras of new models, I'd recommend waiting until they've been road tested a bit.

And, finally, if I had $7500 in the bank, I'd look at trying to come up with another $7500 and maybe making the jump to something like the Sony CineAlta XDCAM line. At this level, you not only get the benefit of 1/2" chips, a better codec, professional interchangeable lenses and a standard shoulder-mount configuration, but you also get a tapeless, random access recording medium that won't break the bank for each new disk you need.

My $0.02.
farss wrote on 8/21/2006, 6:54 AM
Well the Silicon Imaging camera could be the ultimate underwater camera, or not, as I know little about how divers like their cameras but it has already been underwater in a Hydroflex housing.

The Upside:
The camera head is only a few cubic inches, 10bit RAW. Unlimited recording time, you'll run out of air long before you run out of HD space. No real need for a battery down there either.

The Downside:
max depth 300 feet due to cable length, could be made longer using fibre. You're tethered to the recorder on the surface, that could be the deal breaker. You could fit the head and recorder in an underwater housing but it's getting pretty big, well no worse than say a F900. Only issue I could see is the thing relies on a touch screen and given the size the housing could get very expensive.

Still it's true progressive scan, 24p or 30p, some talk of 60p as well.

Bob.
Tech Diver wrote on 8/21/2006, 5:03 PM
Cliff, I agree with you about keeping it simple during a dive. Although I am a diver and do lots of editing with dive videos, I personally only shoot still photos underwater. If I were to take camera below, I would definitely use something small (like the A1). Thank you for the information on the housings. The two cameras that I am asking about are strictly for land use.

As for interchangeable lenses, I am one who favors manual control overrides for such things as zoom, focus, and aperture. Most high-end cameras with removal lenses offer these features. I also have a very nice collection of lenses for 35 mm cameras that I have built up over the years that I would like to use via adapters. The optics of some of my Nikkor lenses are unmatched even today. I shoot some nature videos several times a year where I would like to make use of one of my 800 mm lenses as well as some of my macro lenses that can put me right on top of an ant colony.

DJPadre, thanks for your thoughts on the Cannon A1. It has some very nice features like its big brother, but as you can see the removable lens is an important issue for me.

Brian, thanks for you input on the JVC HD-200. I too think it looks pretty good, but based on what I know at this point, I think I am leaning slightly toward the Cannon H1 (which I see is currently selling for as low as $6500). I am afraid that spending $15k on an XDCAM is quite a bit more than I can justify (though I would love to have one).

Bjorn, are there any other deinterlacers like Magic Bullet that you find are of high quality?

Robert, the problem that I would have with a tethered camera (if I did decide to do underwater video) is that most of my dives involve shipwreck penetration. We work very hard to streamline our gear to prevent entrapment in the hanging pipes and other pieces of sharp debris that obstruct the interior of most wrecks. An entanglement in a narrow corridor 200 ft below is a potential disaster.