way to drive the price up on canon users lol (just kidding)

My guy at my local camera store is a pretty big XL fan and told me that he had talked to the Canon rep about this. The rep told him under sworn secrecy ( lol ) that while they weren't willing to go HD on the XL2 because they didn't think it was quite ready for prime time. Canon has long been a follower, letting others pave they way and than trying to do it better. Anyway, apparently he told my guy that they actually designed the XL2 to be fairly easily converted to HD and that yes indeed, the next version would be HD. When will this happen ? No clue, I'm guessing it will be a while since the XL2 isn't that old. As for me, that will be the day that I make the switch.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Ray, it sounds like there is a blend of "hope-for" and truth in there based on what your rep/salesman told you. Canon hasn't been *too* hush-hush about what they're up to, even though NDA precludes much from being said.
However, the only thing Canon would have needed to design into the XL2 body is a space for the hardware encoder/decoder card, since HDV uses the same head and transport mechanisms. The CCD's are another story, I don't know how easy it will be to swap the 960's out for 1440's.
The XL2 will be a sweet HDV cam whatever format/flavor it comes in.
I think that it'll be a while before the XL2 has sold out of it's allotment/lifecycle though. The thing is, the current class won't really be usable...so there is more to it than just encoding, CCD's, and a few new switches.

I've got to agree with this. What HDV needs to really push it along is better glass which does equal way more cost. I've been working with footage shot on a 709, probably good for 700 lines res but add to that 10bit 4:2:2 and well maybe on a good day there's more detail in HDV footage but there's a lot else in the HDV footage that shouldn't be there as well. Now I'm far from an expert but I'm betting that most of what's wrong in the HDV footage gets back to the optics.
Of course the lens used for the SD footage would buy you 4 Z1s (if not more) and none of that is going to change due to Moore's Law.
Bob.

I hear ya DSE, just going by what I was told and he did say that the bigger body style was in part for future inclusion of needed hardware. But I'm not a camera expert, I just shoot. I will say that the glass on the XL2 is badass. I kept my old XL1 lens and have used it on the XL2, the XL2 is much sharper. Though its badass that the new glass is much better, it sucks that while the lenses are backwards compatible, it is at a cost. I'm kinda hoping they come out with new versions of the 14x and 3x because of it, I can hope.

All I know is that I love my XL2 and can't wait to see what they come up with next.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Hiyah Mutts!

My video work is kinda lifting . . . and in a year's time? I really don't know .. But I'm truly thinking of doing an interim XL2 rather than the full HD upgrade . .. I WOULD like to go HD . .. But I'm being a real baby over this one . .

The more I hear users - YOU! - making something of the XL2, the more I'm thinking of holding off the HD U/G until I can get more work? Chicken and egg ? . . Well maybe not . . Dunno? ? ? Very hard call. But I do love the picture I get from my humble XM2 and know that I could take immeadiately to the XL2. PLUS the native 16:9 on the XL2 is most likely the "artistic" way I would want to develop, and maybe HD is a format too far for me at present.

Grazie

Grazie,
bear in mind you don't HAVE to shoot HDV just because you bought a FX1/Z1.
I'm using a Z1 next week to shoot SD 16:9, it's probably not quite as good for that as the XL2 but not far behind and it's a lot cheaper and a more manageable size, shoots PAL and NTSC DV as an added bonus. So while you keep on shooting DV25 you can also put your toes into the waters of HDV. Seems like the ideal solution to me.
Bob.

Bob! Execellent advice . . . . my HD concerns are all the needed addons like HD monitor. But what you are saying is, presently forget the HD add ons and use the 16:9 OF an HD camera . .. didn't think of that option? Too simple!

Grazie

Hi, Grazie!

Regarding your post to Muttley this morning about buying/shooting HDV. At first I was going to reply privately, not wanting to start another "war" on the forum. Obviously, I changed my mind. What I say is not intended to incite anyone's ire or pass judgement on their decisions and current situations, whatever they may be.

Let me just share my thoughts with you on this issue, because I see we are thinking alike to a greater degree.

To start with, as you mentioned, there is the cost and the implications that come with moving to HDV. As you pointed out, it's not just a matter of upgrading cameras. There is all of the peripheral equipment that is/will be required to make the full conversion. That's a lot of money!

Even if money were no object, how many clients have the ability to view the finished video in HD? How would the HD video be delivered to be seen? There is no HD DVD as of now. When it does come out (Blueray?) it will be very expensive! Will people like you and me be able to absorb that cost or will we be forced to raise out rates to cover the cost? Will our customers be able to "afford" HDV?

Why buy now? Both the XM2 and the XL2 shoot at resolutions higher than most SD monitors and tv sets can resolve, so what difference does it make, really, in the end--the viewing? Yes, HD can be down converted to SD, but to what end? Have you read all the posts online in the various forums with the problems so many are having with this issue? I, for one, could not afford to have such a major wrench thrown into my works! It would sink me and my business!

If you're anything like me, you have to fight very, very hard not to get caught up in the "having to have the latest, newest frenzy." Last time I did that was with Vegas 5 (but that's another story, no biggie).

Yes, HDV is wonderful; yes, HDV is here to stay (for the time being)--in a perfect world where money is no object, where everyone is ready to watch HD, where you don't have to mess with down conversions, and where you have a way/medium in which to deliver it, then yes, by all means, let's all go HDV. But until that time, I simple can't and won't.

I guess, without realizing it until now, I'm taking Canon's approach. Let someone else spend all the money on R&D. I didn't move into video from film until I felt that the medium was ready for me. I'm the dog, not the tail. It's my money and my time, therefore, I do all the wagging. When I made the move, it was smooth and without any major problems.

All I'm saying is, buyer beware. Is "this" really the time for YOU (and me, and others like us) to move into HDV? If you truly think it is, then more power to you, and I honestly mean that! If not, then don't allow yourself to get caught up in the excitement of the "newness" of HDV.

Two wise men put it very succinctly many years ago. Socrates said, “Know thyself,” Cicero said, “Control thyself.” I try to apply that philosophy every day, unfortunately, I don't always succeed.

Camera is one thing, but how much are we talking about to convert to HDV? I mean: monitor, card and all the hardware we need, including "pumping up" the computer to handle all this?
Just a gross price..? 1000? 3000? :/

Futz, I'm just guessing right now, but I'd imagine the computer upgrade alone will be somewhere between $2,500 and $3,000.

[EDIT] From an earlier post of mine:

"The "cheapest" monitor I found (there may be some less expensive) was the Sony BVM-D14H1U 14-Inch 16:9 Widescreen Broadcast Monitor. Problem is it's only 800 lines. The "optional" HD board is another $3,200 making the grand total $8,200.

The camera, let's jump to the top, the Sony HVR-Z1U is $4,900, so that brings the total to $13,100 (excluding shipping). Then there is CineForm Connect HD for Vegas, that's another measley $150. That makes it $13,250. So now I'm wondering what else does one need to round out the kit for shooting in and delivering HDV and what are the costs of the other necessaries?"

So add another $3,000 for the muscle computer to deal all this and we're up to $16,250 to convert to HDV. Not much to some, a great deal to many, including me!

Sorry but I'd have to disagree.
Firstly you can deliver HD NOW on pretty cheap HD DVD players, is 99 Euro cheap enough. On top of that you can playout WMV on just about any PC although you might need something a bit beefy for 1080. My corporate clients are pretty interested in being able to show their products at trade shows in HD.
Secondly the various grants councils down here have decided that HDV is the MINIMUM quality standard they'll accept for a grant application. If you don't plan / know how to shoot HDV, no government funding.
Thirdly, I've had no problems downconverting HDV to SD, either in camera or using Vegas, I've had some issues with the CF DI that I simply haven't gotten back to, been too busy working with uncompressed HD.
Thirdly, you don't have to spend a penny more than you want to, just buy the camera. It does shoot DV25. If you can cope with footage from a XM2/XL2/DVX100/PD170 then you'll be fine. Plus unlike all but one of them it does shoot 16:9, plus unlike some of them you can control gamma - black knee etc, you get better depth of field control and a whole heap of other goodies that you probably only could get on the DVX100. Is it as good as the XL2 for 16:9 SD, perhaps not but not that far off and a bit cheaper and you've got the option down the track of changing an option in the menu and shooting HDV.
And you don't need some souped up PC to deal with HDV if you're using the CF DI. I've just spent more on a PC than a car I just bought, no, not to handle HDV, that's easy. I need it to handle real SD ( 10bit 4:2:2). That is a real strain on a system.

We once took the 'wait and see' approach when everyone was ditching BetaSP for DB, we're now left with what were once very expensive pieces of kit that we simply cannot get rid of, our SP camera in the last two years has been used once and then as a prop. Our SP decks are only used for legacy retrieval (and to remind us of what a horrid format it was).
Even at this early stage, demand for our DV25 cameras is waning fast and we're getting rid of them, we're not alone in this. Other hire companies that have never dealt with low end gear have bought into HDV big time.

It's not as simple though as just HiDef that's driving this sea change. It's the convergence of a few issues in the industry down here. HD has languished for quite a while, it's gaining speed now, more cinemas have HD video projection capabilites so that's giving it a bit of a push. But also the demand for 16:9, if all you can deliver is 4:3 SD you're in trouble, it's very hard if not impossible to sell for broadcast (upscaling 16:9 is one thing, 4:3 forget it!). But also consummers are more and more asking for 16:9. So far this year 80% of the DVDs I've authored for various clients have been 16:9.

I do appreciate that things are a bit different in the US. For once the US seems to be lagging behind, but I suspect it'll start to catch up very soon, probably this year. I'm certainly not saying it's all going to be a piece of cake by any stretch. Perhaps one of the biggest issues is how to go from HDV to a format that's acceptable to the broadcast industry, will they insist on delivery in HDCAM / DVCPRO HD or will they be prepared to ingest HDV or will they accept WMV or H.264 files on hard drives.

I'm not suggesting that everyone has to dive into HDV NOW but whatever issues there may or may not be with HDV that's no reason not to buy a HDV camera if you're planning on buying a camera in that price range. What I am suggesting is to ignore the HDV hype, and look at it the other way around. Buy a Z1 as an excellent DV camera, you will not go far wrong. When you've got the time, play around with it as a HDV camera, no one can deny that shooting HD anything doesn't involve many issues, not least of all them making the transistion from 4:3 to 16:9. You can still go on making an income shooting DV25 with your Z1 while you learn, you've got the best of both worlds.
Bob.

Bob, I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not taking a "wait and see" approach. I'm take a "wait until it's ready for me approach." There is a big difference!

The truth is, HDV is not where DV is now, today, or even where it was four or five years ago when I got into it. That's all I'm saying. The introduction of Canon XL1 was what moved me from film to video. Then, the introduction of "affordable" DVD burners and discs made it all the attractive.

There is no "demand" here, not in my market. And, yes, I agree that the U.S. is lagging in this respect. But my running out and spending money I don't have will not change the fact.

Simply stated, HDV isn't where it needs to be for ME or for MY CLIENTS to worry about it at this time. There is no reason for ME to go into debt to covert my operation to HD now.

Jay,
I certainly wouldn't for a minute suggest anyone MUST buy a HDV camera NOW. I absolutely agree, if you don't need a new camera now then don't panic, well unless you're a lot wealthier than me.
To be honest I've made a lot of money working with regular 8 film, 1/4" R2R tape and DAT, just about to start on 78rpm records!
But as I said, if you're in the market for a new camera and you're in that price range....

One thing, in the medium term this HD thing should be good for us all. Just about everyones got a DV camera these days. As someone said to me last week, we're no longer competing amongst ourselves, the competition is the CEOs secretary. HDV might give us some breathing space, if only Sony hadn't made the thing so damn cheap :)
Bob.

Bob, I agree with you again, with the exception of the CEO's secretary comment. Owning a piece of equipment, whatever it may be, doesn't qualify you to _______ (fill in the blank).

I have never suggested that HDV isn't good. All I've said said is, not everyone has a reason to run out and buy one now, whether they can afford it not.

Bob .. "if only Sony hadn't made the thing so damn cheap" right!

Grazie

Grazie:
Don't let the new Brit hear you, he might double the price.

JJK

LOL! . . what I should have done was, "right?" I forgot to add the question mark!

G