Should I upgrade from the Canon AH-A1 to the Sony EX1?

[Wendt]

I know there are many advantages that the EX1 has over the A1, such as 720P, Variable frame rates, Full 1920 x 1080, Better lenses, Tape less work flow etc… I would like to start doing more narrative/ Filmic work so I am planning on getting Letus Extreme. Here are a few things I could use your expertise on:

1) It sounds like 35 mm adapter owners are able to pull focus with the EX1 without an eternal monitor. Is this easy to do or will most EX1 users still use an external monitor for adapter work? If EX1 user will not need an external monitor then the price difference between the cameras can be shortened by $800- $1500.

2) How important is uncompressed sound? My understanding is that the A1 has compressed sound and the EX1 does not. I remember that this was a big deal when the HVX came out? Is it still a big deal? Or is it one of those things that people really do not notice?

3) The next thing is the codec. Could someone who has both cameras comment on this. I know HDV is not the best codec to do color correction or grading, but Canon seems to do better than all the other HDV flavors out there. I know that the EX1 with its 35MB vs the A1 25MB HDV should be better, but is there a noticeable difference when it comes to grading?

4) Are there any problems with Sony Vegas and the EX1? Does it support the 1920 x 1080? Right now there is a problem(capture problem, memory problem) with the A1 and Sony Vegas, but Sony is working on it and there are some ways around the problem.

Thanks for your response,
David

[ffaf07]

there are many advantages that the EX1 has over the A1

Variable frame rates
Full 1920 x 1080
Better lenses
Tape less work flow

First off, you said it here. But I'd be happy to answer your questions.

1) The LCD on the EX1 is 1920 vertical lines (That's FULL HD) by 480 horizontal lines (Full SD; the same number of lines as a television.) So pulling focus is much much easier than with most LCDs, and with some practice and knowhow you would rue the day you used an external monitor.

2)Uncompressed sound makes a huge difference. And an important one. People sometimes get too involved with video quality, but it doesn't matter in the narrative world without excellent sound quality.

3) I would suggest you check out Philip Bloom's work, which is apparently heavily graded, but I couldn't answer this one from experience.

4) I'm about 104% sure that Vegas can handle the Sony footage. What's also important is your actual editing suite.

[Barry_Green]

1) The LCD on the EX1 is 1920 vertical lines
No it isn't. The LCD on the EX1 is 640 x 480.

[Elton]

1) It sounds like 35 mm adapter owners are able to pull focus with the EX1 without an eternal monitor. Is this easy to do or will most EX1 users still use an external monitor for adapter work?

The EX1's LCD is much sharper and higher res than the A1's and basically any other budget HD camera. Yet it's not just the LCD; the focus assist functions are much better so the two combined will pretty much be all that you need.

2) How important is uncompressed sound? My understanding is that the A1 has compressed sound and the EX1 does not. I remember that this was a big deal when the HVX came out? Is it still a big deal? Or is it one of those things that people really do not notice?This is another non-issue. Of course true uncompressed is preferable, but HDV audio works just fine in reality. It's not heavily compressed like the video is, but If you need the absolute best possible sound quality for acquisition you should consider going dual-system.


3) The next thing is the codec. Could someone who has both cameras comment on this. I know HDV is not the best codec to do color correction or grading, but Canon seems to do better than all the other HDV flavors out there. I know that the EX1 with its 35MB vs the A1 25MB HDV should be better, but is there a noticeable difference when it comes to grading?

The difference is negligible if you grade in a better quality intermediate codec. (CineForm, ProRes, etc) If you do native codec grading, the XDCAM HQ codec is slightly better, but neither are truly preferable for serious grading.

4) Are there any problems with Sony Vegas and the EX1? Does it support the 1920 x 1080? Right now there is a problem(capture problem, memory problem) with the A1 and Sony Vegas, but Sony is working on it and there are some ways around the problem.

Thanks for your response,
DavidI'm a Final Cut guy, so I have no idea. There shouldn't be any capture problems with the EX1 because it isn't tape-based. I'm not sure how good the integration is but I would think that Sony should do a good job of supporting the EX1's mp4 format.

[BobDiaz]

No it isn't. The LCD on the EX1 is 640 x 480.

The specification in the user manual is: 640h x 3 (RGB) x 480v delta sequence.

In a delta sequence, each sub-pixel (R, G, or B) can be turned on or off independently of the other sub-pixels. In addition, each row is offset by 1/2 a sub-pixel and every red sits above every blue/green sub-pixel.

So, if we are talking full RGB sequence, then it's 640h, but if we count it from a sub pixel level, it's 640h x 3(R, G, or B) = 1920 total.

http://www.solomon-systech.com/pdf/APN_GC_001_v010.pdf

See page 3.


Bob Diaz

[Wendt]

Thanks for the infomation,

This is a great help. Is there is someone else who has experiece with both cameras that would like to add there thoughts? It seems there are some conflicting views so hearing from others will help. It looks like I need to research the audio part a little more. Does anyone know of any good resources?

Thanks,

David

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Interesting.

But, no one has addressed his question.


Is it worth the upgrade? $3500?

[TimurCivan]

The EX1's LCD is much sharper and higher res than the A1's and basically any other budget HD camera. Yet it's not just the LCD; the focus assist functions are much better so the two combined will pretty much be all that you need.



Elton... you mah Boy. But seriously, You need a 1920x1080 monitor when youre pulling focus. even a 720p monitor wont really do. when using 35mm lenses, like an 85mm F1.2 or a 105mm F2.0 there is literally 3/4" of DOF at a standard close up. Every millimeter of accuracy is absolutly neccesary. YOU NEED A REAL MONITOR. Plain and simple. Just cause teh EX's is slightly better than the A1 doesnt mean you need to forgo a VERY neccesdary tool like a production monitor.

[Elton]

Agreed, Timur. I think you've misinterpreted my response, though.

I fully agree that for discerning focus with absolute certainty-- a full resolution (1920x1080) monitor is truly needed--ESPECIALLY when using a 35 adapter and shooting with ultra-narrow DOF.

Now, what I was trying to answer in that post is what I interpreted from his question about needing "an external monitor". I think that for most indie shooters, that means a Marshall or Ikan, etc. In which case I think the EX1's LCD is basically equal in effectiveness for discerning focus, even when using an adapter.

Just cause teh EX's is slightly better than the A1 doesnt mean you need to forgo a VERY neccesdary tool like a production monitor.

I don't think the EX1's LCD is merely "slightly" better than the A1. It's leagues better, but certainly nothing compared to a real HD production monitor, but is that something you can lug around with you or attach to the camera and monitor true 1080 resolution?

[TimurCivan]

Oh ok. I just love my marshall cause its big.

[gaffney film]

Elton... you mah Boy. But seriously, You need a 1920x1080 monitor when youre pulling focus. even a 720p monitor wont really do. when using 35mm lenses, like an 85mm F1.2 or a 105mm F2.0 there is literally 3/4" of DOF at a standard close up. Every millimeter of accuracy is absolutly neccesary. YOU NEED A REAL MONITOR. Plain and simple. Just cause teh EX's is slightly better than the A1 doesnt mean you need to forgo a VERY neccesdary tool like a production monitor.

Or a tape measure, a decent follow focus, and a few marks.

To answer your question, I have an XLH1 and just got the EX1 two days ago. The Canon will be going away.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

From Mooho Bae @ moohobae.com

EX1 AQUARIUM FOOTAGE (http://www.moohobae.com/mine/COEX_Aquarium_720P-1-2.wmv)

"mode : SP 1080 24P.
Pull-down Removal : NEOHDV(cineform)
Edit : Premere Pro 2.0"

XH A1 AQUARIUM FOOTAGE
(http://www.moohobae.com/mine/Coex_Aquarium_edit_720P-1.wmv)
" Settings: 24F, CP=panalook, NR1 low, LR2 Low, The color temperature was adjusted clip by clip.

Edited with Premiere pro 2.0, and down sizing, noise reduction and sharpen was done in AVISynth. Many thanks to the developers of various free AVISynth tools, really cool!"


.

[ichichich]

Last link is not working ;-)

[DeeZiD]

Maybe he meant this clip?
http://www.moohobae.com/mine/Coex_Aquarium_edit_720P-1.wmv



I think there's not such a big difference between these cameras when downsized to 720p.
Although there are much more chromatic abberations in the A1 material.

And highlights seem to blow out very strangely in EX1 material. :shocked:
(Something to worry about? Have seen this in another EX1 clip, too!)


regards Dennis

[Carl]

I have the Canon XLH1; love it and need the CANON L 20x IS 39-780mm lens (+ 1,6 extender sometimes )
and the Canon is a clear winner, no match out there.

Even the Canon XLH1 have a weaker "monitor"/ viewfinder, but what I get on the tape with the Custom presets
still just blow me away! Love the filmic look :thumbsup:
Though the Sony seems to have really nice recording specs...but..Sony EX1= tele max at 439mm
Then the codec does not matter...

Interesting time...

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I want the EX1 but in the 720p footage I linked to above I like the Canon XH A1 images.

It's a tough call as there is so much to weigh.

I would like to see more 1080 footage.

[reem12]

for some reason in that aquarium footage the canon a1 looked better to me to.the canon a1 has a sharp and clean picturte to begin with.

[philip bloom]

i have shot all my letus extreme shorts without a monitor, using just the lcd screen. It's not only the best lcd screen on a budget camera, it's the best on any camera i have ever come across.

Yes a nice marshall is ideal, but if you want to be lightweight and still get focus the ex1 screen is amazing

[Morpheus_23]

Interesting.

But, no one has addressed his question.


Is it worth the upgrade? $3500?

I haven't seen anything yet from the EX-1 that would cause me to go from the HVX200.

Canon has implemented a fine HDV codec and the XHA1 can produce amazing imagery.
All of these sub 10000 cameras have pros and cons including the EX1.

[DCSensui]

Regarding field monitors, a dealer here showed me an intriguing solution:

He had an HD Link from Blackmagic Designs connected to an Apple Cinema Display. The EX1 was connected to the HD Link via the HD SDI cable.

The result was a full-res 1920-pixel display.

Also interesting: Because the monitor takes power via the HD Link, and because the HD Link gets its power from a 5-volt DC power supply, it would be possible to build a battery-powered setup with this. Draws 2 amps at 5 volts for a power draw of 10 watts.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

What size was the Apple Cinema Display?

[DCSensui]

Maybe he meant this clip?
http://www.moohobae.com/mine/Coex_Aquarium_edit_720P-1.wmv

And highlights seem to blow out very strangely in EX1 material. :shocked:
(Something to worry about? Have seen this in another EX1 clip, too!)

As in any type of digital photography or video, the important thing is to avoid clipping the highlights. Of course this is sometimes easier said than done. :smile:

[reem12]

i very much agree with you morpheus.i realy believe that we as gear heads half to fight a phycological battle everytime new equipment comes on the scene.i love my canon a1,and when it first came out with all the screen grabs and footage the same hype revolved around that.today i've finaly realized that our ficle minds, and human nature will never be satisfied with what we have.my point is this,how many people on line have computers or even the time to enjoy your 1920 by 1080 footage?all the footage i ever see on here is in standard def size anyway.and people have commented on how beautiful the dvx upconverts on hd tvs.my main concern is image quality and i think the hvx,canon a1,jvc and others do a good enough job to not warrant us letting sony rape us for an aditional $4000.not to metion them depriving people of the option of a tape dec.my feelings on this.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Tapes suck.

As to the 1920 x 1080 footage.

Yes, it can be problematic but it is the next stop on this technological ride.

Just like 8gig USB drives it will most likely be relatively cheap and common place.

[reem12]

i'd love to see someone shoot a 8hr. wedding at 1920x1080 on a couple of those stingy 16gb cards.they'll curse sony for the lack of a tape deck.as a matter of fact i think the focus enahnce levels the playing feild for sony,panasonic,or canon,when it comes down to tapeless solutions.

[Noel Evans]

As in any type of digital photography or video, the important thing is to avoid clipping the highlights. Of course this is sometimes easier said than done. :smile:

Yeah, looks like his exposure was a little hot in parts with the EX.

I could tell nothing from those clips at all except, the EX looks like it handles reds better than the A1, which makes sense.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

i'd love to see someone shoot a 8hr. wedding at 1920x1080 on a couple of those stingy 16gb cards.they'll curse sony for the lack of a tape deck.as a matter of fact i think the focus enahnce levels the playing feild for sony,panasonic,or canon,when it comes down to tapeless solutions.


Like I said... tapes suck. The Focus Enhance is hard drive based. This in itself is just an intermediate form of recording as solid state has so many advantages.

[reem12]

i understan and agree with you estebeverde that tapes tape base sucks.but you haven't adressed my question concerning event shoots that last 8hrs plus.like i said previously,many will curse sony for tape deprivation.no thanks.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

As you have said reem, the Focus Enhance or similar device such as Sony's hard drive based recorder.


And, if one goes with solid state storage they have to consider archiving as well. I prefer hard drives but others prefer tape such as LTO. :D

But, soon we should see 64Gig + cards. Based on todays measure I believe that would give us 4 hours so we would be half way there on just one set. With one swap you would have your 8 hours.

That is in contrast to your 8 tape swaps.

[BobDiaz]

i'd love to see someone shoot a 8hr. wedding at 1920x1080 on a couple of those stingy 16gb cards.they'll curse sony for the lack of a tape deck.as a matter of fact i think the focus enahnce levels the playing feild for sony,panasonic,or canon,when it comes down to tapeless solutions.

An 8 hour wedding???

I've never been to any wedding that from the start of the wedding to the end of the reception lasted 8 hours.

I've also shot video at many weddings with both single camera and multi camera. All the important stuff that everyone wants to see on the final DVD will fit nicely onto 2 hours of recording media per camera. That would come to 2 or 3 16GB SxS cards per camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9pKTDCHzTI

I guess if someone worked for a reality TV show, they may have to shoot for 8 hours straight. In that case, they would need 8 or 9 SxS Cards and copy the footage every night. At $900 a card, today's price, it would add up, but the cards can be used over and over.

Given that Moore's Law is still in effect, the price per GB is going to continue to drop every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law

On April 13, 2005, Gordon Moore himself stated in an interview that the law cannot be sustained indefinitely: "It can't continue forever. The nature of exponentials is that you push them out and eventually disaster happens." and noted that transistors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistors) would eventually reach the limits of miniaturization at atomic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic) levels:

In terms of size [of transistor] you can see that we're approaching the size of atoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom) which is a fundamental barrier, but it'll be two or three generations before we get that far—but that's as far out as we've ever been able to see. We have another 10 to 20 years before we reach a fundamental limit. By then they'll be able to make bigger chips and have transistor budgets in the billions.


Bob Diaz

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Good post Bob.

I would suggest to you though that the speed with which card capacity will increase is not necessarily going to follow Dr. Moore's Law as it predicted to happen much faster.

[reem12]

well i'm sorry for the misunderstanding, i should have been more specific when talking of an 8 hour wedding.i'm speaking more of those individuals who shoot wedding story style that require a person to shoot the event from start of the day until end of the night.nevertheless, until the 64g cards are made available one must still answer the question.how would shoot a run and gun wedding story on a couple of 16gb cards while having to keep stoping to offload ? now don't get me wrong,if you have the funds to throw around on 8 16gb cards to do what a tape based machine would do then i'm sure for most the ex1 would be a far superior advantage,but keep in mind your rig as of now would then be 4 times the price of a canon a1 that is still hdv in nature with no major image quality gap, but if not and your like most of the indi comunity who would seek a focus enhancement alternative vrs. tape for long shoots & quicker archiving,then what major advantage would the ex1 have over the canon a1, espeacialy for someone mainly concerned with quality of image like myself.can someone with a ex1 tell me the workflow they would use to shoot a run and gun wedding on a couple of 16gb cards?at the end of the day if the client sees the final product of the canon a1 and the sony ex1 and says these two images are indistinguishable then all my extra $1000s of dollars would have been spent in vaine.

[DCSensui]

i'd love to see someone shoot a 8hr. wedding at 1920x1080 on a couple of those stingy 16gb cards.they'll curse sony for the lack of a tape deck.as a matter of fact i think the focus enahnce levels the playing feild for sony,panasonic,or canon,when it comes down to tapeless solutions.

An axe is great for splitting wood but it's lousy at doing finish carpentry.

You gotta select the right tool for the job, instead of expecting every tool to handle every available task. The EX1 isn't intended to be a cure-all for all types of coverage.

If the EX1 is overkill as far as resolution is concerned for weddings, and the SxS card doesn't have enough capacity, then the simple answer is that it's not the right tool for the job. Stick to a standard definition camera and shoot with tapes.

Hard drive recorders also have their drawbacks: The Firewire connector can be fragile, the drives are sensitive to vibration, and they need a whole different set of batteries to keep them running. They're also slow to boot up and you can't hot swap a Firestore like you could with a P2 card.

[philip bloom]

i'd love to see someone shoot a 8hr. wedding at 1920x1080 on a couple of those stingy 16gb cards.they'll curse sony for the lack of a tape deck.as a matter of fact i think the focus enahnce levels the playing feild for sony,panasonic,or canon,when it comes down to tapeless solutions.

yes, i think you are overshooting a wee bit if you have 8 hours of rushes. I have shot three for friends and the most i had was 3 and a half hours of rushes due to me doing sit down interviews with friends and families and very long speeches! I am probably going to do another one soon and the ex1 is the camera I will use for it.

[reem12]

yes phillip,i guess it comes down to a persons shooting style.i'm very undiciplined in my shhoting,so for some the abscence of a tape deck would hurt.but my whole thing was not putting tape deck against solid state but at the end of the day would the advantage of the image on the ex1 over the canon a1 be worth the extra 4000 dollars to switch out.

[mgalvan]

As I have both the EX1 and the XL-H1 (which by stock configuration makes a very similar picture as the A1), I don't think the "upgrade" is worth it for you.

You have to put workflow considerations up there with image quality for your intended use IMHO. The image quality between the two can be quite similar. But I don't know how well long event shooting is suited for the Sony at this time.

[sinfear11]

Ok...Bang for the buck the Canon XHA1 is the clear winner IMHO. It performs very well all around for the best price point. I have seen the footage of all the sub 10 cameras out there including the NKOTB (New Kid On The Block), and I am sorry no real comparison. I think the EX1 is awesome, but if you currently own an XHA1 I would keep it, unless you had to have the latest and greatest. I would also keep the HVX because of the investment into their technology. I am sure Panny will have a nice response for the HVX owners that will be on par with Sony. For Canon I am very happy where the XHA1 currently sits. Best bang for the buck IMHO, and I have seen many comparisons to both the HVX and the EX1 and I think it more than holds its own.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

How is the Solid State EX1 workflow that different?

There is a $3500 difference between the 2 cams at the moment.

Is the increased resolution, solid state recording, and reported increased sensitivity worth this?

Like I said, I actually liked the XH A1 aquarium image much better than the EX1. In fact, everyone I showed it to did. They thought the XH A1 cam was more expensive.

But, like my wife said, were they shot under the same exact settings and were both optimized.

If you look at Philip Blooms stuffs it is spectacular.


The question a hand is a tough one. It boils down to the best way to spend that $3500.00

[Stevet]

IMO, the Canon XH A1 is the best deal in HDV cameras period. The image quality is excellent.

I have seen nothing the shows it produces a better image than the EX1 1080P, but for HDV, it looks really good. Now if it only had SDI like the XH G1 !

Let's face it, all these cameras shoot decent images. One really needs to weigh the differences and features to decide which one is right for themselves.

[Insecto!]

Comparing the EX1 vs XH-G1 using HD-SDI output (live capture) for greenscreen work:
Any adavantages of one over the other?

[reem12]

I'm glad someone was feeling me.Unless my stuff is going to look like the images coming out of the red camera, will not let these shark companies embesel $1000s of dollars moreout of me for something that is that simialar in image quality.$3500 = another canon a1 that you can rent out if you wanted.

[accelv]

Canon A1 is king of 1/3" CCD's right now and EX1 is king of 1/2" CMOS right now. I'd rather have 2 A1's than one EX.

The EX is nice, but ahead of its time regarding archive and workflow, and just a bit better overall than the A1 in image quality. If you do event work, count on a ton of flashes to deal with from photogs and paparazzi. Rolling shutter issues could be a problem with the CMOS chips.

As usual, I'm waiting for more reports from the front to come in.

[philip bloom]

it has been mentioned many times before. But the EX1's picture is much more superior than the a1. It should be, it has a better lens, larger sensors and higher bit rate. the a1 is still an amazing camera though

[reem12]

well now phillip, i wouldn't necesarily call it far more superior from what i've seen posted from both cams.although you do make that camera sing just as disjecta makes the canon a1 sing.and as a matter of fact the first letus ex footage with your hdv sony that you posted wowed the comunity,but at the same time any of these little hd cams in the right hands could probably match image for image unless your doing filmouts ,and that to me is what would seperate the ex1 from the others.and to be truthful,even when the average joe sits down at their hdtv i seriouly doubt they'll be counting the pixels like us tech freaks.the last short i shot i thought the canon was so sharp and detailed i dialed back detail -7 to give it a more organic look.case and point,the reason why we use 35mm adapters is to soften the edges not enhance them.at the end of the day if we both plug up our cameras and the comon joe stops by and says, wow those images look amazing we would have both made out in a sense ,but i would have a slight advantage in the pocket book.lets face it,we post footage to wow our peers,do i need to spend an extra $3500 to get the same response.

[Stevet]

Remember, in a lot of these cameras, a lot of perceived sharpness is in detail control. If you can shut off, or turn it down, it will give you a better idea of how much "real" information is available. The EX1 does get a tad softer with detail off, but it sure holds a lot of detail.

Some cameras really get excessively soft with detail off.
The EX1 using 1080P holds a lot of detail that can relate to real smooth detailed images.

If I were to buy a "B" camera to use with the EX1, I'd buy the XH A1. It's a great camera.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

What about Discovery HD?

Is the EX1 on their approved list?

[LuckyStudio 13]

Why XDCAM EX is better and worth more than Canon XH-A1.

I save money in the long run by not having to buy DV tapes.

I save time by not having to wait IN REAL TIME to download my footage via tape.

I have over and undercranking.

I have uncompressed Audio.

I am not destroying my camera rec head by using it to download "non native" 24p footage. or I dont have to spend extra 1k for hv-20 just to use as a deck.

I have high rez lcd to use with my 35mm adapter.

I have SDI out for in studio 4:2:2 work.

I have true manual lens control.

and yes, this came from a user that USED to own the Canon XH-A1 and XL-H1.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

What about the images.

Are you finding them as nice as your Canons?

Others have said the EX1's strength lies in its 1080p.

Do you find that to be the case?

[philip bloom]

well now phillip, i wouldn't necesarily call it far more superior from what i've seen posted from both cams.although you do make that camera sing just as disjecta makes the canon a1 sing.and as a matter of fact the first letus ex footage with your hdv sony that you posted wowed the comunity,but at the same time any of these little hd cams in the right hands could probably match image for image unless your doing filmouts ,and that to me is what would seperate the ex1 from the others.and to be truthful,even when the average joe sits down at their hdtv i seriouly doubt they'll be counting the pixels like us tech freaks.the last short i shot i thought the canon was so sharp and detailed i dialed back detail -7 to give it a more organic look.case and point,the reason why we use 35mm adapters is to soften the edges not enhance them.at the end of the day if we both plug up our cameras and the comon joe stops by and says, wow those images look amazing we would have both made out in a sense ,but i would have a slight advantage in the pocket book.lets face it,we post footage to wow our peers,do i need to spend an extra $3500 to get the same response.


That's the whole point (I do wish you would press return on your keyboard a little more to make seperate paragraphs so it is easier to read!)...I am not a tech freak. i don't care about numbers or pixels.

The features mentioned above are all true...the most important thing is without ANY adaptor on it the EX1 picture is quite astounding, as good if not better at times than my F350. There is no way you can tell me the picture of the A1 is as good without an adaptor as my F350. It is in a different league, that doesn't make it a poor camera...it's still just about the best 1/3" HDV camera out there (although I adore the organic look from my JVC HD201e without any adaptor...I just wish it was more than 720p)

[Noel Evans]

May I just simply answer the original posters question.

If you feel you creatively have exhausted all your options on the A1 and some component is holding you back OR

You feel you could grow further with the EX and the workflow is more to your needs....

THEN YES!!!!!!!!

If your shooting on the A1, havent really used it a great deal, still getting a feel then NO!!!!!!

[Morpheus_23]

it has been mentioned many times before. But the EX1's picture is much more superior than the a1. It should be, it has a better lens, larger sensors and higher bit rate. the a1 is still an amazing camera though

I owned the A1 and have the HVX now. I've seen footage from the EX1 and, really, I can't see a big difference in image quality. And the comparisons I've seen with the EX1 and HVX footage don't sway me either. I'm not taking anything away from the EX1. It has a high quality image. Really nice. But it's not leaps and bounds above the Canon or, for that matter, the HVX.

[philip bloom]

Morpheus, there is a real problem with people making comments about cameras they haven't actually used. Trust me, get your hands on an EX1. Shoot some pictures then look back at them on an HD monitor, then tell me that you can't see a big difference in image quality.

I would never comment on how one camera compares to another if I haven't actually used them both!

[Morpheus_23]

Morpheus, there is a real problem with people making comments about cameras they haven't actually used. Trust me, get your hands on an EX1. Shoot some pictures then look back at them on an HD monitor, then tell me that you can't see a big difference in image quality.

I would never comment on how one camera compares to another if I haven't actually used them both!

With all due respect Philip, while I don't own a EX1 myself, I have seen footage on a HD monitor, just as I have seen XHA1 and HVX footage. I agree with you that the EX1 has a better, sharper, crisper image. But it is not leaps and bounds above a Canon or HVX. It's just not. I examined the footage from the EX1 because my vendor called me to pick mine up. I had a deposit and was next on the list. If the image quality was leaps and bounds better, I would have picked mine up. But, again, I kept the HVX because it does everything. It doesn't do everything better, but it does everything. The EX1 and Canon's do 1 thing better. They produce a high quality, higher resolution image.
Resolution does not necessarily make a better image. And this is all subjective and only my personal opinion. I could have easily had the EX1 and not the HVX but, resolution aside, my HVX produces a fantastic image plus all the other things that made the HVX the one to compare all other sub 10000 cameras to.

[gaffney film]

Morpheus 23,

Could you possibly post some of the HVX images you refer to? I'd like to see how you arrived at your conclusion. Thanks.

Vince

[Michael Friedman]

I owned the A1 and have the HVX now. I've seen footage from the EX1 and, really, I can't see a big difference in image quality.

There are other important factors that make the upgrade worth considering.

As an A1 owner I am particularly envious of the EX for:

Low light sensitivity.
Better compression.
HiRez (usable) LCD
Tapeless workflow (on more affordable media that actually fits into my current laptop).

I used to really regret not having variable frame rates, but Twixtor has soothed my pain. It is really phenomenal.

In my case I spent money on a Firestore, Bebob box to hold it, and a Marshall monitor in an attempt to have (or surpass) some of those features on my A1. That is close to 3 grand in upgrades.

So, if someone is thinking of upgrading, there are many factors beyond image alone.

While I love Panasonic colors, I tend to color all of my material myself, so if I had to choose I would take resolution over color.

For me, those issues would lead me to look past the HVX and to the EX if it comes time to upgrade (who knows what Canon will counter with by that time. It may be quite compelling on its own).

[reem12]

ok phillip,my opologies if i've offended,but there will always be disagreements on whats better and whats not.i'm not arguing the fact nor have ever said the a1 is better then the ex1 but only responding to a question of another concerned user by tring to enlighten on what i've personaly used and the footage that i've personaly seen from other users with both cameras.

now in response to those commenting on cameras they've never used,i would agree with you,but if someone does a side by side comparison and posts it on dvx user for me to see,if i don't own the sony i can only make my judgement call based upon whats i see on my moniter,and from what i've seen on my moniter in the image department the ex1 has not shown to be signifantly much better then the a1 and this has also been stated by someone who has used both cams.so should one say that your eyes or expert knowledge is that much better then anothers.its all subjective.

bottom line, if someone dosen't need all the bells and whistles like varible frame rates, uncompressed audio, etc. then the canon a1 or hvx is a cam for you.personaly i came to the conclusion that want varible frame rates and a couple of other bells like the 4:2:2 and an optional p2 workflow so i just purchased a used hvx in the market place at a very reasonable price and still have come out cheaper with 2 cams now then i would with the sony ex1.it all boils down to your needs and wants.

[Noel Evans]

While I love Panasonic colors, I tend to color all of my material myself, so if I had to choose I would take resolution over color.



Just want to clarify, and this has nothing to do with my opinion which could be either way, but the boast is less to do with the actual color the camera is capable of and more to do with the color informaton thats available for grading in a 4:2:2 image. SO recording to soild state HVX 4:2:2 vs EX 4:2:0.

[Stevet]

All of this will be moot in a year.... LOL.
I'm confident that more manufactures will move to the higher color space 4:2:2.

If you want to see decent 4:2:2, there will be plenty of 10 bit 4:2:2 coming from the EX1 SDI over the next year.

[Barry_Green]

May I just simply answer the original posters question.

If you feel you creatively have exhausted all your options on the A1 and some component is holding you back OR

You feel you could grow further with the EX and the workflow is more to your needs....

THEN YES!!!!!!!!

If your shooting on the A1, havent really used it a great deal, still getting a feel then NO!!!!!!
Brilliant. Perfect post.

[Christopher Barry]

How 4:2:2 is the 1080p24 DVCProHD codec?

1280x1080, with 1.5x horizontal stretch on playout.

HDCam recorded to the camera tape is referred to as 3:1:1. HDCam camera records 1440x1080, so how does the 1080p24 DVCProHD encoding method compare, and at a lesser 1280x1080? X:X:X ?

[Morpheus_23]

Morpheus 23,

Could you possibly post some of the HVX images you refer to? I'd like to see how you arrived at your conclusion. Thanks.

Vince

My conclusion was, first of all, that I agree with what everybody already knows. The EX1 has a much sharper crisper image. All I said was that I don't think it is "leaps and bounds" above tha Canon or HVX.

My conclusion was, secondly, like Chuck Norris supporting Mike Huckabee. Nobody cares and it's not going to sway any votes.

I also just read Barry's thread about his initial assessment of the EX1 compared to the HVX. I think his description of the EX1 image as "looking through a window HD look" is right on the money. It's that sharp. That's what I saw when I saw the footage on a HD monitor. But I also agree with his statement regarding that sharpness. "So in motion, the sharpness advantage over an HVX is very little". Read the thread. I think it's right on.

So again, I'm not taking anything away from the EX1. It's just not enough, in my opinion, to put a Canon or HVX on Ebay.

[Carl]

I´m so happy with the Canon HDV picture/ my Custom Presets
, price point and FCP workflow, so I wait for more improvments.

So I just pickup an Canon XHA1 yesterday to support and a compliment to my Canon XLH1.
Really happy to see how small and nice Canon have made XHA1.
Half the price of the Sony EX1, feels really good in our very fast developing segment...
Can also now make 2 cam shoots easy :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
And the HD-SDI out on my XLH1.

Wonder what Canon, Panasonic, JVC and even the MiniRED will offer later
in the year, that might be bigger improvements...
I wait...but thats me :Drogar-SunGlass(DBG

[matthew77]

It's just not enough, in my opinion, to put a Canon or HVX on Ebay.

It is for me - that's exactly what I did with my HVX when I got my EX1!

There is no comparison between the two, in my opinion, having used both.

[Stevet]

Carl, congrats on th A1. It's a great camera to cut with you H1. It looks like you are all set. The A1 will stand right up to the H1, and the H1 offers SDI when needed.

[Stevet]

I'm also interested in the "mini RED". It will be interesting to see how this camera pans out.
No doubt with cameras such as the EX1, they will have to offer quite the package at a decent price, especially with the upcoming portable 4:2:2 drives.

Afterall, the EX1 offers 10 bit 4:2:2 via SDI. This is unheard-of in this price range.
This should really offer spectacular colors in gradients.

[Barry_Green]

HDCam recorded to the camera tape is referred to as 3:1:1. HDCam camera records 1440x1080
Yes, and its chroma resolution is 480 x 1080. 480 chroma samples for 1440 luma samples. So there are three luma samples for every chroma sample, which is where you get the "3" in "3:1:1".

, so how does the 1080p24 DVCProHD encoding method compare, and at a lesser 1280x1080? X:X:X ?
It's only 1280 in US/NTSC territories, it's 1440 everywhere else.

In 1280 it records chroma as 640x1080. In 1440 it records chroma as 720x1080. So 640 chroma samples out of 1280 luma samples equals a ratio of 2 luma for every chroma, and 720 chroma samples for 1440 luma samples = 2 luma for every chroma. Having two luma samples per chroma gives you the 4:2 ratio in 4:2:2. (the last digit refers to whether it has chroma samples for every scanline, or for every two scanlines; that's the difference between 4:2:2-every line and 4:2:0-every other line).

[ESTEBEVERDE]

There are other important factors that make the upgrade worth considering.

As an A1 owner I am particularly envious of the EX for:

Low light sensitivity.
Better compression.
HiRez (usable) LCD
Tapeless workflow (on more affordable media that actually fits into my current laptop).

I used to really regret not having variable frame rates, but Twixtor has soothed my pain. It is really phenomenal.

In my case I spent money on a Firestore, Bebob box to hold it, and a Marshall monitor in an attempt to have (or surpass) some of those features on my A1. That is close to 3 grand in upgrades.

....

This is very sound logic!

[Christopher Barry]

Yes, and its chroma resolution is 480 x 1080. 480 chroma samples for 1440 luma samples. So there are three luma samples for every chroma sample, which is where you get the "3" in "3:1:1".


It's only 1280 in US/NTSC territories, it's 1440 everywhere else.

In 1280 it records chroma as 640x1080. In 1440 it records chroma as 720x1080. So 640 chroma samples out of 1280 luma samples equals a ratio of 2 luma for every chroma, and 720 chroma samples for 1440 luma samples = 2 luma for every chroma. Having two luma samples per chroma gives you the 4:2 ratio in 4:2:2. (the last digit refers to whether it has chroma samples for every scanline, or for every two scanlines; that's the difference between 4:2:2-every line and 4:2:0-every other line).

Barry, thank you for the confirmation, HDCam being 3:1:1.

I also have read your Understanding Color Sampling (http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/colorspace/)article, however, with the example of say DVCProHD 1080p24 being 1280x1080 encoded, is it still 4:2:2 footage when displayed on a 1920x1080 viewing environment, such as a pixel for pixel 1080 monitor? The 1.5x stretch on the horizontal axis is filling the gap of the missing 640 pixels of information on the horizontal axis.

One the other hand, the 1080p24 HQ mode recorded on the EX1's SxS card is encoded as 1920x1080, however it is 4:2:0 colour sampling.

So does DVCProHD 1080p24 represent 4:2:2 (1280x1080) in a 1920x1080 viewing environment? If not, what do we really call DVCProHD, now that we have these new codecs evolving? Thank you.

[Barry_Green]

Well, that's a good question. The ratio refers to the recorded format, not the display format, and at the recorded format it's 4:2:2. But it's prefiltered. Some people have tried to enforce a notion of using terminology such as 3:1.5:1.5 to account for the prefilter, but I think it just makes them end up sounding silly.

The definitive article on color sampling nomenclature is by Charles Poynton, at http://www.poynton.com/PDFs/Chroma_subsampling_notation.pdf

[gaffney film]

Christopher,

Another interesting take found here;

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=111643

v

[Christopher Barry]

Barry, thank you for your prompt reply and explanation. I am struggling to calculate the difference between 1080p24 DVCProHD 4:2:2 and XDCAM HQ 35Mb/s VBR 4:2:0 as a display format.

Perhaps it is fair to say the aforementioned EX1 codec is a pixel for pixel 1080p24 4:2:0 record and display codec?

As for DVCProHD, would the reference to 3:1.5:1.5 apply for recorded formats with 1.5x aspect ratio (1080p24) or 1.33x aspect ratio (720p & 1080p25, etc) stretch on the horizontal axis? If it applies to the 1.33x ratio, what would the 1.5x ratio actually be as a display format? I am struggling here with the mathematics in this analysis. Also, it is kind of confusing, as it is only affects one axis. Anyway, thank you for considering these questions.

gaffney film, you will note I had already posted there a day ago. Perhaps many ways to interpret the extract of Juan Martinez comments.

[Barry_Green]

Perhaps it is fair to say the aforementioned EX1 codec is a pixel for pixel 1080p24 4:2:0 record and display codec?
Well, yes. Except that it's also long-GOP, which makes me uncomfortable about saying it's pixel-for-pixel. When the codec gets overloaded resolution can drop a little or a lot, you can end up with frames that have as little as maybe 400 x 300 or so. But when all is going well, yes it's 1920x1080x4:2:0 at recording and at display, which makes it 1920x1080 luma and 960x540 chroma. In 720p mode it's 1280x720 luma and 640x360 chroma.

As for the nomenclature and getting into 2.7:1.3:1.3 or 3:1.5:1.5 or whatever -- read Poynton, he makes it pretty clear that this is all nonsense and a backwards/goofy way to look at it. The original meaning of the numbers is kind of lost now anyway, and it makes it more difficult to understand what's going on.

Just look at the actual chroma resolution. XDCAM HQ's color res is 960x540 in 1080, and 640x360 in 720p. DVCPRO-HD's color res is 720x1080 in 1080/50i/25p, 640x1080 in 1080/60i/24p/30p, and it's 480x720 in 720p. Those are absolute numbers that apply to recording and playback because it's the actual recorded color resolution, and should make the process of understanding it a lot simpler than trying to come up with some goofy number like 3:1.5:1.5.

[Christopher Barry]

Just look at the actual chroma resolution. XDCAM HQ's color res is 960x540 in 1080, and 640x360 in 720p. DVCPRO-HD's color res is 720x1080 in 1080/50i/25p, 640x1080 in 1080/60i/24p/30p, and it's 480x720 in 720p. Those are absolute numbers that apply to recording and playback because it's the actual recorded color resolution, and should make the process of understanding it a lot simpler than trying to come up with some goofy number like 3:1.5:1.5.

Yes, 2.7:1.3:1.3, or the like, is quite funny. Thanks for providing the above calcs, a much more sensible way to look at it. :beer: