Hvx200 vs XH-A1 lowlight

[magichristopher]

Has anyone preformed this yet? i would be very interested in seeing the results comparing the two in low light.

For everything else, I understand the differences so I am just requesting low light tests.

Thanks

[Drew Ott]

Over on DVinfo someone is going to do a test tonight. It'll be posted by tomorrow morning.

[poweredbyjolt]

I bought the XHA1 today because I wanted to get a camera to shoot HD weddings. I already own the HVX 200 which is an amazing camera, but it has been hard trying to shoot run and gun weddings. So I decided why not compare these two bad boys. So I took the cameras out in my backyard and shot some test footage. I did mess it up a bit because I always shoot 720p with my HVX , so this was the setting it was on. Anyway I didn't realize this till after it was dark. Check out this footage here.
(Please right click to download)

www.joesimonproductions.com/shootout/daytime.mov

I just bought the XHA1 today so I only used it for about 1/2 hour before i shot this stuff. I'm sure the settings weren't optimal, and after spending more time behind the camera I learned it has tons of CP settings and you can really match these two up if you needed to. Here is a color corrected version of the footage.
(Please right click to download)
www.joesimonproductions.com/shootout/daytimecc.mov

I also did a low light comparison between the HVX-200(in 1080/24p), XHA1 and the PD170. Here is the link for the small version.
(Please right click to download)
www.joesimonproductions.com/shootout/lowlight.mov

HD version -
www.joesimonproductions.com/shootout/lowlightbig.mov

I was really impressed by the low light capabilities of the XHA1. When you use the NR1 setting on low it does a great job of cleaning up the grain. But don't set it to medium or High because it makes a ghosting pattern on moving objects as you will see. I hope this will help people out there who have not seen footage from this great new camera. I should have some new stuff shot in the next few days for some more comparisons.

[rawfa]

Great great comparison.Both look really amazing. The HVX seems to have more saturated strong colors with high contrast (might have to do a little bit with the fact that it was shot 720p). I'm sure the A1 footage could easily be color corrected to match the HVX's.

[rawfa]

The A1 seems to have a tiny bit of an edge over the HVX on low light. It's hard to look at the footage produced by the pd170 after watching the A1's and the HVX's. It looks so flat and cold.

[rawfa]

The NR is amazing.

[delaro]

i was almost buying the hvx.
then, yesterday i saw macgregor footage with the h1.
and now .... that.
i'm puzzled ....

[rawfa]

After this side by side comparison I'm more than convinced that the A1 can be just as good as the HVX for more than half the price (if you include the p2 cards). Now, this is the moment where I expect a sniper hired by Barry to shot me right between the eyes.

[Christopher Barry]

hehe. Lucky you're in the "Other Cameras" section.

[Barry_Green]

Now, this is the moment where I expect a sniper hired by Barry to shot me right between the eyes.
Why? If the A1 can do a fantastic job, what's wrong with that? :) Competition is good for all of us.

But when you say "just as good for half the price", I still have to point out that the image is only one factor. Variable frame rates, ability to shoot 720, ability to shoot DVCPRO50 in SD, uncompressed audio, tapeless workflow, potential GOP issues, 4:2:2, deck incompatibility, and all sorts of other factors come into play. I think the XHA1 can make a strong case for being "the new DVX" if all turns out as promised. But I think it's not a competitor for the HVX among those who value the other things the HVX can do.

It's like how VX2000 buyers tried very hard to convince themselves that the PD150 was a waste of money because "it's the exact same camera plus some XLRs". Far from it, the DVCAM recording alone was worth the price increase for lots and lots of people!

And when you say "half the price"... $4000 vs. $5300 doesn't seem like "half the price" either, considering the HVX now comes with a free 8GB card. :thumbsup:

I hope the XHA1 turns out to be a fantastic product and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on one.

[Simes]

To be honest I'm a big fan of the A1 and probably will buy one. However, I completely agree with Barry in that it is lacking a lot of the features that the HVX has - and I have to admit that I love the picture that the HVX produces, I do think it is 'more pleasing' than the A1 - particularly out of the box.

Where I disagree with Barry is on the price issue - you have to go with what you can afford and be realistic about what features you get for what price. In the UK the price difference is about £1000 (That's around $1800) and at the moment, no free P2 card. Once I've made a good bit of money I'll look at panasonic again.... which is back to agreeing with Barry again - get the camera that meets your requirements and if necessary (and you can afford it) get two...

[Barry_Green]

You would think, after all the traveling I've been doing, that I'd remember that there's a world outside the US when I make posts like that! Sorry, yes, of course you're right, outside the USA the free card isn't part of the deal, which changes the economic picture...

[rawfa]

Hey Simes, I'm going to be in London tomorrow and I was thinking of looking into the A1 prices there. Do you know what is the cheapest price available in London? If it's around 3300€ I might just buy it there.

[Simes]

Errr, more to the point, is there any stock in London?

I don't think any A1s (Other than demo models) have made it to the UK yet. I have contact with a Canon dealer who says they won't have stock until the 15th :-( If you find where they have them, please let me know!

[rawfa]

Will do. I guess the release dates are the same as Barcelona's... :-(

[poweredbyjolt]

After using both cameras I think that the HVX still has many advantages. With the variable frame rates to the many recording formats and 100mbit recording you can do almost any job. Also having to go back to tape again sucks, especially when the HVX separates each clip.

The A1 is very nice, I picked up 2 of them yesterday at Precision camera here in Austin because I was anticipating them selling out quickly. They will be a great camera to film weddings with especially since I can shoot in 24 or 30f.

Out of the box the cameras footage looks very similar to the FX/1, but it is when you go in to the CP menu that the magic happens. There are so many settings even more then the HVX like separate color gain and color matrix controls. With these you can tune the picture for the look you want. The HVX's controls go from -7-+7 while the A1's have a -30-+30 variation(on most of them, Ped and a few others are less, but color controls are -30-+30) which I think will give you a bit more to play with.

I found the low light on the A1 amazing, inside and outside. If you watch the smaller version of the low light test it does better job of giving it justice because of the compression. On my computer in FCP You can barely see any gain in the 12db setting with NR1 on low. Did I say amazing! Also I feel that it looks less grainy then the PD170 when its settings were 1/6f, 1/60frame rate 12db, and the pictures are pretty equal in brightness!

I have a documentary that I will be shooting this winter that I think I can use both of the cameras and it would be very hard to notice. I'm going to have a great time with this new camera shooting events and I will be sticking with my HVX to shoot commercials and short film work.

[delaro]

After using both cameras I think that the HVX still has many advantages. With the variable frame rates to the many recording formats and 100mbit recording you can do almost any job. Also having to go back to tape again sucks, especially when the HVX separates each clip.
I have a documentary that I will be shooting this winter that I think I can use both of the cameras and it would be very hard to notice. I'm going to have a great time with this new camera shooting events and I will be sticking with my HVX to shoot commercials and short film work.

have you seen macgregor short "smile" shot with the H1?
is this kind of look possible with the hvx200? i mean something very cold. because the only non warm hvx footages i've seen were turning very blueish (even with a very low saturation).

[xray]

I also take a good look at the Canon A1, for oneman documentary shootings in 25f it could do the job very good. Compared with the HVX prices over here ($ 9000,- VAT inc. no free goods) it gives you an economical product you can work with. I probably will buy one.

The images and color controls do look promising and I can live with HDV during recording if it also gives me long recording times and instant tape backup.

Also I like Canon, they are small in the video department, big in the lenses and with a long history in building analog and digital camera's.

[Kholi]

Gotta say--

The Free 8gig P2 card makes the HVX look even sweeter with all of the low prices floating to the surface this holiday season.

=(

A1's picture, to me, has more potential to be corrected with all of the tweaking options and post options.

HVX has a crap-load of extra features that makes it look great. I'm still on the fence on which one to go in debt for.

way to go...

[delaro]

difficult choice.
but i don't understand. the hvx seems to be more sensitive than the a1 in daylight and less sensitive in dark conditions with these examples.
i like the coldness of some hdv footages i've seen, kind of lack of humanity. but i'm not sure i can obtain that kind of image with the hvx.....

[Kholi]

You'd have to remember that the HDV footage can be saturated as well. Take out that certain cold that you're seeing.

[delaro]

yeah but i really like that cold. if the hvx was able to look like that for some specific works, i would rush to buy one.

[Barry_Green]

You can paint it to look like whatever you want. All of these cameras have extensive image manipulation controls...

[delaro]

i own a dvx and a sony hc1 and even CCed the hdv has got something flatter that i can't explain that i like (i put some hc1 footages on http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=delaroziere&templatefn=FileSharing3.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.3.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=consumer&cty=US&lang=en ).
but i've seen so many exciting hvx footages that i'm lost.
i've noticed that when a hvx footage is badly lite it can really look videoish. but when the work on lights is good the footage is f**** nice. IMO hdv permits more freedom, even when the lighting is bad there's something kind of non-videoish .... but not as nice as the best hvx footages.

[whachusay]

I cant decide between these two cameras. Awe shucks..

[FatDaddy]

good stuff. thanks for effort. gives us some almost real comparisons (Barry has to get his hands on one of these and get the hvx cage match going...

[delaro]

(Barry has to get his hands on one of these and get the hvx cage match going...

yeah, i think that a lot of people are waiting for that :)

[delaro]

I cant decide between these two cameras. Awe shucks..

i've just seen this trailer shot with the hvx (without any adapter, mattebox, ....) .... http://www.midnight-film.com/
i'm not sure anymore to go for the A1

[Kholi]

Yeah, you should probably just wait until more A1 footage is available, used for narrative productions.

www.starwaypictures.com

If you want more h1 footage to go off of.

Or, you could try them both out yourself.

[whachusay]

i've just seen this trailer shot with the hvx (without any adapter, mattebox, ....) .... http://www.midnight-film.com/
i'm not sure anymore to go for the A1
WOE, I wasn't expecting all that. WOW that was nice. With the variable frame rates and a free 8 gig P2 card it is awefully tempting. I must say thought that the A1 seems to be able to definitely hold it's own. The footage of both cameras looks great.

[whachusay]

Yeah, you should probably just wait until more A1 footage is available, used for narrative productions.

www.starwaypictures.com

If you want more h1 footage to go off of.

Or, you could try them both out yourself.
Waiting is a wise thing. That was good footage as well. I'll know soon enough. Thanks for the link.

[Barry_Green]

The footage of both cameras looks great.
The footage from all these cameras looks great. Even the Z1 puts out a great image.

More and more it's not about the image anymore, as they're all excellent. It's about the features and the workflow and what works for your particular needs.

[rawfa]

Barry is right. And I feel that at the present moment the HVX and the G1/A1 are the cameras that offer most control over image yet. But I'm thinking its only a matter of time until all companies start including vast image control options on their cameras. It's the future...along with true progressive and tapeless recording (you may now thank me for stating the obvious).

[Noel Evans]

The footage from all these cameras looks great. Even the Z1 puts out a great image.

More and more it's not about the image anymore, as they're all excellent. It's about the features and the workflow and what works for your particular needs.

Barry sumed it up perfectly again. I think at this point people should start to think more about the using the tools, and using the right tools for the right job rather than bantering. Threads like this can be very useful if everything is kept in perspective and it gives people insight into what and how this tool works in comparison to another.

In making my decision I had to wiegh up many factors. A lot of which was to do with my personal workflow, what equipement I presently own, what would need to be changed over? etc.

I did bank on the fact that the A1 was going to produce a similar image to the XLh1, and thus far havent been let down.

[delaro]

More and more it's not about the image anymore.

hdv cams, hvx and sd cams are making very different images.
quality is increasing for all but we have to choose between more various looks.
so it's a question of taste and IMO it will be more and more about the image.
i've seen all the trailers on www.starwaypictures.com and for my tastes "day 11" shot with a xl2 is my favorite. probably because its far less detailed than the H1 ones, less electronic and less perfect, with rich colors. but i'm sure that i would prefer the H1 ones on a big screen in a theatre. so we are not "bantering" about the quality of the cams (they are all impressive and i love a1's footages) but more about the versatility of them. "using the right tool for the right job" is ok when you are doing some institutional/weddings jobs for example but when you're into fiction or music video each job is different.
and isn't it a "bantering" place here? uh? ;)

[Kholi]

Delaro,

You'd have to consider the fact that the content creators used the look to help the image in Day 11.

Really, the workflow and such is honestly the bottom-line, now-a-days. That and price. You can tweak the HVX to look gritty... just look at Illegal in the HVX section. It looks gritty, because they wanted it too.

You just have to know how to twist the wrist of the camera's final image to get it to do what you want.

[delaro]

Delaro,

You'd have to consider the fact that the content creators used the look to help the image in Day 11.

Really, the workflow and such is honestly the bottom-line, now-a-days. That and price. You can tweak the HVX to look gritty... just look at Illegal in the HVX section. It looks gritty, because they wanted it too.

You just have to know how to twist the wrist of the camera's final image to get it to do what you want.

of course, but even with heavy CC hdv always looks like hdv. i pushed my hdv very far in CC to experiment. i don t say it's bad, i like it a lot but sometimes i want something more organic like on my dvx. and in the other way i've never seen the hdv coldness that i like in the hundreds of hvx footages i've downloaded. so i'll probably go for both cam, hvx and a1 or v1.

[magichristopher]

of course, but even with heavy CC hdv always looks like hdv. i pushed my hdv very far in CC to experiment. i don t say it's bad, i like it a lot but sometimes i want something more organic like on my dvx. and in the other way i've never seen the hdv coldness that i like in the hundreds of hvx footages i've downloaded. so i'll probably go for both cam, hvx and a1 or v1.

Yea, but you forget that the Canon Does SD as well with true 16:9, I think that the DVX is nearly becoming obsolete in a way. I agree that the DVX will still be used for years to come, and HD wont be adopted for many years, but considering the price point of the XHA1, I see the DVX being less relevant for future people to purchase and create with.

[DavidBeier]

For the most part, I agree that with the A1 the DVX is getting in obsolete territory.

As for the HVX vs the A1, the footage was quite cool. The A1 appears to be maintaining the resolution advantage that the XLH1 had. That said, I still like the colors and image that the HVX200 produces and P2 and variable frame-rates are still things I wouldn't want to lose. My biggest concern continues to be with HDV. I havn't worked with Canon HDV yet. I understand that it's better than Sony HDV (which is awful) and JVC HDV (which is better but still not great). If it holds up OK in post and with a lot of motion, it may be worth it for some to invest in an A1 for really wide shots where the extra bit of detail would help and stick to the HVX200 for most other shots.

[delaro]

Yea, but you forget that the Canon Does SD as well with true 16:9, I think that the DVX is nearly becoming obsolete in a way. I agree that the DVX will still be used for years to come, and HD wont be adopted for many years, but considering the price point of the XHA1, I see the DVX being less relevant for future people to purchase and create with.

of course. i was not comparing a1 to dvx, i was just speaking about the pana look considering that the hvx and the dvx get this organic feeling in common.
i agree david, i want both too.
i've seen some nice a1 footages. i'm just waiting for uncompressed faces and human close-ups footages to see how well it is for fiction or music videos.

[ChuckS]

The footage from all these cameras looks great. Even the Z1 puts out a great image.

More and more it's not about the image anymore, as they're all excellent. It's about the features and the workflow and what works for your particular needs.

You know, quite a while before the HVX200 came out there was a lot of discussion at DVXuser about HD and how it would change the workflow.

The need to change the workflow for HD is true whether it’s HDV, D5 or P2. It just so happens there is no choice but to develop a new workflow if you use P2. Still most people are still treating HD like big video and that just isn't efficient or desirable. HD is much more analogous to digital film.

Most people on this forum dismissed my ranting about workflow then, now it’s all the rage. Things that make you go hmmm...

So now that everyone is working so diligently trying to squeeze HD through the FCP/Edius/Avid pipelines there is a significant problem that most users are dismissing [much in the same way they dismissed workflow related issues a couple of years ago] and that is the fact that DVCProHD is an 8bit codec.

You’re right Barry, all of these camera’s offer great price/performance, but if you’re talking about how workflow can differentiate one from the other then you need to considerably raise the bar to make sure your workflow can accommodate 16bits.

[Elton]

i'm just waiting for uncompressed faces and human close-ups footages to see how well it is for fiction or music videos.

Coming soon...

[Noel Evans]

of course, but even with heavy CC hdv always looks like hdv. i pushed my hdv very far in CC to experiment. i don t say it's bad, i like it a lot but sometimes i want something more organic like on my dvx. and in the other way i've never seen the hdv coldness that i like in the hundreds of hvx footages i've downloaded. so i'll probably go for both cam, hvx and a1 or v1.

I will have some stuff up soon regarding faces etc.

Owning an HVX and a Canon A1 seriously, if you can afford it is an excellent way to be.

[delaro]

nice! thanx!
so what is the conclusion of this thread? because i ve read that the h1 is less sensitive than the hvx. and these examples seem to show that the a1 is more sensitive than the hvx. and h1 and a1 seem to be equivalent technically.

[magichristopher]

I don't have any really objective results to share, that is what I was hoping but. From the footage I have seen I would suggest that not only is the A1 better in lowlight than the HVX, but it also has cleaner image, not to mention significantly better rez in 60i.

[DavidBeier]

I don't have any really objective results to share, that is what I was hoping but. From the footage I have seen I would suggest that not only is the A1 better in lowlight than the HVX, but it also has cleaner image, not to mention significantly better rez in 60i.

I think the image is cleaner in low light (since, being an interlaced chipset, you can apparently boost the gain with less issues) but I don't find it to be any clearer in a well lit environment. It is certainly sharper in 60i since the HVX200 doesn't have progressive chips and thus doesn't gain any resolution in interlaced.

[Barry_Green]

Not sure you phrased that correctly; the HVX200 "does" have progressive chips, but no camera gains resolution when scanning in interlaced. On a true progressive system you'd lose resolution when going to interlaced (but the HVX doesn't scan interlaced at all, it's always progressive, so when it records interlaced it just slices progressive frames into fields, thus it's the same resolution in interlaced or progressive.) The cameras that simulate progressive (Canon "F" modes, Sony CF modes, XDCAM-HD etc) lose resolution when simulating progressive scan.

[xray]

Yeah, vertical somewhat but they have plenty horizontal resolution, lots of it. Look at the night streetshots somewhere in Japan. The (F)mode with amp/nr gains resolution on this cam compared to the HVX.

[Noel Evans]

Look Im going to settle this argument once and for all. I took both cams into the yard last night and Im telling you I could still see both of them.

Another non constructive post by ncje :S Sorry :P

not to mention significantly better rez in 60i.

Crap this camera has 60i? I dont think mine came with it.









(disclaimer - yes I do shoot 60i for slow motion)

[John Trent]

GRABS!

Pleassssssse.

[chaspdx]

I bought the xha1 this weekend I watched your demo video some of the setting you show on your video like the nr setting theres no such thing that I can find..

Also there is a glitch with the camera I bought I open the lcd screen and close it and the viewfinder would short out it would dim and brighten. anyone else have this happening

[chaspdx]

Im sad I cant find any NR setting on the XHA1 where is it

[Barry_Green]

NR1 and NR2 are in the "customize" menu.

For low light, they appear to be nigh unto identical, with the A1 having a tiny edge in brightness, and a comparable increase in noise. They're basically equivalent in brightness and level of noise performance, although the character of the noise is different -- the A1's noise is very gritty/grainy, the HVX's is smearier and more chroma noise.

If you gain 'em both up, they get comparably noisy, and at 12dB I thought the Canon was noticeably noisier than the HVX, at the same iris and shutter speed.

But overall, they're roughly equivalent in low light from my first initial tests.

[Kholi]

Well, wait a second. i didn't realize that you were using two different terms for the noise.

What's the difference between HVX's Chroma Noise and the A1's Grit/Grain?

Is the Chroma noise why it seems that the HVX footage breaks up quicker (to me at least) when CC'ing rather than an M2t from the Canon?

[chaspdx]

Oh ok thanks.

[Noel Evans]

NR1 and NR2 are in the "customize" menu.

For low light, they appear to be nigh unto identical, with the A1 having a tiny edge in brightness, and a comparable increase in noise. They're basically equivalent in brightness and level of noise performance, although the character of the noise is different -- the A1's noise is very gritty/grainy, the HVX's is smearier and more chroma noise.

If you gain 'em both up, they get comparably noisy, and at 12dB I thought the Canon was noticeably noisier than the HVX, at the same iris and shutter speed.

But overall, they're roughly equivalent in low light from my first initial tests.

Barry I think thats a fair assesment. I would go so far as to say that the -3 gain is about 0 on the HVX and thus +12 is a bit higher than 12 on the HVX.

BTW Barry glad you have the cam so you can give a hands on assessment.

[Jay Rodriguez]

Oh man, Barry has the A1 too? LOL, this is good to know.

[Kholi]

Well, wait a second. i didn't realize that you were using two different terms for the noise.

What's the difference between HVX's Chroma Noise and the A1's Grit/Grain?

Is the Chroma noise why it seems that the HVX footage breaks up quicker (to me at least) when CC'ing rather than an M2t from the Canon?

Bump. Especially after reading Camcorder Info's review.

Seems that they're agreeing that the A1's noise is a lot more tamed than other cameras.

[chaspdx]

Oh wow the only thing the canon XHA1 cant do is well lets just say i got up this morning and had to make my own coffee and breakfast ha ha ha

[Stuart Hunter]

that was a great test, very informative, personally I still prefer the hvx stuff, the A1 seemed cold and flat to me, I just love the richer colours of the hvx of course if price is your major concern or the colder look is what you are after then the A1 seems a great cam to invest in....for Me though, its still the hvx

[delaro]

that was a great test, very informative, personally I still prefer the hvx stuff, the A1 seemed cold and flat to me, I just love the richer colours of the hvx of course if price is your major concern or the colder look is what you are after then the A1 seems a great cam to invest in....for Me though, its still the hvx

i would like to see some A1 saturated well lite footage. i've seen some very nice and colorful footages from fx1 and z1 in the past. i wonder if the A1 is able to obtain those colors.

[Noel Evans]

that was a great test, very informative, personally I still prefer the hvx stuff, the A1 seemed cold and flat to me, I just love the richer colours of the hvx of course if price is your major concern or the colder look is what you are after then the A1 seems a great cam to invest in....for Me though, its still the hvx

You used one? Reason I ask is that I can pump the colours on the A1 to equal the HVX... out of the box is kind of cold yes, but hey we are in the manual camera world.

[delaro]

You used one? Reason I ask is that I can pump the colours on the A1 to equal the HVX....

do u have some color pumped footage to show?
the 2 footages that convinced me so far are the scott audette fountain720.mov and the cactus.mov in term of resolution or latitude. others seem milky and very soft in comparison with hvx.

[whachusay]

I would like to see Barry do a little shoot off between these two cameras :).

[Elton]

Delaro, do you like color correction in post? If so, you actually would want a somewhat milky image captured in-camera if you want the maximum latitude in post.

That NY clip I showed was intentionally shot a bit flat in order to show that you can correct the image in post to just about any kind of look you want.

[delaro]

Delaro, do you like color correction in post? If so, you actually would want a somewhat milky image captured in-camera if you want the maximum latitude in post.

That NY clip I showed was intentionally shot a bit flat in order to show that you can correct the image in post to just about any kind of look you want.

well it would be ok with uncompressed footages.
with my nikon d70 i have raw material, i can push the CC a lot so i prefer to shoot flat.
but here it's 4:2:0. i'm using color finesse with my HC1, it's wrong to say that you can obtain any kind of look you want. we're not playing with 4:4:4 here. you have to know what kind of look you want before shooting to achieve it properly. that's why i'm waiting for well lite footages showing faces, close ups, with good A1 color settings (saturation, pedestal, cinegamma). anyway your footage was really good! i saw it 50 times, but even CCed, colors look very pastel. i've been playing with it for hours in AE.

[xray]

Copy that, it looks like that all the energy is going to show lowlight and 24p performance. It is important, and I'm sure you can get a better noisefree image with the A1 than you get with the HVX in low light but:

If you look at the HVX clips almost ALL are shootings in bright sunny places...

So the A1 footage needs to do the same: shoot well lit outside close up shots, people, nature, animals. The HVX gives you a saturated contrast-rich look, there is no need to create the HVX look (every cam has its own) but to 'please' people, better show up balanced footage with rich colors and nice deep blacks.

Do it in cam or in post, make a good H.264 mov and post it!

[Barry_Green]

I would like to see Barry do a little shoot off between these two cameras :).

That was the plan, and I have 'em both right now, but the weather has been most uncooperative. Yesterday was a raging storm all day, probably not hurricane strength but it was N A S T Y. Today looks better but there's no sun, just flat overcast blah. So nothing interesting to shoot...

[Barry_Green]

I'm sure you can get a better noisefree image with the A1 than you get with the HVX in low light
No you cannot. The A1 is every bit as noisy as the HVX, and about the same sensitivity. They are, for all practical purposes, basically identical in low light considerations (although it does appear that the HVX can see a bit deeper into the shadows).

So the A1 footage needs to do the same: shoot well lit outside close up shots,
I'd love to but there's no sun! The weather is working against me here...

[delaro]

No you cannot. The A1 is every bit as noisy as the HVX, and about the same sensitivity. They are, for all practical purposes, basically identical in low light considerations (although it does appear that the HVX can see a bit deeper into the shadows).
.

does that mean, barry, that you got some better lowlight hvx results compared to the lowlight.mov footage of this thread?

[Bogdan]

...
we're not playing with 4:4:4 here. you have to know what kind of look you want before shooting to achieve it properly
...

I think it's not as bad as you and many other folks claim. Of course, pushing image from one extreme to the other in post is not a good idea, even with RAW images from DLSR. However, if you know what you want to achieve, you really do not have to do it 100% in the camera. I agree with Elton.

Personally I prefer to shoot with wider dynamic range rather than try to achieve final results in the camera, but it does not mean shooting flat. I prefer to target the golden middle. If something goes wrong (and it does sometimes for all of us, well, maybe except for Barry:)), it's so much easier to make necessary corrections in post.

And btw, you can push XH-A1 as hard as you want, from very flat to deep and dark, from saturated orgy of colorful flowers in the garden to completely B&W. So, if you prefer to achieve what you want in the camera, no problem. It's all in the custom settings and it's amazing.

About low light performance, I don't agree with Barry. Canon is significantly better.

[xray]

No you cannot. The A1 is every bit as noisy as the HVX, and about the same sensitivity. They are, for all practical purposes, basically identical in low light considerations (although it does appear that the HVX can see a bit deeper into the shadows).


I'd love to but there's no sun! The weather is working against me here...

Based on the camcorderinfo test and on the lowlight HVX comparision test I think you get a better noisefree image with the A1. BTW the call for sunny colorful shots is open for everyone!

(It is dark in the Netherlands too) I think this Canon A1 will rock for documentary work in the field!

[Barry_Green]

does that mean, barry, that you got some better lowlight hvx results compared to the lowlight.mov footage of this thread?
It means that I put the two side by side, framed the exact same shot, lit to the same low light level, opened up the iris to the max, set them on equivalent gain, and viewed 'em. And they look about the same. Comparable brightness, comparable noise. Then I gained 'em up to 6dB, and then 12dB, and in both cases they look about the same. The XHA1 has grainier/bittier noise, the HVX has more colorful smearier swimming chroma noise, but they're basically equally noisy. The H1 might be a tad more sensitive and a tad more noisy, but at equivalent brightness and equivalent detail/sharpness settings, they're equivalently noisy.

If you turn up the sharpness setting on the H1 it gets alarmingly grainy, so I don't recommend doing that. The sharpness setting really, really, really accentuates the noise, and is probably the reason for people originally screaming about grain and poor low light performance. Turn the sharpness down to a reasonable level and it brings the grain under control too.

[Barry_Green]

Based on the camcorderinfo test and on the lowlight HVX comparision test I think you get a better noisefree image with the A1.
Based on using them both side by side at all manner of various settings, let me assure you that you cannot.

[Barry_Green]

About low light performance, I don't agree with Barry. Canon is significantly better.
Have you worked with both of them? Have you tried them both yourself? How can you say this?

I've got them both here right now. There is no difference. There is absolutely no truth to any claim that the Canon is "significantly better". They are basically identical in low light performance.

[xray]

Bring down the A1 gain en bring in the NR1. What I have seen the A1 is better usable for ENG like shootings.

BTW:
I am talking about the XH-A1 not the H1, but I'm sure that is what you meand also..

[Bogdan]

Have you worked with both of them? Have you tried them both yourself? How can you say this?

I've got them both here right now. There is no difference. There is absolutely no truth to any claim that the Canon is "significantly better". They are basically identical in low light performance.

I don't have both of them here, but I own XH-A1. I've seen enough footage to say what I've said and I agree with xray.

One can push HVX in post and brighten it, but still XH-A1 has the edge in low light. In addition to that, NR1 set Low works beautiful.

[delaro]

I think it's not as bad as you and many other folks claim. Of course, pushing image from one extreme to the other in post is not a good idea, even with RAW images from DLSR. However, if you know what you want to achieve, you really do not have to do it 100% in the camera. I agree with Elton.

Personally I prefer to shoot with wider dynamic range rather than try to achieve final results in the camera, but it does not mean shooting flat. I prefer to target the golden middle. If something goes wrong (and it does sometimes for all of us, well, maybe except for Barry:)), it's so much easier to make necessary corrections in post.


that's exactly what i'm saying. i was not saying that it's bad, i was just saying that it's not magical. it's not: shoot flat and see later. it's easier to desaturate in post than to saturate. it seems that for a lot of people "flat" means milky, grey, not contrasted footages. for me flat is having good real colors, details where i want them to be in the image, good latitude. i'm not sure that all these rgb settings are very useful in the cam. but the cinegammas, pedestal, black settings, contrast, detail for example are very important. then when you have a nice picture well balanced you can CC in post to colorize, etc.

[Kholi]

No you cannot. The A1 is every bit as noisy as the HVX, and about the same sensitivity. They are, for all practical purposes, basically identical in low light considerations (although it does appear that the HVX can see a bit deeper into the shadows).


I'd love to but there's no sun! The weather is working against me here...

Again, you're saying it's a different kind of noise, right? I'm still trying to get someone to answer this.

If the A1 is just as noisey, which looks to be true, what about the noise makes it a lot smoother?

You said Chroma Noise for the HVX. I don't know what that term means. I'm guessing it refers to the tiny blocks of color compression crawling all over the HVX footage?

The A1's noise seems to be just pixel smear or something, but it's still got the color that it's supposed to be. So, when I CC an m2t, it's very friendly. I don't have to worry about a white shirt turning pink from the little red chroma bugs where I don't want it to.

Am I getting the gyst of it?

[icicle22]

Have you worked with both of them? Have you tried them both yourself? How can you say this?

I've got them both here right now. There is no difference. There is absolutely no truth to any claim that the Canon is "significantly better". They are basically identical in low light performance.

I have shot with an H1 and the HVX200 together shooting the exact same material and the H1 was significantly brighter and less noisy. I proceeded to sell my HVX200 and purchase an H1 (despite the added cost) because of this increase in lowlight performance and less noise. I would not have shelled out an extra $2k+ if I didn't see a "significant" difference. I am not saying that you are wrong in your assesment but I find it perplexing that we see such a difference in this area.

[Kholi]

I still want an answer to my questions. Someone explain this. Because, by my eyes and the .m2t/raw files, the A1's image is a lot cleaner. Maybe not as saturated, but it's been reported many times by users that they can match the look with A1.

[Jay Rodriguez]

Barry, can you post some images so we can see the difference?

[Barry_Green]

I'm talking about the A1, not the H1. And yes, when I get the footage collated, I'll post some pix.

[Elton]

Bottom Line: Both have noise, but what I think people are finding is generally that the Canon cameras produce less *apparent* noise. And this probably has something to do with the fact that the HVX predominantly renders a chroma noise, which is probably why people see the "swim" of it, whereas the A1 has a finer pattern of luma noise, and also has options to smooth out the noise if you need to pump the gain. Using NR1 Low on 12 dB brings it back down to a 3-6dBish look.

Nothing is perfect in the small sensor "affordable HD" category, and I agree with Barry that the Z1/FX1 is still the relativey noise-free champ, but when it comes to the other cameras it's a matter of taste and perspective.

Most of the HVX owners that I know all agree that cranking the gain is a bit of a no-no.

The H1/A1...well...not so much.

[Noel Evans]

Yes, and lets put this all into perspective: These cameras (HVX, A1, H1) are doing pretty darn well for low noise if you consider what they are up against.

I guess its back to the glass half full or half empty perception.

[Kholi]

That's good enough for me. The HVX "noise" compared to the A1's is a lot more... displeasing.

Especially when I go to try to do any sort of CC'ing.

[xray]

Surprise me with the sweet, I already know that I like the HVXcolor more, there is just more dimension in it, but Canon is doing fine in software tuning.

[filmmaker1977]

Have you worked with both of them? Have you tried them both yourself? How can you say this?

I've got them both here right now. There is no difference. There is absolutely no truth to any claim that the Canon is "significantly better". They are basically identical in low light performance.it's your opinion Barry.. but i agree with bogdan, icicle, kholi, the dutchray, etc.. and i think the great majority too.. yeah, we're a great majority..

you're a hvx specialist, maybe you get that particular point where it is possible to handle the noise.. but the limitations are higher than playing on canon.. as well on resolution stuff.. but that's a different story..

there is a different range.. the noise range (that's what we've been talking about) not what you can get where you probably don't go because the shooting circumstances don't let you..

it's the same like shooting an ugly face.. a good director can get what the others don't.. but even the same director will have more problems with an ugly face than a pretty one..

the ugly face keep going as ugly as before.. where a pretty face shines.. the canons are pretty faces..

edit
sorry mate.. i'd like to see you at the canon side but we understand the reality is more complicated than our wishes..

[Barry_Green]

Once again, I have no clue what you're talking about.

Can someone please give me the parameters of a test they'd like run, which will demonstrate this supposed superiority? 'Cause I've got them both right here, right now, side by side, both running into DV Rack on two laptops side by side, watching the scopes, watching the waveform, zooming the monitor in to super-zoom mode, and I'm telling ya, there ain't much difference. Certainly no difference worth talking about, and I flatly reject any notion that one is (to quote an earlier comment) "significantly better" than the other. They are, for all practical intents and purposes, the same. The Canon exhibits a tiny bit more brightness and a tiny bit more noise at equivalent gain settings. Nothing worth talking about.

I'm not talking about "opinion", I'm talking about what the actual results are.

[Elton]

... I can pump the colours on the A1 to equal the HVX... out of the box is kind of cold yes, but hey we are in the manual camera world.

I think it's important to make a distinction about the philosophy behind the "default look" of the Canon cameras.

They ship *broadcast flat* out-of-the-box, much like an F900 does. They are meant to shoot with maximum range when in auto mode, not "rich and contrasty" in-camera, which is where I think they diverge from Panasonic's approach. I know the HVX has different flatter scene files, (News Gamma, etc.) but most new owners simply try the Cinelike V and D first, which are fairly colorful by default. Nothing wrong with that, they are just more aggressive about how the image is processed IMHO.

Maybe it would be cool if Canon had a more tagged Fuji-like, instant gratification preset, but the approach is just conservative: Let the shooter paint the image.

Just a few thoughts on the subject. :)

[filmmaker1977]

Once again, I have no clue what you're talking about.i'm sorry but let the things where they are.. :) we'll never get here a consensus between our different approaches.. and i have no english for yours :crybaby: i should and want to be polite and i've fear for a language limitation here..

it's like hvx against canon.. :D

different approaches.. i just leave my humble contribution here for future readers w/out knowing what camcorder to buy.. english natives too.. i'm not but surely a native filmmaker.. :grin: i also was a potential hvx buyer and unfortunately i gave up and if it wouldn't be on red (different ballpark) it would be on canon.. and i didn't lose more than ten seconds with my indecision..

[delaro]

but the approach is just conservative: Let the shooter paint the image.

Just a few thoughts on the subject. :)

we want painted footages!!!! :)

[John Froton]

i'm sorry but let the things where they are.. :) we'll never get here a consensus between our different approaches.. and i have no english for yours :crybaby: i should and want to be polite and i've fear for a language limitation here..

it's like hvx against canon.. :D

different approaches.. i just leave my humble contribution here for future readers w/out knowing what camcorder to buy.. english natives too.. i'm not but surely a native filmmaker.. :grin: i also was a potential hvx buyer and unfortunately i gave up and if it wouldn't be on red (different ballpark) it would be on canon.. and i didn't lose more than ten seconds with my indecision..

.......... I'll have what he's drinking :beer:

Barry, is there any way you could do a test by moving the cameras very far away from each other ..... like maybe three miles or more? Could you also put some little star stickers over the lens of the HVX so we could add a little contrast in the results please? It's getting boring with the tons of people that have been testing these cameras side by side all the time.

[filmmaker1977]

.......... I'll have what he's drinking :beer:

Barry, is there any way you could do a test by moving the cameras very far away from each other ..... like maybe three miles or more? Could you also put some little star stickers over the lens of the HVX so we could add a little contrast in the results please? It's getting boring with the tons of people that have been testing these cameras side by side all the time.:grin:

:beer:

[John Froton]

Sorry.

I was just interjecting a little sarcasm. It sounds to me like Barry is doing a more realistic comparison than anyone else can claim to have done. Shooting the same set with similar settings is about the only way you can be objective. Otherwise, who knows how well one camera owner can tweak his image over another's?

You can't really get as much out of comparing random Canon vs Panasonic images that are uploaded here and there can you?

[filmmaker1977]

no worries there.. me likes when the people don't act like lambs.. :Drogar-Dum(DBG): me also likes all the objective tests barry has been doing.. his method is fair.. the only fault there is what i'd like to have from his agreement and it isn't possible.. :crybaby:

edit
a recent ex.. :-Laugh(DBG):
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showpost.php?p=775967&postcount=6

quoted by barry: "The Sony V1U is the one that *does* have actual 24P, the Canon doesn't."

:violin:

it's true but that said, it sounds.. :huh:

but it isn't his fault.. even when i don't agree with his finds or how he handles with the imperfections of any threat to the panasonic products, i read all of his posts.. :thumbsup: and it'll be interesting to read what he'll have to say on the new canon and sony small cameras.. he knows his stuff.. :thumbup: and if he sees a weakness on the panasonic competition it is because that particular fragility is over there.. his words are good clues.. :birthdays:

[delaro]

barry, did you notice any difference between 24p and 24f motion so far?
how much resolution are we approximately loosing with 24f? 50%? 25%? less?

[Toenis]

What?
It has now been officially anounced by Canon that the "F" mode is true progressive without resolution loss.
Or am I missing something here?

T

[delaro]

What?
It has now been officially anounced by Canon that the "F" mode is true progressive without resolution loss.
Or am I missing something here?

T

oh sorry if it's the case, i've read a lot of threads but people seemed to be confused about that. maybe i missed something :)

[icicle22]

I am not discounting that Barry is seeing what he is seeing. But why are there so many of us that are seeing something different? Not just in tests. I owned and used the HVX200 for 4 months before selling it. Once I switched to the H1 I felt like a world of better footage was upon me. The overall image of the H1 in dark to poor light situations was superior. It just seems like a much more "forgiving" camera. The HVX200 looks amazing when you light all of your scenes. In my cirumstances I didn't have that luxury and I needed a camera that would do better in lowlight. Heck....that's why I bought the HVX in the first place. I knew that they were pixel shifting out the wazoo ahead of time but I was willing to sacrifice a little rez for a more sensitive CCD set with less noise. But that is not how it turned out.

I really wanted to keep my HVX. I really could not afford the H1. But the tests and 2 weeks of using both cameras on the same gigs just pushed me into the H1....despite my protests. If the A1 is the ame as the H1 it seems hard to believe that Barry is not seeing a better lowlight performance from the A1. Hmmm....

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Peace!

[Kholi]

Once again, I have no clue what you're talking about.

Can someone please give me the parameters of a test they'd like run, which will demonstrate this supposed superiority? 'Cause I've got them both right here, right now, side by side, both running into DV Rack on two laptops side by side, watching the scopes, watching the waveform, zooming the monitor in to super-zoom mode, and I'm telling ya, there ain't much difference. Certainly no difference worth talking about, and I flatly reject any notion that one is (to quote an earlier comment) "significantly better" than the other. They are, for all practical intents and purposes, the same. The Canon exhibits a tiny bit more brightness and a tiny bit more noise at equivalent gain settings. Nothing worth talking about.

I'm not talking about "opinion", I'm talking about what the actual results are.
Barry, I'm stupid so don't mind me--

But are you compairing the captured footaged to the captured footage? Not just the camera's live.

I've noticed there's a lot less noise in the HVX before it's being put to DVCproHD/p2 Cards. But boy, when it gets there is there an assload of noise everywhere.

My questions have to do with the final image being acquired by the camera. To p2 and to Tape.

Honestly, when the footage goes to p2 there's a lot of noise. I've even experimented with some settings from other users out of the HVX footage forum and it's really noisey.

Everything else about the HVX is kick ass. I can't imagine how bummed I'll be messing around with an A1 and non-tapeless workflow. Seriously. There's no contets that I'd have to get a Firestore with the A1. Straight to tape just won't sit well with me ever again.

[Barry_Green]

But are you compairing the captured footaged to the captured footage? Not just the camera's live.
Comparing captured to captured. The DV Rack approach is taking the compressed firewire data from both, identical to what would be on tape.

I've noticed there's a lot less noise in the HVX before it's being put to DVCproHD/p2 Cards. But boy, when it gets there is there an assload of noise everywhere.
Yep. Just like the Canon and the JVC.

Honestly, when the footage goes to tape there's a lot of noise.
Yes there is. Just like the Canon and JVC.

The only one that doesn't have obvious, prevalent noise in its image is the Sony Z1/FX1. Those cams are noticeably cleaner than the others.

[Barry_Green]

It has now been officially anounced by Canon that the "F" mode is true progressive without resolution loss.
No it hasn't. And there's definitely a resolution loss.

However, it really doesn't matter. It's a bit of a loss, from 700+ lines down to around 600. Not really a big deal at all.

[Barry_Green]

barry, did you notice any difference between 24p and 24f motion so far?
I've got footage from both that should definitively answer that, but haven't put it through the microscope yet.

how much resolution are we approximately loosing with 24f? 50%? 25%? less?
Definitely less. I'd say more on the order of 15% at most.

[Kholi]

Oh okay. Not too familiar with DVrack approach. Thanks for clearing that up.

I just don't know what I'm seeing, then. I even went to compare some of the other A1 straight night footage to my indoor all-the-lights-on footage and the A1 still seems to exhibit "less" noise. But, I think it's what you're saying about how it's presented. Maybe the A1 is just as noisey as the HVX, but the noise texture is a lot different.

Too bad the A1 doesn't have all these extra features... p2 is sick. I like being able to playback my Slow-mo in camera, dude.

[Barry_Green]

Someone tell me how they want the A1 set up to deliver the most noise-free image in low light conditions (and what they consider "low light"). I'll then configure an HVX for the best I can get it, screen cap from both of 'em and post it. Do it quick though, I think I have to send this A1 back tomorrow.

[Kholi]

Sure. An ideal/realistic low-light situation:

Turn off the lights in your apartment and pick a room or an object. Pitch-black isn't a realisitic test of anything.

But indoors without much lighting, hell even WITH lamps and stuff on is.

[Elton]

http://www.realm.cc/upload/Elton/FrameMode2.jpg

[delaro]

Definitely less. I'd say more on the order of 15% at most.

thanks for your efforts!

[delaro]

I think I have to send this A1 back tomorrow.

so? what do you think? is the A1 some kind of new dvx for indies (i mean with cheap tape workflow, film look, cinegamma and 24f)? did you liked it? is it possible to obtain some popping colors in bright conditions like the z1 (well, if you managed to shoot under such conditions)?

[Barry_Green]

I posted initial impressions in another thread, so I'll defer to that. More detailed writeup is forthcoming.

[Barry_Green]

Hey Elton, that's a nice big picture that doesn't tell us anything... :) On DVInfo they wrote up that the Canon engineers said "it's the same thing, basically" and then when asked "er, well, why is it dropping to 540 lines of resolution in 24F mode?" the only answer they could offer was "um, we'll get back to you." As far as I know, they haven't gotten back to anyone yet on that, have they?

In the end, it doesn't really matter. 24F looks good.

[xray]

You can see a lowlight HVX comparison Canon A1 movie here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=79138

Look at lowlight.mov and daytimecc.mov

[Elton]

Right, I just posted it for fun. :) That was from Canon's powerpoints at the seminar.

Actually, it's a 1 pixel offset of the green CCD. The CCD is clocked correctly for the temporal signature. Exactly how they get to the progressive looking result from there they wouldn't elaborate.

I think it's something to do with sweeping/processing both fields in DIGIC DSP (which accounts for the delay in the VF) in combination with the green CCD "pixel shift".

I agree, the need to hyper-scrutinize it is over. It does lose a little bit of resolution, but it's amazing what they've been able to pull off with an interlace CCD.

[xray]

On DVInfo they wrote up that the Canon engineers said "it's the same thing, basically" and then when asked "er, well, why is it dropping to 540 lines of resolution in 24F mode?" the only answer they could offer was "um, we'll get back to you." As far as I know, they haven't gotten back to anyone yet on that, have they?

That was not exactly the question and answer, the Q. was: "Why is it dropping in resolution in 24F mode, we see that it is happening" ( they did not say to 540 lines)

The answer was: "we have to come back on that" :huh:

It is dropping in vertical res. but there is more than 540 left. (I can't find the thread anymore, otherwise I will update this, but please do, if you can find it.)

[Barry_Green]

It is dropping in vertical res. but there is more than 540 left. (I can't find the thread anymore, otherwise I will update this, but please do, if you can find it.)
At the DV six-way shootout Adam Wilt declared that the XLH1 24F mode was delivering 540 lines.

I'd measure it at 600, because that's where the aliasing sets in on a static pattern.

[xray]

At the DV six-way shootout Adam Wilt declared that the XLH1 24F mode was delivering 540 lines.

I'd measure it at 600, because that's where the aliasing sets in on a static pattern.

I know, but that is something different than the Canon rep said at the A1 presentation. You combined that with Adams Wilt his observations in your answer.

Besides that, he (the Canon rep) claimd at that presentation that the (F) mode in the A1 was different than the (F) mode in other Canon cams. It was not the same, he talked about "it is not a 1.5 x reading" of the chips.

[Barry_Green]

Right, there was a combining. The point is, the Canon rep made a claim which doesn't match the evidence. So when presented with the question, he had no answer and said "I'll have to get back to you on that." And so far, they haven't.

[Elton]

It drops some resolution. It simply does becaue of the process, but what the F modes offer is acceptable to the vast majority that use the cameras. So in the end, who cares? It's a value propositon at the $4K pricepoint: Is the HDV 24F detailed enough? Most who've seen it or shot material with it have responded with a resounding YES!

I think Barry's about right; it loses roughly 15-20% resolution.

The horse is dead.

[Barry_Green]

As far as sharpness, F mode is fine. The horse is dead indeed. The performance on these cameras has closed the gap to where there really isn't a bad choice among the bunch (excepting only maybe the Sony Z1/FX1 for 24p performance because of its 24F mode, but the new V1 should rectify that).

So Elton, hook me up with a recipe for the ultimate low light performance on the XHA1 so I can side-by-side them real quick before I have to send this one back...

[Elton]

You know Barry, I think this subject is a dead horse too. You and I know that either cam has an obvious noise signature--it's just in the rendition of the noise pattern where people diverge in their impression of it.

It might be that the Canon look seems less noisy because the "chunks" of noise appear smaller...like you said, "grittier", but it certainly isn't noiseless by any means.
In marginal light it will show its dance of grit--the question is if it's tolerable in a pinch. Personally, I think it is and of course there are ways to kill noise with either cam, but they aren't "no light" cameras. They work well in most real world situations, but they are small sensor HD cameras.

Sorry for the rant.

OK, I think the fair thing to do would be to not crush the blacks on either cam and shoot with a preferred Cinegamma, since most will shoot at least with a Cinegamma engaged. Also, no detail coring engaged because that will soften the picture even if it kills some noise.

On the A1:

Everything neutral but these:

Cinegamma 2
Sharpness: -3
Color Gain: +15
Knee: Low
NR1: Low

Shoot with 1/48 shutter on either cam because no one likes the slurry look of 1/24.
Btw, since the HVX has no specific noise reduction modes I suppose NR1 Low should be optional to be fair.

Shoot a low light (candlelight?) scene with 0, +6 and +12dB on the HVX and -3 (since this is the lowest mode on the cam), +6 and +12dB from the A1.

[Jay Rodriguez]

oh cool, i guess we're going to get some footage or images soon!

[Elton]

btw, I know bandwidth is an issue and that's why pics will be the output, but I think it's a bad idea because analyzing stills with JPEG compression is just another layer of complexity. Besides, we're talking about video cameras here, right?

The only way to get to the bottom of the noise thing is to see a few clips from both cameras in their unaltered, native formats, which of course would be too bandwidth intensive, especially for DVCPRO HD @ 100 mbs.

We need to see the noise as it is rendered by each camera in its native recording format in first generation.

[Barry_Green]

Okay, just played around with it some more. I took Ash's suggestions from DVInfo, then went further, trying to yank as much as I can from it. And there's a fair bit more that can be pulled out of the XHA1, I must say!

First, Gamma Normal is way way brighter than either of the Cine gammas. Same with the HVX, you can get a much brighter picture from Gamma HIGH than you can from Gamma CINELIKE-D. My prior comparisons were CINELIKE-D to CINEGAMMA-2, but since we're talking about finding maximum low-light performance, I figure I should optimize 'em both for the brightest I can get, regardless of whether it's the "look" we want or not, right?

Second, the noise reduction does help; using Ash's suggestion I set it to NR 1: LOW. With that in place the XHA1 does look less noisy than the HVX. I'm not sure what deletirious effects it may have on the image; I know there's some mention of ghosting tied to some NR function, and it's gotta be doing *something* to the image, or else they'd enable it all the time by default. There's a reason it's not set by default, but I haven't figured out what it is yet. Because on a static shot of some trophies on the wall, it seemed to just drop noise with no other obvious side effect.

I shot using one fluorescent 55w bulb, pointed away from the shot and bounced into a wall; couldn't find my light meter but I'd wager that it was really, really low illumination. Both cameras deliver approximately the same brightness, with the XHA1 having a very small edge, maybe (maybe?) 1/4 stop. When fully gained up to +12, they both were able to blow out highlights in the scene, which was impressive, but they were also both so noisy that I wouldn't use either under those circumstances. But I will say that the A1 was less noisy than the HVX, even with both at +12dB, by a noticeable amount (which is like saying a 400-pound woman is skinnier than a 450-pound woman; I mean, yes it's true, but does it really matter that much?) :) I think they were both too noisy at +6dB, but I know that people's opinions will vary. But at +12dB there was a difference not just in the character of the noise (HVX = smeary/splotchy with blotches of color, XHA1 = grainy/bitty and b&w) but also in the sheer amount, with the nod going to the XHA1.

(note: I was viewing the noise at something like 4x magnification on the DV Rack monitors; at fullscreen they both looked comparable with maybe a small advantage going to the Canon, but you'd have to stare at the screen pretty hard to notice and/or care.)

In short: yes the XHA1 can deliver a slightly brighter, less noisy picture under extreme low light conditions. With normal image settings I found them very comparable, but with adequate tweaking you can clean up the Canon's image to the point where it does make a difference. Not enough of a difference to say "hey, this one's usable and that one's not", more like judging a swimming suit competition between a 400-lb guy with a hairy back, and a 350-lb guy with a hairy back, both in Speedos. In other words, you don't really want to look at either of 'em... :)

[Barry_Green]

btw, I know bandwidth is an issue and that's why pics will be the output, but I think it's a bad idea because analyzing stills with JPEG compression is just another layer of complexity. Besides, we're talking about video cameras here, right?
Yep, and looking at stills is nearly pointless because you're looking for noise, and noise doesn't move in stills!

The only way to get to the bottom of the noise thing is to see a few clips from both cameras in their unaltered, native formats, which of course would be too bandwidth intensive, especially for DVCPRO HD @ 100 mbs.
Well, and processor intensive for the HDV clips. My lame-o desktop can't play either of 'em back at full frame rate. The only way to really analyze and judge it is to use DV Rack's monitor on magnify, because it can show full frame rate and super-magnified so you really get to see what's actual noise in the signal, vs. what's amplified or introduced by whatever display system you're playing it back on.

We need to see the noise as it is rendered by each camera in its native recording format in first generation.
Again, that's what makes the DV Rack solution practical -- you can even see it live, because it's monitoring the firewire output.

But it's all nearly pointless anyway, because you wouldn't use the image from these cameras under these scenarios anyway.

And in bright light condition, they both look fantastic, and in properly-lit conditions they both look fantastic.

[Elton]

Thanks for the thorough description Barry. I think it's a fair and realistic assessment, and I hope the subject can be put to rest now.

It's just great to see that there's a nice HD alternative at a very affordable pricepoint now. It'll be interesting to see if there'll be a few A1 entries in the dramafest.

What do you think about the idea of a future short competition in HD from various cams, with the top 10 ending up on an HD DVD?

[Barry_Green]

So far, I think the A1 is the best HDV camcorder of the bunch. I don't know how the fest will go, I'm not one of the bosses on the fest, that's all in the hands of Jarred and Barry_S. I wouldn't expect a high-def DVD but maybe a computer-playable WMV9 HD DVD would be possible... I mean, at least that way everyone could play it! :)

Depending on how nicely everyone can play along, I'd like to see DVXUser be more open to the other cameras; use in festivals, included in discussions, etc. What I do not want to see is another repeat of last year's hatefest discussions. It's a different landscape now. We in the DVX world had, largely, the world to ourselves for a long time -- Sony never answered the DVX, and Canon's XL2 was very late and wasn't really price or feature comparable, it was a totally different product, so the DVX reigned supreme among indie filmmakers for three to four years. But now... now the little Canon and the promising new Sony are providing some serious alternatives, depending on what feature set people want. And AVC-HD is right around the corner.

Getting back to these two, the feature sets are still very different, even though the imaging is getting downright indistinguishable, at least for anyone other than the pixel-obsessed. I played about 20 minutes of footage on my XBR960 TV (top-of-the-line Sony CRT at the time I got it) and made my wife watch it as I swapped the cable between the two cams. She couldn't tell the difference, and usually when I was watching it (from two feet away, mind you) I found that sometimes I couldn't really tell the difference either -- as in, I'd forget which cam I had plugged in at the time, and try to fast-forward on the A1 and see no reaction on the TV so I had to say "doh! I'm plugged into the HVX..." Yes if you split-screened it you could tell they were different, but -- why bother? They both look frickin' fantastic. It's getting to the point where arguing about image is wasted breath. What matters now is things like zoom reach, frame rates, audio control, shoulder-mount vs. handheld, tape vs. tapeless, price point, 35mm adapter performance and whether MPEG affects it, all that stuff. I think there are still some very clear-cut reasons why someone should choose one of these over the other, and there are very good reasons why they're in different price brackets, but those are features differences, not necessarily image differences (at least, under normal circumstances).

I think the battle isn't really going to be A1 vs. HVX at all, because I see them appealing to two very different customers. Where the battle looms is going to be Sony V1 vs. Canon A1. The HVX buyer is going to buy an HVX, but the HDV buyer... well, there's the question. There the feature sets are matched across the board (20x vs. 20x, HDV vs. HDV, 24P/30P/60i vs. 24F/30F/60i, $3999 vs. steet $4199, etc). Neither really does anything the other one doesn't, excepting the laughable "smooth slow rec" function. And in the V1 vs. A1 comparison, image may very well be an issue, since according to Adam Wilt the V1 is about 1.5 stops slower than the HVX (which should mean it's about 1.5 stops slower than the XHA1 too) and that could make a difference. And, then again, the V1's CMOS chips might have a big latitude difference over the A1's CCD. And then there'll be vertical smear vs. no-smear, but also "rolling shutter" vs. CCD electronic shutter... that's where the battle royale is going to take place.

I just hope everyone can agree to play nicely with everyone else. Last time we had to call a time out and kick people out of the pool, let's try just behaving this time! :thumbsup:

[Kholi]

Thanks, Barry. For a second, I really thought I was crazy when I kept seeing a "slightly" cleaner A1 image.

Now, the question I really wanna know is: The chroma smear/HVX noise. Is this why it's so difficult to correct an image in an NLE? If the Canon's noise is girtty/grain and black and white, is that why it seems to be more pleasing to nudge colors or contrast here without the blacks turning spotty-green?

[xray]

Thanks Barry, :dankk2:
I know that 'bring down the gain en set in the NR1' was working.

Both cams are wonderful in terms of possibilities aimed to different users.

[Noel Evans]

Barry again thanks for all your time and effort. I am ecstatic that everyone can now get over this and move on to more important things.

And also I promise to play nicely as the future brings change.

[Jay Rodriguez]

awesome work barry. i'm just happy that i picked up one of the top performing hd camera at an awesome price point. canon or panny, pixels or smears, it's all about the script.

[Justyn]

Barry... your statement should be a sticky or a mantra.. or tatoo'd into people forheads.

Explained perfectly. I mean, I've seen some footage from these two new cams and they look great. It will come down to feature set and what people need and want to pay.. I'd still have bought my HVX, but I'm looking forward to getting another camera and with that new blackmagic card.. some of these look really good.

[Bogdan]

Thank you Barry. I agree. We can put the subject to rest and focus on making better movies.

[Barry_Green]

Now, the question I really wanna know is: The chroma smear/HVX noise. Is this why it's so difficult to correct an image in an NLE? If the Canon's noise is girtty/grain and black and white, is that why it seems to be more pleasing to nudge colors or contrast here without the blacks turning spotty-green?
I'm not a post-master, so I can't answer this; I do all my color correction in-camera whenever possible so I don't know. Most people that I've heard discuss it say that DVCPRO-HD can be pushed a lot further than HDV, so I don't know why you'd be having such difficulty with it, but that would be a topic for another thread. Now that I have similar imagery from both, once the article is posted you could take the same shot from both cams and tweak it (I'll supply an uncompressed version in TIF or TGA or BMP or whatever for those that want to do so).

[magichristopher]

Barry I appreciate all of your time spent assesing the difference between the camcorders.

[Kholi]

I'm not a post-master, so I can't answer this; I do all my color correction in-camera whenever possible so I don't know. Most people that I've heard discuss it say that DVCPRO-HD can be pushed a lot further than HDV, so I don't know why you'd be having such difficulty with it, but that would be a topic for another thread. Now that I have similar imagery from both, once the article is posted you could take the same shot from both cams and tweak it (I'll supply an uncompressed version in TIF or TGA or BMP or whatever for those that want to do so).

Thanks, Barry! Sorry to ask for so much. LoL. But, I'll do it. TGA would be best!

I'll keep an eye out for the thread.

[Barry_Green]

I've just spent a few hours going through and exporting them; they're PNGs right now because that's what Vegas exports as an uncompressed file. Still a couple more tests I want to run, but it's getting put together...

[Kholi]

I visited Bel-Air and got a chance to play with the HVX200 and XH-A1 side by side. Connecting both to a JVC pro-HD monitor. It was great to be able to touch and hold this damned thing and really know more about it. A1 is a bad ass camera, all the way. I'm very much considering selling the HVX200 now and getting an A1 with Firestore.

But I had a thought about the LOWLIGHT thing and why it's important. For me, blasting a scene with light isn't out of the question because of where I work. But, I won't be able to carry those lights around all the time, you know? That's where Lowlight comes in handy.

Say you only have access to a few lights with an HVX200. Your only option is to get what you can and hope for the best. With the A1, you get an image that's probably going to be a bit better, regardless of the light that you can or cannot use. That's why the lowlight possibilities are such a great thing.

We can't all afford to blast a room with light so that we can avoid a noisey image. Even with the great settings that other have discovered. That's just a thought, and I think it's rather valid for indie filmmakers and users alike.

I also don't think that 24f looks anymore "video" than the HVX's 24p. Or, that Canon's rendition of life looks anymore video by any means. I certainly do think that the A1 looks more HD than the HVX200.

I am definitely going to shoot a short on the HVX200 really soon. That'll give me abetter idea on what I want to do as far as selling/trading.

Looking forward to seeing the PNGs, Barry. And again, thanks for the testing and all the info you've given me.

[filmmaker1977]

In short: yes the XHA1 can deliver a slightly brighter, less noisy picture under extreme low light conditions. With normal image settings I found them very comparable, but with adequate tweaking you can clean up the Canon's image to the point where it does make a difference.bravo! that one me likes it! after all, coming from where's coming from..

[filmmaker1977]

So far, I think the A1 is the best HDV camcorder of the bunch. my second fav..

Where the battle looms is going to be Sony V1 vs. Canon A1. and the third one..

[Emanuel]

It drops some resolution. It simply does becaue of the process, but what the F modes offer is acceptable to the vast majority that use the cameras. So in the end, who cares? It's a value propositon at the $4K pricepoint: Is the HDV 24F detailed enough? Most who've seen it or shot material with it have responded with a resounding YES!

I think Barry's about right; it loses roughly 15-20% resolution.

The horse is dead.Tom Roper posted: 10.6%

LINK (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=579582&postcount=17)

[xray]

how much resolution are we approximately loosing with 24f? 50%? 25%? less?
Definitely less. I'd say more on the order of 15% at most.

I've got footage from both that should definitively answer that, but haven't put it through the microscope yet.


Definitely less. I'd say more on the order of 15% at most.

So its 10,6 %
Barry was snap on, on this one.

[MovieSwede]

10%

I can live with that. It seems that "my" theory about half line scan and pixelshift is the most likely solution.

Remember that XL1 managed to get 360 lines i F mode. So almost 600 seems realistic for the A1/G1/H1 series.

[Emanuel]

Also interesting is the Canon HV10 resolution results:

784.5 Lines Horizontal
704.8 Lines Vertical

And still this 25p option:

LINK (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=579671#post579671)

[Drew Ott]

Also interesting is the Canon HV10 resolution results:

784.5 Lines Horizontal
704.8 Lines Vertical

And still this 25p option:

LINK (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=579671#post579671)

Link to Emanuel's thread concerning this topic (so we don't have 2 threads talking about the same thing).

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=79280

[Jay Rodriguez]

just watched some of my A1 footage on a 50 inch HD TV and HOLY CRAP! This camera's image is absolutely incredible! I shot 1080i 24f and I'm simply in awe at the results that I saw. It was in both good natural light and in an indoor low light setting and wow, I fell in love with the A1. I would post some footage but I don't have FCP 5 yet so I can't import into the mac. : (


I also threw on the Letus35 adapter and (PUKE) it was so horrible. I now see why, I think it was, Barry said an adapter on an HD camera wasn't good looking.

[delaro]

I would post some footage but I don't have FCP 5 yet so I can't import into the mac. : (


i thought dvhscap was working with 24f .....

[Kholi]

just watched some of my A1 footage on a 50 inch HD TV and HOLY CRAP! This camera's image is absolutely incredible! I shot 1080i 24f and I'm simply in awe at the results that I saw. It was in both good natural light and in an indoor low light setting and wow, I fell in love with the A1. I would post some footage but I don't have FCP 5 yet so I can't import into the mac. : (


I also threw on the Letus35 adapter and (PUKE) it was so horrible. I now see why, I think it was, Barry said an adapter on an HD camera wasn't good looking.

You have to contact Disjecta. He's using a letus and getting great results, Coffee. Also, try another adapter when you can. m2 or Brevis, preferrably.

And yes, the A1's image is soooooo clean. How do you compare the 24f to 24p, personally? Does it still look just as "film-like" or do you think it's the same "Video-feel" of the XL2?

[Jay Rodriguez]

Kholi, the overall look in my opinion is that the A1's 24f footage looks like the DVX's 24p filmish image but the A1 is soooooooo much better in quality. Today I shot some footage of my kids playing and watching tv with both cameras. I then hooked them up to my 50 inch HD TV and the difference in quality was huge. Of course it has to do with the HD factor but with it blown up to a larger screen the DVX fell apart compared to the A1 so the overall impression is that the A1 with the 24f footage can be played on larger sreens (theater size perhaps) and still hold it's own.

[Kholi]

Kholi, the overall look in my opinion is that the A1's 24f footage looks like the DVX's 24p filmish image but the A1 is soooooooo much better in quality. Today I shot some footage of my kids playing and watching tv with both cameras. I then hooked them up to my 50 inch HD TV and the difference in quality was huge. Of course it has to do with the HD factor but with it blown up to a larger screen the DVX fell apart compared to the A1 so the overall impression is that the A1 with the 24f footage can be played on larger sreens (theater size perhaps) and still hold it's own.

It's great to have another impression on the matter. It still looks just as 24p as the DVX/HVX to me, but the resolution and noise pattern are much more pleasing. It's really good to know that the A1 is standing tall against it's 10k counterpart.

[Jay Rodriguez]

That's one of the most exciting things to me. I was going to go with the HVS when it was released and was kind of depressed after I decided to hold off because I really wanted something HD. But now I'm so damn happy that I waited, the A1 at this price is a steal. To now be able to make a film with this quality in imagry at a $3500-$4000 is something that I never though would be possible anytime soon. I'm not downing the HXV, it's an awesome tool but for this price, thank god for Canon.

It's really good to know that the A1 is standing tall against it's 10k counterpart.

[Elton]

Hey Coffee,

If you really want to be blown away, try taking the A1 into a local home theater outfit and plug it into a new 1080p projector. Or just go to the local Costco or Circuit City with the A1 and plug into a new 1080p Bravia LCD from Sony. (Costco has the 46"model)

It's kind of funny when people are used to watching the Discovery HD looping demo, and then they watch some 24F HDV stuff and go "how come that looks so much better?".

[Kholi]

Hey Coffee,

If you really want to be blown away, try taking the A1 into a local home theater outfit and plug it into a new 1080p projector. Or just go to the local Costco or Circuit City with the A1 and plug into a new 1080p Bravia LCD from Sony. (Costco has the 46"model)

It's kind of funny when people are used to watching the Discovery HD looping demo, and then they watch some 24F HDV stuff and go "how come that looks so much better?".

It's so funny to do this with any HD camera. I did it with the HVX200 at Best Buy and people were coming over going "ooooooh that's HD!". I can only imagine what they'd say about the A1. Hehehe.

Really, the HVX200 is a great tool, as well. I'm just convinced that the A1 is the better picture. I think I've said that enough, though. So i'll stop. lol.

[StMad]

Can of worms Kholi! :) What sort of shooting do you do?

I used to own an xl2, and loved the picture, just not for narrative work (too much sharpening). I went with the HVX for pana's colours and softer look. I can do without the extra res (of the xlh1 and a1) - when will I ever need it? I love the looks I'm getting now, though it took a bit of learning to get there, and I do need to overlight...which can be hard without using HMIs.

With an adapter on the front that takes care of the oversharp issue, and may actually be a benefit for the Canon cams. What the A1 delivers for the price is impressive. I'm looking forward to seeing more footage from it - though at this stage I think I prefer the HVX colourwise.

[thoughtsauce]

Just a quick thought for shooter/producers: DVCProHD is considered a professional format, and cable networks here (NY) are on-board with it. While many want to own the source (ie: have camera masters), increasingly they're accepting hard drives as masters (the History Channel does).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at present there is no real deck that handles Canon's 24f footage (Sony decks won't do it). Some just buy the Canon HV10 and use that as a deck, but I seriously doubt the plausibility of that workflow in an offline to online edit at a post house.

Also, virtually no cable outlet accepts HDV origination (except sometimes as a small percentage of an HD program--I think Discovery allows something like 15%, but I'm not sure).

I put this out there more as "food for thought" than an argument for or against any camera. Indie film and shorts are one thing, but for anything beyond that, you've got to consider who's buttering your bread...

[Noel Evans]

Ingest HDV output as DVCPro.

[Kholi]

Just a quick thought for shooter/producers: DVCProHD is considered a professional format, and cable networks here (NY) are on-board with it. While many want to own the source (ie: have camera masters), increasingly they're accepting hard drives as masters (the History Channel does).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at present there is no real deck that handles Canon's 24f footage (Sony decks won't do it). Some just buy the Canon HV10 and use that as a deck, but I seriously doubt the plausibility of that workflow in an offline to online edit at a post house.

Also, virtually no cable outlet accepts HDV origination (except sometimes as a small percentage of an HD program--I think Discovery allows something like 15%, but I'm not sure).

I put this out there more as "food for thought" than an argument for or against any camera. Indie film and shorts are one thing, but for anything beyond that, you've got to consider who's buttering your bread...

You can always ingest as DVCproHD. What it's recorded on doesn't matter as far as deliverables are concerned. It may not start out as 4:2:2 yadda yadda but it's not like you deliver DVCproHD directly on p2 Cards, anyway. You'll just be delivering your raw material on DVDs or something similar.

There are choices that you have as far as decks and the like. A tapeless workflow would be the Firestore-C, or you could use an HV10 which is hundreds/thousands less than any Deck. Regardless of it's a Camera or not... it's still a deck.

[thoughtsauce]

That's definitely the workflow I'd use at home with my Final Cut system, but often I'm nowhere near the post end of things. I'm definitely not saying that there's no way to make HDV work, it's just that I've just encountered some resistance from production managers and other non-technical producers when it comes to HDV.

While I doubt that they would articulate concerns about 4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 or Long GOP vs intra-frame compression, there seems to be a tendency to shy away from anything that might even remotely compromise the saleability of their shows (even though there may be reasonable workarounds). But who knows...things move so quickly that in a month or so the entire landscape may have worked itself out. Earlier this year I was virtually shouted down for suggesting the HVX and now it's being used by all over the place (from the mighty BBC to the not-so-mighty New York 1).

[Elton]

I have it on pretty good authority that the H1 and XH cams are accepted acquisition cameras for Discovery HD...even from mere HDV.

What is critical is the post process and basically delivering an uncompressed master from HDV footage. In other words, don't recompress HDV. With FCP it's just a matter of outputting via SDI or component analog HD to, say, D5 from a Kona/Blackmagic etc, rather than "conforming to HDV" and outputting to HDV tape.

[Barry_Green]

I have it on pretty good authority that the H1 and XH cams are accepted acquisition cameras for Discovery HD...even from mere HDV.
And what would that authority be? HDV is specifically not approved by Discovery, and cannot be used for more than 15%.

Are you referring to some circumstance where someone shot on HDV anyway and just didn't tell them? Because that would be far different than saying that HDV from a Canon is an accepted, approved acquisition format. The last public statement I saw from them specifically limited all HDV (Canon included) to no more than 15%. If you can point to a press release or updated documentation from them, I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing it.

Here's what I've seen:
http://www.discoverychannel.ca/_includes/disclaimer/producers_guide/docs/HD_Prod_Specs_04.doc

In there they say that "no more than 15% of the final content may be originated in the HDV 1080 format." They also list HDV as an "unacceptable editing codec".

A later statement here:
http://www.discoverychannel.ca/_includes/disclaimer/producers_guide/docs/HDSpec.logo.doc

In there it reiterates "no more than 15%" for HDV.

[Elton]

Just some information from a Canon rep who is in contact with Discovery. I believe it's actually Sony HDV that is discouraged for the most part, although Iconoclasts was all Z1U and it's a full hour long show on Discovery HD.

[PappasArts]

I as well can concur with Barlow that Canon are accepted acquisition cameras for Discovery HD.........


Pappas

I have it on pretty good authority that the H1 and XH cams are accepted acquisition cameras for Discovery HD...even from mere HDV.

What is critical is the post process and basically delivering an uncompressed master from HDV footage. In other words, don't recompress HDV. With FCP it's just a matter of outputting via SDI or component analog HD to, say, D5 from a Kona/Blackmagic etc, rather than "conforming to HDV" and outputting to HDV tape.

[Barry_Green]

Again though, I ask for proof. The printed documentation is really clear. It never spells out anything about Canon or not Canon, the only thing it does is specify 1080 HDV (as in, it doesn't even appear to acknowledge 720). And 1080 HDV is most definitely not approved for content origination beyond the 15% restriction.

If there's some formal statement or change of policy -- some press release or something -- please point to it. The public documents saying that it's not accepted are very easy to find, so if something's changed it would be important news.

[Elton]

OK, I'll see what I can find out "officially".

I think it's fair to say though that there are official producer guidelines, and then there are productions that get made and broadcast despite not adhering entirely to the rules.

'Iconoclasts' on Discovery HD is a perfect example: Shot on the Z1U in CineFrame 30, (yeesh) and broadcast entirely from HDV acquired footage.

I won't be surprised in the future to see shows shot entirely from the whole spectrum of "affordable HD" cameras...and Discovery HD won't be so special in the future as HD becomes more the norm than the novelty format for production.

It really is more a matter of how the program looks after delivering a master and going through their encoding process. I think Disjecta's many HD pieces are easily proof enough that Canon HD can in fact be worthy of meeting Discovery HD quality standards.

[Barry_Green]

But no, it isn't, because Discovery HD quality standards are a specific published set of rules. People can cheat around 'em, or get special permission, but that doesn't mean that those cameras are approved for acquisition.

People make a big deal out of Discovery specifically because they have published guidelines. You can't just say that something that's specifically disapproved of is now approved, without some manner of documentation to support it. I mean, DVCPRO-HD is on their approved list for completely unrestricted acquisition (HDV isn't) and DVCPRO-HD is on their approved list for editing (and HDV is specifically disallowed from editing), but the HVX is only approved with the same limitation that HDV cameras have imposed on them (15% max) because they consider the optical performance to be in the same class as the HDV cams. And HDV itself is *not* on their list for unrestricted acquisition. So if the optical performance is the same, and the format is worse, how could Canon HDV suddenly become "approved"?

People make business decisions based on these lists. That's why I say, if something has changed and there's an official announcement that says so, it would be of interest to our membership.

[Jay Rodriguez]

ok, now I feel dumb... you guys are talking way over my head. lol

[Barry_Green]

What we're talking about is that if you were to ask the Discovery channel to fund your production, they have requirements as to what you have to shoot and edit on.

So far, their guidelines say they will not approve a production if it's intended to be shot on any HDV camcorder or on the HVX. There are certain formats that are approved for "unrestricted use", such as HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD, and there are certain formats that are only allowed for very limited use (no more than 15% of the final footage in the total project). Those limited formats include 1080 HDV, and also the HVX.

Barlow and Michael are saying that "no, you can use the Canon, it's approved" and I'm saying "says who? The documents certainly don't say that." If it was possible to do unrestricted acquisition on a $4,000 camcorder that would be big news, of significant interest to our membership. But without explicit supporting documentation from Discovery saying so, I'm afraid that it's at best just a rumor, and at worst it could lead an uninformed someone to spend cash and make plans on shooting something with the idea that it will be approved when, according to their published documentation, it certainly wouldn't.

[magichristopher]

How would discovery know the difference if someone shoots with HDV and converts it to DVCPRO100 after words?

I know that the color space is different and you can't 'gain' quality or reclaim color space, but isn't the format war too subjective and getting to be beuratractic B.S? I have seen great HDV, poorly shoot HD and the other way around as well.

I am not trying to change Discoverys high quality production standards, but doesn't come to a point of being subjective as to the point were negligable differences in color space are prioritized to the 'inferior' hdv codec.

The way that I have have seen it, the pure HD signal can get so compressed in the end, the consumers only see a fraction of the originating resolution anyway.

[Elton]

I understand where Barry's coming from, and I will see if I can get an official position. I don't know how often the producer's guidelines are updated, but the contact I have at Canon wouldn't have told me this if he hadn't personally been informed by Discovery that their engineering/testing dept. had put their cameras through the wringer and found them to be acceptable for full acquisition.

I'll bring up the subject again when I've spoken to Discovery.

[Elton]

The way that I have have seen it, the pure HD signal can get so compressed in the end, the consumers only see a fraction of the originating resolution anyway.

Exactly. Good HDV is so far ahead of the actual quality of current HD broadcast in general that if the post production process is meticulous enough, and the broadcast encoding is good enough, it can pretty much look as good as any other HD program to the end viewer.

[Barry_Green]

Nobody's arguing whether it looks good or not. I'm talking about whether it's allowed. Doesn't matter "why", what matters is "is it"...

[rawfa]

On a totaly different note, Barry, when will we be seeing that nice article of yours? :D

[Barry_Green]

It's done and now being HTML'd...

[berni]

Hi. I wonder if anyone can explain how you can get more than 540 lines V resolution with only 1080 lines of scan (the limit according to nyquist theory)?

[magichristopher]

berni, I think you might be confused about the whole resolution thing.

[xray]

I do not want to interfere but last week (on the biggest doc festival in the world IDFA), Discovery claimed that HDV generally and the HVX200 particulary was not an acquisition 'format' for HD programs. It is max. 15% participation only. DVCPROHD 100 and the Sony HDcam formats are aloud completely. I don't think this is changed in the last 4 days. P2 recording is -obvious- no point either.

[Noel Evans]

Thats all well and good. Most HD broadcasters I have really looked into lately stipulate moreso than anything a delivery method, and have very little if any mention of aquisition.

[Elton]

Well said NCJE. Sorry if my previous posts came across as rumor-mongering, but I wanted to simply say that Discovery HD has tested the H1 and XH cameras according to Canon, and found them acceptable for full acquistion, with the caveat being the post process. (keeping it uncompressed until they encode for broadcast)

I think the published guidelines have a bit of a political purpose too. It's more about ensuring quality production by requiring expensive equipment, or at least keeping the perception in place that Discovery HD produced shows are shot with high-end HD gear. To be honest, I'm not sure how enthusiastic they are about democratized HD in general. It may affect their business model in the future.

I'll see what I can find out next week. Suffice it to say that the continued improvement of "affordable HD" has made for some gray areas when it comes to acceptable production cameras for HD broadcasts.

[berni]

thanks magichristopher, I think I am missing something (re- reading resolution charts:)) can you suggest a thread or redirect me somewhere that might help?:)

[delaro]

It's done and now being HTML'd...

i'm checking everyday ..... so impatient :)

[Jason Ramsey]

xray. I'm confused by your post a little. You said that the hvx200 is not accepted acquisition format. Then you said that dvcprohd is an accepted format. Then you said that there is no point in doing p2 either.

The HVX200 = p2 = DVCPRO HD.

Jason

[xray]

Yes, they make an exception for the HVX200, that's why I mentioned it, so even if you shoot DVCPROHD with it, it is not aloud.
P2 is memoryraid = memoryraid = what you place on it like SD DVCPRO or HD.

[Barry_Green]

DVCPRO-HD is an accepted acquisition and editing format.

HVX is allowed up to 15% of the program's content. They classify the HVX's optical performance in the same category as the HDV camcorders' optical performance (probably fair, since they're all sub-$9000) a