Xh A1 / V1u

[jsaadein]

Anyone had any thoughts on which one is better? I've went through almost all of the obvious, but I am considering either purchasing one of each, or 2 XH A1's.

I would like some other input if anyone has anything.

Regards,

Justin

[Rush]

This article will get you some info on the A1, and inside, someone posted some info on the G1:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=83674

[jsaadein]

I guess I already know that I'm going to get two A1's instead of (1) XH A1 and (1) V1U. I continuously look at the features and probably have read about 10 full length articles on both of them, and there isn't anything that convinces me to pay an extra $600 for a V1U (besides saying that it's a Sony). They offer dang near the exact same features, and the CCD's on the A1 take about .5 MP better then the V1U.

[Huy Vu]

The number of pixels on the chip actually isn't the only deciding factor. V1U uses CMOS chip that are smaller than CCD but more efficient, so both camera probably performs similarly in term of images.

[jsaadein]

I still believe the A1 overall would take larger MP pictures..at I believe 1.6 compared to the 1.02 of the V1U. Do you really think that the V1U is really worth the $600 - $800 extra? Not that I give a dang about taking still pictures, but as far as image quality goes on the output.

20X zoom is a nice one too with the A1.

Also, the main reason I am buying these is for the quality that HD can provide. I will be downing it to 720 x 480 (I think that is correct) in post with Premiere. It will also be nice for future clients to provide them with HD.

Regards,

Justin

[Huy Vu]

I withhold judgement until I see how much image control the V1U actually offers. That is the biggest draw the A1 has for me and I'm getting one. But the V1U is a step ahead of the A1 by offering HDMI output for outputing uncompressed. To get uncompress HD with the A1 you'll need to get a rather expensive capture card (around $1000) and use the analog component.

[Barry_Green]

They both have 20x zoom. Sony adds a few things, like the digital zoom to 30x which is supposed to look really good, and their "smooth slow mo" gimmick which ... well, I'll let you decide what you think of that...

If someone wants to go HDV, I think the Canon is a superb offering, I think it's the best HDV cam on the market, with the understanding that I haven't gotten a chance to use a V1 yet. The V1 is very similar in most specifications, so I would expect it to be a direct toe-to-toe competitor with the Canon. CMOS vs. CCD will make some things different; the Sony may actually prove to be a tad sharper and cleaner in bright light; the Canon should be cleaner and brighter in low light, etc.

Another factor would be your infrastructure needs -- do you need a deck? Do you already have any HDV gear? Sony gear is compatible across their line; Canon 24F and 30F is proprietary to Canon, so if you already had a Sony deck then maybe a couple of V1s might be the way to go.

Whichever way you go, if you're getting two, I'd suggest getting two of the same model.

[jsaadein]

Barry, very good observations. And yes, that seems to be the overall consensus is that the A1's are much better in low light (which initially I will be shooting in clubs).

As far as any HDV equipment, that's a negative. I'm starting from the ground up with a production business. I am okay with using compressed video from the tapes for now, however. I just wanted to prepare myself for being able to provide clients with HDV in the future so I figured I should go ahead and invest in these two and I can continue to upgrade in the future.

In regards to the HDMI raw output vs the analog output + card, is the video going to be downgraded in any way by using the analog (for future reference)?

[Barry_Green]

Not really. Maybe a tiny bit, but nobody's likely to notice. I'd be far more concerned about using HDV cameras in nightclubs, those can be a "perfect storm" for making HDV compression fail. Flashing strobelights, smoke, etc -- MPEG hates that. You might want to borrow a camera and try it out first before committing your dollars to that course.

[philnerd]

Not sure if its been brought up, but the full wide on the XH A1 is terrific and allows for shooting indoors without immediately wishing for a WA lens. The Sony is far more likely to require a WA lens, so that adds another couple hundred to the price. Not a show stopper for the Sony, but something to be aware of.

[Barry_Green]

Excellent point. Especially since the chips in the Sony are a tad smaller it's harder to make a direct comparison of field-of-view, but according to the manufacturers the Sony equates to a wide-angle of about 37.4mm, and the Canon to about 32.5mm, so the Canon will be somewhere around 15% wider than the Sony. Could be an important factor when shooting indoors.

[humdrum]

"the V1U is a step ahead of the A1 by offering HDMI output for outputing uncompressed. To get uncompress HD with the A1 you'll need to get a rather expensive capture card (around $1000) and use the analog component"

I am also comparing the V1U and A1 (as alternatives to the HVX200, which I just can't seem to justify to myself yet). And I am also learning towards the A1, but noticed the above distinction, (which would only become important to me in the years to come, I would think).

So, I have a pretty basic and perhaps silly question:

Do you output uncompressed HD at the time you are shooting, by connecting the camera to another capture device? If you shoot straight to the mini-DV tape in HDV format, you'd be compressing it at that moment, and would lose the ability to have uncompressed, correct?

Are the hardware costs about the same if you want to export uncompressed HD using HDMI v. a capture card? Any other opinions as to whether the analog component would result in a noticeable degradation as compared to the HDMI output?

Thanks.

[jcapurro]

Do you output uncompressed HD at the time you are shooting, by connecting the camera to another capture device? If you shoot straight to the mini-DV tape in HDV format, you'd be compressing it at that moment, and would lose the ability to have uncompressed, correct?

Are the hardware costs about the same if you want to export uncompressed HD using HDMI v. a capture card? Any other opinions as to whether the analog component would result in a noticeable degradation as compared to the HDMI output?

Thanks.

The way I understand it, shooting uncompressed is done tethered to a computer or other capture system by the HDMI port and bypassing tape completely. Yes, if the video is saved to the tape it's compressed.

[philnerd]

I think its Blackmagic that has that very well priced $250 HDMI capture board. A PC with one of those combined with a V1 would probably make a really nice studio solution for things like green/blue screen work. Of course if you add the price of a $250 board, a WA lens and the V1 compared to the XH A1 with a $1000 analog capture board... probably pretty close there.

[jsaadein]

So yes, I think the final verdict for me is going with a Canon XH A1 as a primary camera and the Sony A1U as my secondary camera for multi-cam shots in the clubs. Anyone else have any comments on this?

[Huy Vu]

If you have no other choice, then go ahead, but the image won't match very well. A1U is single chip so it's worse in low light and it'll be noticeably noisier than the A1.

[jsaadein]

ahhh, just ruin my day. Yes, I understand about the single CCD..okay..what would you suggest be my other options...you don't think I could match the two up in post?