Click Here To Read Article  

Thanks for the write-up, Barry. Thanks for including the images as well.

I am still on the fence about the claim that the Canon can not be tweaked to match the HVX's "rich" and-- this is my opinion-- often over-saturated colors. However, I haven't anything to prove that either.

Good thing is that this article states that the Camera fits right in with the DVX and HVX, which should dispose of VERSUS threads in the first place. IN fact, I think this article should be called the HVX, DVX, and XHA1 article, removing the versus in all.

I know Kholi.. but that wouldnt be any fun now would it.

In my opinion the Xha1 kinda beats the DVX, and is just "different" from the HVX. It would be nice to see a HD-DVX replacement come sometime soon.. because its kinda aging, even though it has a solid user-base and dedicated following. Its just getting more and more dangerous not to have HD deliverables now adays.

Yes yes, fun. You know where fun gets you, right? You've seen it: you've had like eighty-thousand kids (aka DVXuser Members) and you're still a revolving door. All because you wanted to have a little fun informing other DVXusers about how great their camera was.

The A1 is definitely a "winner" when paired against the DVX, if not for pricing, then for the options and doors it opens for those who can't shell out for the Solid-State revolution. Being able to say "I can shoot in HD" is definitely a plus for those working off of their cameras and not Salaries; as silly as that might be or sound.

The A1 is a decent "contender" to the HVX. Some say Apples and Oranges, I see two HD cameras capable of producing similar images. Of course we could get into ifs and buts, like if the A1 had integrated tapeless workflow as gorgeous and linear as Pansonic's still teething P2 line, would it still be apples and oranges?

HD-DVX sounds nice right about now. AVC-HD and more Solid-State options for those who aren't going to trust the Canon-brand.

I do love my HVX, even though it doesn't get to come out and play enough.

If you are comparing the base image to the HVX then yes, the XHA1 will be less saturated. However, I can get images that are filled with color like the HVX as well. The pictures you showed were not a proper representation of what the Canon is capable of rendering. This article, although informing, seemed entirely biased from the get go, only to throw in valid opposition to the HVX as an attempt of neutrality, but the undertones aren't hard to miss. Considering that this is a Panasonic forum, this is to be expected.

I am not saying the a manual lens isn't better than a servo and that variable framerates aren't useful, but for many, filming sports, and doing run and gun the P2 limitation has many boundaries, that are more of an liability than an asset. I am glad you never mentioned that HDV crippled the footage and completely glorrified DVCPRO100, this seems to be less of an issue now.

I would agree that HVX is primarily for filmakers, the A1 for everything else.

Set them side by side, and film a moving person in 25p or 24p in it. Tweak the Canon footage as much as you want. But play them back, and the HVX footage just looks richer, while keeping things looking natural. If you tweak the canon to look like the HVX, there are some parts of the color matrix that won't feel balanced overall like the HVX. Just try it. But with big bucks, you can always Telecine the Canon footage and make it look gorgeusly better... But we are talking big bucks here.

Looks like Barry never turned off AGC (auto gain control) on the Canon. Without turning AGC off the camera will add plenty of gain to just about any situation. Turn AGC off and set gain to -3dB and the noise disappears. The grabs in Barry's comparison don't do the Canon justice at all. For a basic idea of what the A1 can really do look at Barlow's clip in this thread:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=77926

I agree with magicchristopher about the clear bias tone toward the HVX. And yea, those grabs does not do the Canon justice at all. I'm not sure if it's my monitor but the contrast on the Canon grab is way off (it has that look if you apply a Brightness filter and turn it all the way up).

There seems to be the assumption that the Canon must measure up to the color of the HVX to be "good." It's stated quite clearly in the article: image is no longer the main comparison point. The Canon look isn't necessarily better or worse, it's just different; and I imagine that most of us will do some kind of CC in post to get the look we want. Both cameras have their strength and weaknesses but overall I have a hard time seeing how the HVX is the "clear winner" for everybody.

Thanks for the effort Barry. Couple of comments:

First I think Barry has offered a fair summation of the main differences between the cams. But heres where I differ in my opinion a little.

First off, my colors on the A1 have never looked this flat, or this grainy, and to suggest Barry was being unfair is a bit ignorant of who Barry Green is. But Id suggest those of us who have had more use of the cam are getting a lot more out of it. And the A1 lense is a big plus over the HVX, not sure why Pana didnt go this route. Wider and longer Zoom.

I have been a long time HVX user and the frame rates you can get from this camera are truly incredible. I am not kidding. The full manual zoom is also a bonus factor. just like the good old DVX - what a great SD camera it is. Barry covered these points. The other thing is green screen, without a doubt the HVX is a clear winner with 4:2:2 color space, but in my experience green screen shooting is very controlled and you can get 4:2:2 out of the A1 with the right equipement. You are not about to shoot green screen suddenly on the street is my point. So why not have your mac on deck and capturing to a Kona via component?

Heres where I think the HVX is a let down, well not a let down, but a confusion in price point and technology. Please remember this is just one persons opinion and nothing more. Here in Japan now the HVX isnt much more expensive than the a1 and almost the same price as the new sony v1. P2 cards are a different cost altogether.

Considering my above points, Im paying a few thousand extra for a HVX and p2 that has a picture with no discernable HD difference. If the HVX were a 2\3 inch chip camera offering p2 I could completely understand the value, but of course we would be at a higher price for that, and the added cost of p2. As it stands, the ease of use with the A1 to shoot HD anywhere, anytime for hours and hours without limitation is a big factor, especially at this price point. Lets face it, the cost difference is negligable, but if the budget were bigger all the time we would less likely be looking at either of these cams at all.

Anyway just my 2c.

Lastly, the responses have been kind to the DVX, maybe because we all loved this camera so much and have an infinite fondness for it, but I will state without reservation, if you have a few extra hundred bucks, the A1 blows the DVX out of the water and so it should.

Edit: I wanted to add however a point regarding the XH G1. TNC connectors provide HD-SDI (SMPTE 292M) and SD-SDI (SMPTE 259M) uncompressed 1.485 gigabit/second output with 4:2:2 color sampling -- with embedded time code and audio; Genlock input for multi-camera synchronization in live-switched environments; and dedicated SMPTE time code input and output terminals for post-production requirements. and all for 7K? . Once again if thats what I want to do I will at least look toward the XLh1 with its interchangable lenses (higher budget) or then a 2/3 inch cam of which I currently like the SDX900 via rental. I am just pointing out that some of these things dont quite fit budget niches and requirements.

And to the future there is Red. But honestly god knows why any aspiring Director would have 40-50 k tied up in a camera with sundries, when you could rent and get that next big feature out for the same cost.

EDIT TWO: For the love of god Barry get that A1 off that poxy 501 head :P

I'm away from my XH A1 right now (that whole "day job" thing), but off the top of my head I'd say the A1 pics in the comparisons appear quite flat due to the cine gamma/matrix settings. Depending on which ones are being used, they REALLY flatten the image. Looks very bland and "blah" on playback, but allows for heavy color correction or film transfer. For producing rich out-of-cam images, those settings just aren't going to do the trick.

<edit>

OK, I just watched the comparison Quicktime movie. I'm sorry to say, the XH A1 is absolutely definitely not set up anywhere near what it should be to produce vibrant colors. The image is completely flattened with very little contrast.