Rookie Filmmaker
Member
I've been trying to compare the HVX200 vs Canon XL-H1. This being a panasonic forum, I know people will be pro HVX, so I went to the Canon version of DVXuser, XL CINEMA I thought there were some interesting things being said about H1 vs HVX, and i thought it would be interesting to hear how HVX people would rebut. Here is an excerpt from a post:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XL CINEMA
Barlow Elton
Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 2:05 pm
New Cinema UserJoined: 16 Apr 2006Posts: 249Location: SLC, UT
Cutman,
Good points. I remember some debate about whether the HVX actually had 4:2:2 at all because of the 960x540 chips.
Having seen how easily Canon HDV keyed from a crappy greenscreen (recompressed to DVCProHD, no less) I am convinced that it's got plenty of chroma info.
I think the whole HVX thing is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy over at dvxuser. I know when I first saw the camera and specs announced I thought it was going to be the holy grail. I *wanted* it to be ALL THAT. Did it turn out that way? Please.
IMHO it just didn't live up to the specs nor does it exploit the potential of DVCproHD. It's a camera with an interesting look and a lot of creative options, but it just doesn't get that "looking out a widow" added dimensionality that good HD should achieve.
My opinion about the filmic qualties of both cameras boils down to this:
The HVX shot well can look like 16mm Fuji-film transfer.
The H1 shot well can look like Kodak Vision 35mm transfer.
I like disjecta's description of the "heaviness" of the H1 imagery. It just has loads of image info and the sheer size of the frame plus the actual inherent resolution just feels amazing to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here's the link to the discussion over at XL CINEMA if anyone is interested.
http://xl cinema.com /viewtopic.php?t=173
(when you copy the link onto your browser delete the space between xl and cinema and the link should work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XL CINEMA
Barlow Elton
Posted: Wed May 10, 2006 2:05 pm
New Cinema UserJoined: 16 Apr 2006Posts: 249Location: SLC, UT
Cutman,
Good points. I remember some debate about whether the HVX actually had 4:2:2 at all because of the 960x540 chips.
Having seen how easily Canon HDV keyed from a crappy greenscreen (recompressed to DVCProHD, no less) I am convinced that it's got plenty of chroma info.
I think the whole HVX thing is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy over at dvxuser. I know when I first saw the camera and specs announced I thought it was going to be the holy grail. I *wanted* it to be ALL THAT. Did it turn out that way? Please.
IMHO it just didn't live up to the specs nor does it exploit the potential of DVCproHD. It's a camera with an interesting look and a lot of creative options, but it just doesn't get that "looking out a widow" added dimensionality that good HD should achieve.
My opinion about the filmic qualties of both cameras boils down to this:
The HVX shot well can look like 16mm Fuji-film transfer.
The H1 shot well can look like Kodak Vision 35mm transfer.
I like disjecta's description of the "heaviness" of the H1 imagery. It just has loads of image info and the sheer size of the frame plus the actual inherent resolution just feels amazing to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
here's the link to the discussion over at XL CINEMA if anyone is interested.
http://xl cinema.com /viewtopic.php?t=173
(when you copy the link onto your browser delete the space between xl and cinema and the link should work.
