HVX200 vs. XL-H1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not personally own the HVX200, but I have used it on a shoot before and was very impressed by the results it produced. However, the more footage I see from the XLH1, the more and more impressed I am by its capabilities. Even though HDV is inferior to DVCPROHD, in many cases, the XLH1 produces a better looking picture (opinion). Though I currently own an XL2, I am by no means biased - I would love to have a tapeless 4:2:2 camera, but unless P2 drops in price significantly (which won't happen any time soon), I may just wait for the XLH body-only kits to come out so I can hook my LetusXL Enhanced to it.
 
I've just wrapped a feature with the HVX and an M2. I'm still confident that I made the right decision. Resolution is something I was very aware of (since this is the main reason to shoot HD), but I had to learn that it comes far behind other aspects: latitude, DOF, etc. Right now I even doubt that your movie will be (or look) even just a tiny bit better by shooting HD compared to premium-SD. It won't. So resolution is not longer an issue for me.

Pros HVX/M2
- very filmic look
- better form factor with M2 compared to H1 and HD100 (not as long)
- Great audio capabilites
- Great latitude
- Good low-light capabilities when used on a low-key set (don't use lenses slower than 1:1.8)

Cons HVX/M2
- Heavy (6,5kg with follow focus & monitor)
- not as long as HD100 and H1 but still VERY difficult to shoulder and too heavy for fig-rig and low-cost steadicam. My DOP hurt his back.
- low resolution (but thats acceptable).
- external/mounted TFT needed for focusing (same with the other cams)
- I don't like P2. Expensive, slow (4 minutes take 4 minutes to copy), very, very dangerous (you have to supervise the copy and archive process on your own or you risk losing data by some assistant who accidently deletes the wrong files), risky (you need twice the harddisk [or LTO] space for safety backups - a friend dropped a 120GB HDD accidently 1 meter down on the floor - full crash, no recovery), slow, slow, slow, expensive, slow, unsafe, slow, expensive. :-)

Overall: The images look just great. I am happy. The movie will work.

That's all I wanted. A bit more of resolution would have been great; on the other hand: the way we shot, we would have never ever been able to accurately focus a higher resolution than that. Focusing HD is tough and demands a LOT experience and skills.
 
JanBee said:
I've just wrapped a feature with the HVX and an M2.
Click to expand...
Congrats!
When can we see some footage?
One thing in your post confused me though: "So resolution is not longer an issue for me." and "A bit more of resolution would have been great;" this sounds a bit contradictory?
Which mode did you shoot in?
 
Spartacus,

shot in 1080(i)/25p. Yeah, I know, it is a bit contradictory. It's like that: Of course it would be very nice to have more resolution. But it's not there. Too bad. I found out, I can live with that.

I'm in the process of figuring out how to edit, Premiere2/Cineform or Avid. There will be a website up in about 2 weeks.
 
JanBee said:
I'm in the process of figuring out how to edit, Premiere2/Cineform or Avid.
Click to expand...
Well good luck then!
I have another threat about this going on atm, so far it looks like PP2 with AspectHD is the best way for me...
 
Canon 24f can easily be converted to dvcpro to edit on a Mac, if that's what you wish.

The Canon has more resolution than the Panny, that is fo sho.
 
The drawbacks of the H1 for me are...

- too much edge-enhancement
- lack of good gamma settings
- poor highlight handling
- hd-sdi without audio or timecode output
- some noticeable chromatic abberations
- garbage manual control on the lens
- it uses tape
- the price
- 4:2:0
- and the most recent plunder from Canon.....the fact that they're royally F'ng their H1 customers by releasing the XHG1 which will be the exact same camera as the H1, minus the interchangeable lens mount, but the kicker is that the hd-sdi output will have embedded timecode as well as audio, if I bought an H1 I'd be one pissed off customer.
 
Last edited:
You ever touched an XLH? If you think the HVX is better in low light then I question all of your facts and opinions! This is a very slanted and uninformed comparison.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't tried an XLH1 since frankly no one in my area seems to have one. I have an HVX200, and have friends with HD100s and Z1s but sadly Canon doesn't seem to be getting many people in the HD market where I am. That said, I'm simply repeating what I've read from people who have done side by side comparisons and with real reputations. I don't think they're lying and frankly I'll take Barry's or Adam Wilt's opinion over yours buddy. The HVX200 is more sensative than the XLH1 and I've been also told it has a higher lattitude.

As far as 35mm adapters. The sharpest combo I have found is the new Letus35XL Flip v2 on the XLH. When I need to shoot mini35 that is what I use, I find the M2/HVX combo unusably soft on anything wide. I do not shoot much mini35, as I usually push for a Varicam for such projects so... take that for what it is worth.
Click to expand...

I don't plan on using M2. I personally like a deep focus and don't like the loss of light and resolution the M2 brings. I was refering to the HVX200 being better in low light with a stock lense. I already mentioned that the M2 adapters would cost you in the light category.
 
DavidBeier said:
No, I haven't tried an XLH1 since frankly no one in my area seems to have one. I have an HVX200, and have friends with HD100s and Z1s but sadly Canon doesn't seem to be getting many people in the HD market where I am. That said, I'm simply repeating what I've read from people who have done side by side comparisons and with real reputations. I don't think they're lying and frankly I'll take Barry's or Adam Wilt's opinion over yours buddy.
Click to expand...

Are you crazy? AshG's had both of those cameras. Where as you've never even touched an XLH1.

You shouldn't go repeating what everyone else says... especially if what you're repeating is inaccurate. Maybe you read/heard/saw wrong?
 
DavidBeier said:
I already mentioned that the M2 adapters would cost you in the light category.
Click to expand...

Are you refering to all 35mm adapters? Apparently, the Brevis acheives a light gain. Remarkable.

A little off thread, but the HD100 is looking mighty attractive as a 2nd cam right now. Its main downfall appears to be its $600 lens. With the Letus relay its not an issue. Early reports suggest the Letus isn't great on wide shots, however.
 
Geez, StMad, Pleeeeeeeze!

How could an adapter possibly deliver more light on its output than what goes into it on the input? Impossible, except you do electronic enhancement.

Of course ANY adapter loses light and they lose quite a lot, by design and by definition. The ground glass models are even worse: The ground glass actually absorbs light and reflects light into directions other than your next lens group. All this light is lost forever :crybaby:
 
I'm not a fan of HDV...but one with these features for only 3k is worth a look.
My HVX200 may have a new friend next to it :)
 
I have a HVX and i like it. It's a very good camera. The image is beautifull. Very powerfull creative tool.

I think i'll also get a XLH1/35mm adapter or a XH-G1.
What i've seen so far from the XL-H1 is superb definition,very good dynamic range, with no annoying artefacts from Canon's HDV. I like this image.

So...I think both Panasonic and Canon did a great job.

...All this, in the waiting of the RED camera...
 
DavidBeier said:
No, I haven't tried an XLH1 since frankly no one in my area seems to have one. I have an HVX200, and have friends with HD100s and Z1s but sadly Canon doesn't seem to be getting many people in the HD market where I am. That said, I'm simply repeating what I've read from people who have done side by side comparisons and with real reputations. I don't think they're lying and frankly I'll take Barry's or Adam Wilt's opinion over yours buddy. The HVX200 is more sensative than the XLH1 and I've been also told it has a higher lattitude.



I don't plan on using M2. I personally like a deep focus and don't like the loss of light and resolution the M2 brings. I was refering to the HVX200 being better in low light with a stock lense. I already mentioned that the M2 adapters would cost you in the light category.
Click to expand...




Please show me where people have said the HVX is better in low light because these people are idiots. Ask Barry direct, which camera is better in low light, he will tell you the XLH. Ask Adam Wilt, he will tell you the XLH. Have you actually read the reports about these cameras?

As far as my reputation, dont have much of one around here. Never affiliated myself with a magazine or organization, too busy working. I have shot with every digital camera known to man and have a decade of experience shooting digital video where I have logged well over 10,000 hours behind the camera and shot over 5,000 hours of footage.

If you havent messed with the camera, maybe you should reserve comment.



ash =o)
 
Just so it is clear... I currently only OWN an HVX and an XL2. I frequently shoot Varicam, XLH, SDX, etc. I have less experience with the XDCAMs, the JVC and the Sony HDV stuff, I have shot with them all however. The cameras I know the best in order are Canon XL series, Panny Varicam, Panny SDX, DVX, HVX, all others. 90% of my work is done with these cameras...


ash =o)
 
None of this really matters if your story sucks. It's all just tech talk. You can debate facts and figures until the end of time. People are still going to shoot both because we can. Becasue everyone will see something that they like in the other, and thankfully we can do this.
 
Can't we all just get along????--Vomits:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

In my own tests, I like the HVX for more filmic color and gamma, but I use the XLH1 for my broadcast ENG work. I have always loved the XL series for my ENG work and the H1 is no different. But the same falling in love that happened with the dvx happened for the hvx for me. I currently own an XL1, XL1s, DVX, HVX, and have frequent access to an XLH1.

Each is a tool that gets pulled from the toolbox when it is specifically called for...:)
 
David Newman said:
-- 24f is support by several NLEs, including CineForm enhanced products (Vegas and Premiere.) Plus 24f is looks pretty nice.
Click to expand...


Of course, using cineform. My trouble with this is the following: why cineform is not considered by many here as a VIABLE solution for HVX200 and Vegas? there are so many, including myself, who would love to use Vegas and HVX200 but cannot do so. Why don't these people consider cineform as a viable product? Is the intermediate format too slow to be viable?

Also the best that canon can achieve will always be limited by the color space of HDV. And furthermore, I am not sure you are giving the HVX its color space worth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top