HVX200 vs. XL-H1

[Elton]

Canon HDV works well in good intermediate codecs. Of course it falls apart in native HDV editing because that's another HEAVY pass of 25mbs compression whenever you add an effect. Anyone tried heavy cc in Sheer? Remarkably good. PhotoJPEG and CineForm work well too.

For most purposes I think HDV should be thought of as an acquisition-only format.

 

[Christopher Barry]

Elton,

Thanks for the feedback on HDV DI. I personally feel DVCProHD is a good acquisition-only format, unless just straight cuts and no recompressing to same codec, just my opinion. OneRiver Media website has some interesting comparisons on generation loss, mentioned in this thread.

 

[Saddler]

So Cineform isn't yet available for FCP? Anyone know if AJA's Kona 2 will hardware support it?

The HVX can capture uncompressed if plugged directly into FCP via firewire correct? Can it output 10bit uncompressed? I've found color correction in DVCPROHD to be pretty good, reds are blocky but no surprise there. Is it better to render out a DVCPROHD project as uncompressed, and then doing CC?

Regarding generation loss, what exactly makes a generation? If I import HVX footage into a DVCPROHD timeline and then do CC and retiming of the clip before exporting the final rendered clip out as DVCPROHD, is that no generation loss or a single generation? If I take that same clip, but export to Shake for the retiming, is that an extra generation?

 

[Elton]

For FCP I've found the best codec to currently work with for D.I. is the Sheer lossless HD codec. http://www.bitjazz.com

You can render multiple generations and see no degradations, yet the data rate is like a mild HD 3:1 compression...or around 40 MBs for 1080 24p. It's bit-for-bit identical to uncompressed, but a more manageable data rate. (still huge, but workable)

It does a very nice job of converting YUV footage, whether HDV or DVCProHD into higher color resolution formats for grading. All the way up to 10 bit 4:4:4.

I've done SDI captures of XL-H1 uncompressed live signal output to this format and the quality is amazing.

DVCProHD can be nice, but the fact is that it too is fairly heavy compression given that it isn't as efficient as MPEG.

I believe most future HD projects will be destined for HD-DVD or Blu Ray deliverables, so it makes sense to finish in the highest quality intermediate possible before encoding for delivery.

--Saddler--

HVX firewire output isn't uncompressed...it's a streaming compressed DVCProHD signal. The component analog live camera head signal is uncompressed.

btw, your scenario could be considered up to 3 generations of compression if you output the final movie without doing a "self-contained movie" export. This is where even native DVCProHD editing has its limitations. Anytime you render an effect it induces a generational loss of compression.

This is where Sheer or CineForm make sense. They are much milder to the image when multiple renders are called for.

 

[Christopher Barry]

Elton,

Thanks for apprising me of the sheer codec. I am all for HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray deliverables, ditching tape and expensive decks would be good. :thumbsup:

 

[Saddler]

Hmm, the site for Sheer says no RT effects for FCP. That's a deal breaker for me.

 

[Elton]

No prob Tyler.

I think the practical application of HDV and HVX DVCProHD is to avoid tape masters in general. It'll be data/file centric workflows and h.264 or VC1 compression in the end deliverable.

 

[David Newman]

Hmm, the site for Sheer says no RT effects for FCP. That's a deal breaker for me.

In fairness to Sheer it is a FCP limitation not Sheer that is at fault. This is one of the ways FCP is behind it is competitors -- no mixed or third party formats in RT. CineForm is faced with the same issue on FCP, although we have got beyond such big-company backward thinking in the past, and we intend to do so again when we complete our Mac port.

 

[Elton]

Hmm, the site for Sheer says no RT effects for FCP. That's a deal breaker for me.

It's very fast to render and I personally don't use it to edit with unless I have a very small amount of footage to work with. With DVCProHD HVX footage you can edit in the native codec for speed, and then when your timeline is finished you can make a copy of it, (for safety and redundancy) and change the codec parameters of the copied timeline to Sheer and render a final version with no quality loss.

With HDV (especially when there's 24F native support) you can capture the 24F, use the media manager and transcode the material to a faster/higher quality codec like PhotoJPEG, edit, then reconform to the original HDV material and change the timeline codec to Sheer and do a final output.

This way you preserve as much quality as possible before encoding for delivery.

 

[Elton]

David,

I'm sorry to hear that the FCP port is proving to be a bit complicated. That truly sucks that Apple makes it difficult to achieve RT as a 3rd party codec.

I'm still hotly anticipating the availabilty of CineForm on the Mac. Is there any possibility that it will also work with G5's or will it strictly require the new Xeon machines?

 

[donkathon]

Ive seen footage of both. HVX looks better, hands down. HDV vs DVCPro HD has all it's cards marked in advance.

 

[David Newman]

Elton,

The port isn't proving to be complicated, it is going pretty well. We also knew of the FCP limitations when we started, just another hurdle (one created by business fokes, not the tech guys behind FCP.)

Initially the CineForm port is Intel only -- for performance reasons -- we have a lot of Intel optimized code. We intend to add G5 support in the future -- just for compatibility.

 

[Elton]

Ive seen footage of both. HVX looks better, hands down. HDV vs DVCPro HD has all it's cards marked in advance.

Ever seen H1 SDI material captured true 4:2:2? You might think of the XL-H1 as more than HDV then. And many like the quality of the HDV too, so it's all in the eye of the beholder.

They're both great products with different strengths/weaknesses.

 

[Elton]

David,

Is AltiVec optimization more complicated than Intel SSE, etc?

I'm excited about the new Xeon Macs for sure, but I'm not too keen to be on the bleeding edge with the first generation of those machines. I'm sure there will be plenty of eager new Xeon Mac owners though.

 

[Zack Birlew]

I don't think the HD-SDI XL-H1 stuff looks bad, it looks very good compared to the regular HDV footage. Yet, I can't seem to put my finger on what seperates the XL-H1 from the HVX200 when both are filmed at their best. By all means, I'm sure both cameras can look identical when filmed in the same conditions, but there's just something that the HVX200 has that intrigues me more.

That's just my opinion though, heck, I'd love to have either camera, but I don't have an immediate need, just another production class and I can do that with my GL1 unless they start handing DVX's at that point .

 

[Justyn]

The difference is that only a select stalwart and budget crazy people are buying the canon and when they do.. they get that glorious free box of steaks. I mean one turn of that Lens is enough to make even a vegetarian eat those steaks to gain some comfort.


There is a major HVX industry and network growing.. but can the same be said for the Canon? Anyone hazzard a guess to compare the numbers of each camera sold since it's release? I'd say it's 10-1 in favor of the HVX...

There's something to be said about a community and a camera that is really a workhorse... I noticed this start when the DVX came out and my XL1 suddenly wasn't getting me gigs as I couldn't do 24p and whatever.

 

[ChuckS]

I don't think the HD-SDI XL-H1 stuff looks bad, it looks very good compared to the regular HDV footage. Yet, I can't seem to put my finger on what seperates the XL-H1 from the HVX200 when both are filmed at their best. By all means, I'm sure both cameras can look identical when filmed in the same conditions, but there's just something that the HVX200 has that intrigues me more.

That's just my opinion though, heck, I'd love to have either camera, but I don't have an immediate need, just another production class and I can do that with my GL1 unless they start handing DVX's at that point .

I would imagine that you would be interested in the new Canon XL-A1, isn't that a GL1 with XLH innards [so to speak]...

 

[AshG]

Sales figures are pretty meaningless. I bet Sony sells 10:1 on their low end HDV cams to the HVX... so what? The XLH is aimed at a higher end market and the street is almost 60% more than the HVX.

I love how you guys just buy into the marketing and allow it to alter your perception. 4:2:0, HDV, DVCproHD, 4:2:2... blah, blah, blah... Newsflash, DVCproHD is not a great codec, it is very good for acquisition but average for editing. HDV is good for acquisition but terrible for editing. You can work around this. Just as Panny found a work around the not close to HD 960X540 chips in the HVX, maybe Canon found a work around for HDV and 24F mode. Nothings perfect, TEST THE CAMERAS YOURSELF, dont buy all this marketing BS, I am sick of seeing people regurgitating it...




ash =o)

 

[Elton]

I don't think the HD-SDI XL-H1 stuff looks bad, it looks very good compared to the regular HDV footage. Yet, I can't seem to put my finger on what seperates the XL-H1 from the HVX200 when both are filmed at their best. By all means, I'm sure both cameras can look identical when filmed in the same conditions, but there's just something that the HVX200 has that intrigues me more.

It's probably the Cinegamma curve and possibly the fact that the HVX doesn't get ultra-sharp, like the H1. This sharpness can be dialed down of course, but by default the H1 is damn sharp because it crams 1.67MP in a 1/3" space.

I personally like the Cinegammas in the H1, but they simply aren't tagged to look quite so Fuji-like the way the HVX is. But again, we're talking about instant film-look type stuff. I like to grade in post so I don't consider the in-camera look to be super-crucial.

The 16x manual lens also makes the H1 respond with a slightly more contrasty, colorful image than the stock lens. It gets a look that's closer to what the Leica lens feeds the HVX. And have you seen the H1 with the LetusXL 35mm adapter and Nikon lenses? Totally different feel in color, and of course DOF.

That's just my opinion though, heck, I'd love to have either camera, but I don't have an immediate need, just another production class and I can do that with my GL1 unless they start handing DVX's at that point .

My alma mater's film school just got a bunch of HVX's and they even have a mo-cap stage in a brand new facility.

Oh to be a starving film student these days.

 

[ChuckS]

The difference is that only a select stalwart and budget crazy people are buying the canon and when they do.. they get that glorious free box of steaks. I mean one turn of that Lens is enough to make even a vegetarian eat those steaks to gain some comfort.


There is a major HVX industry and network growing.. but can the same be said for the Canon? Anyone hazzard a guess to compare the numbers of each camera sold since it's release? I'd say it's 10-1 in favor of the HVX...

There's something to be said about a community and a camera that is really a workhorse... I noticed this start when the DVX came out and my XL1 suddenly wasn't getting me gigs as I couldn't do 24p and whatever.

Couldn't the same argument be used against the HVX, I bet there are ten times the number of Sony Z1/FX1's compared to the HVX.

I'd be willing to bet that if the new Canon XL-A1's image is as good as the XL-1H for ~$3500 that it won't be long before there are more of those than HVX's.

That's not to say that its a better camera, and remember when the XL-1H was intorduced it had a MSRP of ~$9000 not exactly sold to "budget crazy people."