Hvx200 vs XH-A1 lowlight

Barry_Green said:
The footage from all these cameras looks great. Even the Z1 puts out a great image.

More and more it's not about the image anymore, as they're all excellent. It's about the features and the workflow and what works for your particular needs.
Click to expand...

You know, quite a while before the HVX200 came out there was a lot of discussion at DVXuser about HD and how it would change the workflow.

The need to change the workflow for HD is true whether it’s HDV, D5 or P2. It just so happens there is no choice but to develop a new workflow if you use P2. Still most people are still treating HD like big video and that just isn't efficient or desirable. HD is much more analogous to digital film.

Most people on this forum dismissed my ranting about workflow then, now it’s all the rage. Things that make you go hmmm...

So now that everyone is working so diligently trying to squeeze HD through the FCP/Edius/Avid pipelines there is a significant problem that most users are dismissing [much in the same way they dismissed workflow related issues a couple of years ago] and that is the fact that DVCProHD is an 8bit codec.

You’re right Barry, all of these camera’s offer great price/performance, but if you’re talking about how workflow can differentiate one from the other then you need to considerably raise the bar to make sure your workflow can accommodate 16bits.
 
delaro said:
of course, but even with heavy CC hdv always looks like hdv. i pushed my hdv very far in CC to experiment. i don t say it's bad, i like it a lot but sometimes i want something more organic like on my dvx. and in the other way i've never seen the hdv coldness that i like in the hundreds of hvx footages i've downloaded. so i'll probably go for both cam, hvx and a1 or v1.
Click to expand...

I will have some stuff up soon regarding faces etc.

Owning an HVX and a Canon A1 seriously, if you can afford it is an excellent way to be.
 
nice! thanx!
so what is the conclusion of this thread? because i ve read that the h1 is less sensitive than the hvx. and these examples seem to show that the a1 is more sensitive than the hvx. and h1 and a1 seem to be equivalent technically.
 
I don't have any really objective results to share, that is what I was hoping but. From the footage I have seen I would suggest that not only is the A1 better in lowlight than the HVX, but it also has cleaner image, not to mention significantly better rez in 60i.
 
magichristopher said:
I don't have any really objective results to share, that is what I was hoping but. From the footage I have seen I would suggest that not only is the A1 better in lowlight than the HVX, but it also has cleaner image, not to mention significantly better rez in 60i.
Click to expand...

I think the image is cleaner in low light (since, being an interlaced chipset, you can apparently boost the gain with less issues) but I don't find it to be any clearer in a well lit environment. It is certainly sharper in 60i since the HVX200 doesn't have progressive chips and thus doesn't gain any resolution in interlaced.
 
Not sure you phrased that correctly; the HVX200 "does" have progressive chips, but no camera gains resolution when scanning in interlaced. On a true progressive system you'd lose resolution when going to interlaced (but the HVX doesn't scan interlaced at all, it's always progressive, so when it records interlaced it just slices progressive frames into fields, thus it's the same resolution in interlaced or progressive.) The cameras that simulate progressive (Canon "F" modes, Sony CF modes, XDCAM-HD etc) lose resolution when simulating progressive scan.
 
Yeah, vertical somewhat but they have plenty horizontal resolution, lots of it. Look at the night streetshots somewhere in Japan. The (F)mode with amp/nr gains resolution on this cam compared to the HVX.
 
Look Im going to settle this argument once and for all. I took both cams into the yard last night and Im telling you I could still see both of them.

Another non constructive post by ncje :S Sorry :P

magichristopher said:
not to mention significantly better rez in 60i.
Click to expand...

Crap this camera has 60i? I dont think mine came with it.









(disclaimer - yes I do shoot 60i for slow motion)
 
Last edited:
I bought the xha1 this weekend I watched your demo video some of the setting you show on your video like the nr setting theres no such thing that I can find..

Also there is a glitch with the camera I bought I open the lcd screen and close it and the viewfinder would short out it would dim and brighten. anyone else have this happening
 
NR1 and NR2 are in the "customize" menu.

For low light, they appear to be nigh unto identical, with the A1 having a tiny edge in brightness, and a comparable increase in noise. They're basically equivalent in brightness and level of noise performance, although the character of the noise is different -- the A1's noise is very gritty/grainy, the HVX's is smearier and more chroma noise.

If you gain 'em both up, they get comparably noisy, and at 12dB I thought the Canon was noticeably noisier than the HVX, at the same iris and shutter speed.

But overall, they're roughly equivalent in low light from my first initial tests.
 
Well, wait a second. i didn't realize that you were using two different terms for the noise.

What's the difference between HVX's Chroma Noise and the A1's Grit/Grain?

Is the Chroma noise why it seems that the HVX footage breaks up quicker (to me at least) when CC'ing rather than an M2t from the Canon?
 
Barry_Green said:
NR1 and NR2 are in the "customize" menu.

For low light, they appear to be nigh unto identical, with the A1 having a tiny edge in brightness, and a comparable increase in noise. They're basically equivalent in brightness and level of noise performance, although the character of the noise is different -- the A1's noise is very gritty/grainy, the HVX's is smearier and more chroma noise.

If you gain 'em both up, they get comparably noisy, and at 12dB I thought the Canon was noticeably noisier than the HVX, at the same iris and shutter speed.

But overall, they're roughly equivalent in low light from my first initial tests.
Click to expand...

Barry I think thats a fair assesment. I would go so far as to say that the -3 gain is about 0 on the HVX and thus +12 is a bit higher than 12 on the HVX.

BTW Barry glad you have the cam so you can give a hands on assessment.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Well, wait a second. i didn't realize that you were using two different terms for the noise.

What's the difference between HVX's Chroma Noise and the A1's Grit/Grain?

Is the Chroma noise why it seems that the HVX footage breaks up quicker (to me at least) when CC'ing rather than an M2t from the Canon?
Click to expand...

Bump. Especially after reading Camcorder Info's review.

Seems that they're agreeing that the A1's noise is a lot more tamed than other cameras.
 
Oh wow the only thing the canon XHA1 cant do is well lets just say i got up this morning and had to make my own coffee and breakfast ha ha ha
 
that was a great test, very informative, personally I still prefer the hvx stuff, the A1 seemed cold and flat to me, I just love the richer colours of the hvx of course if price is your major concern or the colder look is what you are after then the A1 seems a great cam to invest in....for Me though, its still the hvx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top