HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

[Jarred Land]

Click Here To Read Article

 

[Kholi]

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.

 

[Jarred Land]

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.

 

[Kholi]

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.

 

[magichristopher]

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.

 

[SPZ]

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.

 

[PaulM]

Gain?

Gain?

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

 

[Huy Vu]

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.

 

[Noel Evans]

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

 

[philnerd]

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.

 

[icicle22]

I do not own an A1 anymore but the images in this comparison look way off. I agree overall that the HVX has a better gamma curve and renders beautiful gorgeous images. But the difference between the A1 and the HVX is much less pronounced than these images show.

What I am getting at is the HVX colors are not "that" much better than the A1.....based on those pictures the A1 images look like caca!

I have owned the HVX, the A1 and the H1. I stuck with the H1 as I feel it is superior to the A1 image wise but mostly because of the form factor. I still would love to add an A1 to the arsenal. Heck, I'd actually rather add an HVX but the lack of any long form recording options that don't add thousands to the cost has boxed it out for me. For now.

Peace!

 

[Stu Siegal]

Some observations;

The A1 pictures are not representative of what the camera can produce. Much richer images than those posted can be had by simply downloading the 18 available presets uploaded elsewhere. I won't go so far as to say they A1 grabs are the equivalent of doctored "before" photos in wrinkle cream ads, but perhaps Barry is more skilled at manipulating the hvx picture, a cam he's had for a year as opposed to a week.

Second, there is a huge bias in the concluding section of the article - not the least of which is a bias toward a certain kind of work. The assumption that the hvx is a pro camera and the A1 is a prosumer cam is nonsense. It reflects an assumption that the criteria for judging these cameras based on how they perform for studio & independent film production work, controled situations. Not so.

My guess is Barry does primaily studio work as opposed to run & gun/doc work. If he were a run & gunner, there'd be a whole section about how the hvx is nearly useless for any type of doc work or shooting in uncontrolled environments. The excitement over variable frame rates is another indication of a bias towards a certain type of work. For doc people - who cares? To me, it's flavor of the month stuff, a look every rap promo/action pic must have, where basic operability in remote settings is bread & butter, has been since the days of little ari's in wwII and eclairs in the new wave. Typewriter to word processor? Hardly. A sleek vs. clunky analogy might have been far more appropriate. My point is that Barry doesn't miss any of the A1's features and its ergonomics not because they were inferior, but because they didn't apply to his style of work, which is no more or less professional than mine.

What's odd is that after stating that the images are nearly identical, the conclusion puts the A1 in a class beneath the hvx. The cameras are in the same class. Period. They have different feature sets - that's it. The plusses and minuses on either side are essentially a wash. The A1 is a pro cam - I'd rather shoot a nature doc or a reality program or live performance with it over the hvx any day.

I don't want to knock the article - there's lot's of good information here. It's when it veers from information to opinion that it becomes highly subjective - shooters take not. Play for yourself before you buy.

 

[xray]

A1 colors are different from HVX colors. I don't mind, why keep it all the same? You see more changing color use in cinema. It's not 1988, we are in 2007. I do playground in the CC. But one thing I need to bring in is (owning a A1 Canon) the colors shown here are flat and dull, you can make them look WAY better. And the software image control on the A1 is rich. And resolution? Shooting wide, mountains, landscape, the A1 is the champ, no way the HVX brings you the same here.

Thanks Barry for the review, I never knew that you could close the backdoor using it on AC power, I just found out! It was always open collecting dust. And I love the A1 battery inside, it's such a sleek design that I feel the HVX is even more ugly than it actually is.

 

[ennfurno]

i think te night footage that someone shot on the a1 sais it all about th image quality this camera is able to ship.awaiting my a1 today

 

[Barry_Green]

Looks like Barry never turned off AGC (auto gain control) on the Canon.

Of course I turned off AGC. That's the first thing I did.

 

[Barry_Green]

I agree with magicchristopher about the clear bias tone toward the HVX.

Of course there's a clear bias towards the HVX. The HVX is the better product, it suits my purposes, and it's been here a year. The very first statement was that the HVX is the gold standard and the question was "how does the XHA1 measure up?"

That said, it's no secret that I have never liked Canon camcorders. I have a Canon digital still camera, it's great, but I don't like their camcorder designs and never have. The only one I thought was good for what it was, was the GL2. Hated the XL1, don't care for the XL2, and I would really like the XLH1 if it wasn't so expensive and had horrible lens controls.

That said, I have proclaimed the XHA1 the best HDV camcorder on the market, period, regardless of price. That should say something about the XHA1.

And yea, those grabs does not do the Canon justice at all.

I disagree. Those grabs are exactly what the Canon delivers. It's insulting to say otherwise. I specified exactly what settings were used on the Canon, and I put it in about a dozen different circumstances.

As I said in the article -- if you view it by itself, it looks fantastic. It's only when you see it side-by-side that you even raise a question.

Both cameras have their strength and weaknesses but overall I have a hard time seeing how the HVX is the "clear winner" for everybody.

Did anybody say that it was?

 

[Barry_Green]

But Id suggest those of us who have had more use of the cam are getting a lot more out of it.

Settings were posted as to what was used. Cine2 matrix, Cine2 gamma, and color and detail settings at neutral.

Same with the HVX -- cinelike matrix, Cinelike-D gamma. I could certainly extract a lot more out of the HVX if I so chose to, but I put 'em both on middle settings.

In every prior shootout we've gone to efforts to make the cameras look as much alike as possible, and everyone whines. So here I set them on neutral, and now people are complaining. Not to get too grumpy, but it certainly seems like "no good deed goes unpunished."

NCJE, I agree with just about everything you wrote, and if you re-read the article you'll see that.

 

[Barry_Green]

But the difference between the A1 and the HVX is much less pronounced than these images show.

How can you say that? The differences are exactly what these images show. Great care was taken to position them exactly the same place, use comparable neutral settings, focus precisely on the exact same target, use the exact same exposure down to the same "pip" of zebras. Then the images were brought into Vegas and exported as best quality, uncompressed PNGs.

This is exactly what the differences are in the raw images, to the pixel, exactly.

Yes both offer customization beyond that, and yes I could have turned the color down on the HVX and turned it up on the XHA1 and gotten them to be of more similar saturation -- but they still don't look the same. You can see that by comparing the HVX's neutral "courthouse" picture against the XHA1's "max color" courthouse picture. The saturation gets close, but there's still a warmth and richness that the HVX offers that the XHA1 just doesn't have. And, like I said in the article, maybe you can tweak it in post to get the same look, but I couldn't get it in-camera.

 

[Barry_Green]

Some observations;

The A1 pictures are not representative of what the camera can produce. Much richer images than those posted can be had by simply downloading the 18 available presets uploaded elsewhere.

Of course it can be tweaked, as said in the article. And the HVX can be tweaked significantly too. But neither cam was. That was the whole point.

I won't go so far as to say they A1 grabs are the equivalent of doctored "before" photos in wrinkle cream ads, but perhaps Barry is more skilled at manipulating the hvx picture, a cam he's had for a year as opposed to a week.

The implication here is that the HVX WAS tweaked, and that's absolutely false. I set it on absolutely dead-center neutral settings; the only concession to image changes at all was the use of cine-D and cinematrix, which were also used on the XHA1, under the impression that any film-style cinematographer would obviously put both camcorders into those modes.

If you want me to tweak the HVX to look way better, I can easily do that and it would look dramatically better than the shots you see posted here. The HVX shots were IN NO WAY "optimized". Neither were the XHA1 shots.

Second, there is a huge bias in the concluding section of the article - not the least of which is a bias toward a certain kind of work. The assumption that the hvx is a pro camera and the A1 is a prosumer cam is nonsense. It reflects an assumption that the criteria for judging these cameras based on how they perform for studio & independent film production work, controled situations. Not so.

The summation of the article is a personal observation, a subjective conclusion based on my own test of figuring out how these two compare. I left it up to the reader to decide what features are important to them, but I specifically said "for me, I can't give this up" etc. I tried to lay out the differences to let each reader know what the differences are, because it is the differences that allow us to choose between them. I think the choice between an XHA1 and an HVX is very easy.

It's the choice between a V1U and an XHA1 that's hard. Why? Because they're "the same" in specs almost across the board. The HVX and the XHA1 are night-and-day different. So one is much more suitable to a certain type of work where the other one wouldn't be. The choice should be easy.

If your type of work is different than what I do, you may find the XHA1 perfect where the HVX would be unmanageable.

My guess is Barry does primaily studio work as opposed to run & gun/doc work.

Absolutely.

If he were a run & gunner, there'd be a whole section about how the hvx is nearly useless for any type of doc work or shooting in uncontrolled environments.

Probably true. But this isn't really a community of "run and gun" shooters, this is a community of filmmakers -- look at our festivals, and you'll see that everyone is trying to be the next Spielberg. These cameras were compared in the context of their suitability for filmmaking. Which is why I left them glued in 24p, for example, and never even bothered to shoot 60i.

The excitement over variable frame rates is another indication of a bias towards a certain type of work.

No question, no argument. This article is absolutely biased towards commercial/film/music video work, and doesn't address documentary/sports shooting/live event shooting at all.

My point is that Barry doesn't miss any of the A1's features and its ergonomics not because they were inferior, but because they didn't apply to his style of work, which is no more or less professional than mine.

Good point.

What's odd is that after stating that the images are nearly identical, the conclusion puts the A1 in a class beneath the hvx.

Why is that odd? There's much, much, much more than just the image to consider. Workflow, flexibility, frame rates, color, physical control, audio -- lots, lots more to consider. If it was only about "which one makes a sharper 1080/24P image" then yes they're in the same class. But they do not end there, there's so much more to consider, and in nearly all those categories the HVX is a clear step above, if not two steps above.

I don't want to knock the article - there's lot's of good information here. It's when it veers from information to opinion that it becomes highly subjective - shooters take not. Play for yourself before you buy.

The article is information and opinion both. If someone wants to read a checklist of comparative features, I'm sure that could be arranged. I set out to find out what the 411 was on both of these units and how they compared and offered the factual differences and my opinion on those and why I thought each was important.

 

[Barry_Green]

A1 colors are different from HVX colors. I don't mind, why keep it all the same? You see more changing color use in cinema. It's not 1988, we are in 2007.

Exactly.

I do playground in the CC. But one thing I need to bring in is (owning a A1 Canon) the colors shown here are flat and dull, you can make them look WAY better.

Yes, you can, and I showed the ability to do so in the "courthouse" and "trees" pictures. Are people just not seeing those or something?

And the software image control on the A1 is rich.

Very rich, richer than on the HVX.

And resolution? Shooting wide, mountains, landscape, the A1 is the champ, no way the HVX brings you the same here.

The pictures would disagree. The HVX delivers just as sharp of a picture in every wide shot I put it to.

Thanks Barry for the review, I never knew that you could close the backdoor using it on AC power, I just found out! It was always open collecting dust.

Yeah, that puzzled me for a minute, and the CamcorderInfo review said you had to leave the door open. And I sat there thinking "no WAY did Canon design this like this!" I may not care for some of their design decisions (cough lens controls cough) but the XHA1 is so slick otherwise, how could they mess that up? So I poked a little further and found the little window.