HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Barry,

As much as I'm perceived to be a Canon fanboy/apologist, I can appreciate the time that you took to write the article, and you have every right to spice it with opinion. I would offer a simple caveat that people should understand that the perceptual feeling of these cameras are simply different.

I believe Panny's color processing is much more aggressive out-of-the-box and a little more instant gratification for the uninitiated. I honestly believe it has more to do with the signal processing overall than the codec. That said, Canon's basic philosophy was to give a ton of control over the image and ship 'em "broadcast flat". There is actually more CC latitude in the flatter image, but it's just not tagged to feel uber-saturated and poppy the way some of the Cinelike modes work...out-of-the-box. The A1 image when simply put in 24F mode and shot with neutral settings will indeed look flatter, even in the Cine modes. The camera is meant to be pushed, not merely shot "as is".

All of the workflow issues are about tradeoffs and pricepoints. P2 is fantastic for the filmmaker on the set, but a challenge for long takes, archiving, and might require an on-set assistant, and requires the added expense of a laptop or P2Store for offloading...or purchasing a Firestore. HDV is a nice compromise for recording length freedom because the codec (Canon's HDV encoder) is better than anyone would think it has a right to be (especially the F modes) and despite the need to use a Canon camera for F mode compatibilty, the ability to capture pure 24P without pulldown issues and edit in a native environment without a large storage penalty has its advantages too. The A1 is also probably more practical for the single, "run and gun" Doc/verite' shooter. And of course, this goes for event shooting too.

The lens issues again are about priorities and tradeoffs. The A1 lens is useable overall, but you do sacrifice the ability to do super fast snap zooms...which is how important overall? Depends on the user, but I would wager to say that a good deal of users would give that up for greater range that can actually be useable handheld (with OIS engaged). Again, tradeoffs...and it's wonderful to have good choices available.

I just think it's a fantastic time to be in the market for an affordable HD camera. I love the diversity of the offerings. It wil be interesting to see how many people will be running around with HVX's, A1's, H1's, HD100's...even the V1 at Sundance this year.

I saw a ton of DVX's on Main Street last year...but I expect a noticeable shift to HD.
 
Last edited:
If people think the shots don't do the cam justice how about posting more footage in the other cameras section? I've seen some good A1 footage, but if people are sitting on really amazing stuff post it already. I'm looking to buy a new camera, gimme an idea of what the A1 is capable of.
 
Barlow, I think your summation is exactly accurate. Thank you for at least reading the article; I think some people are just looking at the photos and then complaining because it doesn't meet with their preconceived notion of how it "should be."

I appreciate what you wrote, and I agree with everything you wrote to the letter.

It is absolutely impossible to write anything of substance and please everyone, so why try? I set out to find out how the cameras perform, side by side, without excessive tweaking. Without any tweaking, really. And I set out to find out if the XHA1 would sway me from going with the HVX, since the HVX is, as far as I'm concerned, the "gold standard" of features, flexibility, image, power, and price right now. And I found that they are *very comparable* in 1080 mode! VERY. I said the only notable difference is in color. I put in the exact settings (the EXACT SETTINGS) I used for both, and what am I getting complaints about? Color. Sigh.

I really think a lot of people don't even read the text -- I think they just look at the pictures, and if "their team" doesn't "win", they complain. Or if "their team" does "win", they celebrate. That ain't what it's about. Does anybody even read the section where I said that I swapped the cable back and forth and, on an HDTV, couldn't really even tell which camera was which? Side-by-side the color's different, but just taking each on their own, they're both fantastic.

Anyway, I believe both products are capable of fantastic results. Pick your priorities, they're both different, and they're both capable. The two points that are clearly objective are that the HVX has a lot more flexibility, and that it costs more. And because of those two facts, it's more suitable for certain types of productions and for certain users, and less suitable for other types of productions and other users.

Pick which one suits your needs. But they're both excellent.
 
We need to set up a site called DVXSwiss so we can stop being accused of bias and have a more nuetral appearance.

Thanks for giving Barry and Jarred the benefit of the doubt in the integrity department anyways.

-

Great article. One thing stays true; determine your needs and get your hands on the products before you buy.

-

Nice post Elton.

-

A question for another thread :

Why is the HVX useless for run and gun / doc work ? Useless ? With the pending a 16gb card on the way ? Useless ?
 
Interjecting once more:

I for one read the entire article, and read it again this morning to make sure I got it. I'd honestly have to say it's not the article, but how it was written? If that makes sense.

Good example would be "The HVX GHETTO SLAPS the A1"... where as when the A1 is a clear winner in such regions as resolution it's more like "... the A1 has a slight advantage."

Otherwise, not being an A1 owner and an HVX owner, It seems a fair example of a camera comparison.

I told you that VERSUS title was going to cause trouble!
 
As a DVX fanboy myself I can say that after reading this article i would have no problem buying the A1.

Sure I think that the HVX produces the best filmlike images but A1 gives you alot of image quality for the money.

I already knew all the benefits with the A1 its the bad things that always worries me and Barry ha showed that they really isnt much to worrie about. Just buy and go out there and shoot.

With the 120% pricedifference between HVX and A1 here in Europe, the A1 will give me most for my money.
 
I NOTICED THAT CANON GRABS BESIDES BEEN NOISER THAN PANASONIC THEY WERE A LOT SHARPER THAN THE PANASONIC GRABS, PANASONIC LOOKED LIKE NOT IN FOCUS OR SOMETHING...?.

Sorry about the CAPS .!
 
Kholi said:
Good example would be "The HVX GHETTO SLAPS the A1"... where as when the A1 is a clear winner in such regions as resolution it's more like "... the A1 has a slight advantage."
Click to expand...

Can you point out the clear advantage in resolution? Have you looked at the pictures? I stared and stared at them, I brought 'em into Photoshop and blew 'em up to 400% size to compare 'em, I played 'em on my TV. Is there *any* noticeable difference in resolution?

WHERE do you see a "clear winner" in resolution? The only place I can determine a "clear advantage" in resolution for the XHA1 is in the pixel count of the chip, and in a tiny bit of aliasing on one of the masts on the battleship; other than that, I think they look basically *identical* in resolution.

(note: if I was shooting 60i, yes the Canon would have about a 15% advantage in vertical resolution, but I shot exclusively 24F).

I can show you how the HVX "ghetto slaps" the XHA1 as far as zoom control goes. If the XHA1 had shown a similar advantage in resolution, I would have used the same term. The XHA1 shows only the slightest advantage, and I do mean slight. Slight slight slight. You would have to totally pixel-obsess to see it.

In fact, I'd say my biggest complaint about the XHA1, and if there's a reason I would dread using it, it's the zoom control. I *hated* it. I *hated* the zoom control on the XLH1 too. And I *hated* the zoom control on the XL2. And I *hated* the zoom control on the XL1. I simply do not like even using those cameras, they frustrate and annoy me because of it. Hate is not too strong of a word to describe how I feel about the zoom control on all those cameras. The XHA1 is the best of the bunch, but only by a minor amount.

So if I used harsh words when describing the absolutely so-much-better zoom control on the HVX, understand that I meant it. :thumbsup:

I told you that VERSUS title was going to cause trouble!
Click to expand...
I don't even think that's the problem. It's inherent in every camera comparison article. Adam Wilt told me that any camera comparison is going to lead to the same thing, because "you're goring someone's sacred cow".

I just don't understand why people think a $3995 product should do everything a $5995 product does, and when I point out the things that it doesn't do, they get upset? Different products, different price points, appealing to different customers.
 
Last edited:
MovieSwede said:
As a DVX fanboy myself I can say that after reading this article i would have no problem buying the A1.

Sure I think that the HVX produces the best filmlike images but A1 gives you alot of image quality for the money.

I already knew all the benefits with the A1 its the bad things that always worries me and Barry ha showed that they really isnt much to worrie about. Just buy and go out there and shoot.

With the 120% pricedifference between HVX and A1 here in Europe, the A1 will give me most for my money.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! That's exactly what I set out to do. And if the A1 is the right one for you, then I'm glad to have helped you make up your mind.

At a 30% price difference I think the cost is absolutely totally justified for an HVX. At a 120% price difference? You'd better *really need* variable frame rates to make that make economic sense!
 
miamivideo said:
I NOTICED THAT CANON GRABS BESIDES BEEN NOISER THAN PANASONIC THEY WERE A LOT SHARPER THAN THE PANASONIC GRABS, PANASONIC LOOKED LIKE NOT IN FOCUS OR SOMETHING...?.

Sorry about the CAPS .!
Click to expand...

Where do you see them being a "lot sharper"? Each was focused exactly to the same degree on the same point, and I think that they're extremely close in sharpness & resolution.

The only thing that may differ in focus is that the Canon, in outdoors situations, was usually stopped down two more stops. Partly due to the Canon's neutral density filter being 1 stop weaker, and partly due to its Cine2 gamma being a stop brighter overall than the Panasonic's CineLike-D. So they're not at the same F-stop; the Panasonic was frequently at F4 where the Canon was frequently at F8 or so. So you may be seeing some distant background details appearing a bit softer on the Panasonic than the Sony on some of the more zoomed-in shots, but in the wide shots it shouldn't be a factor.

But hey -- if you think the Canon looks sharper, and you like sharper imagery, then the images have helped you make up your mind, right? That was the point -- so you could see comparable imagery and make up your mind.
 
well, like he said... "That wouldn't be any fun now would it?"

Albeit, potentially somewhat at your expense. But, hey. I guess it comes with the territory. You are who you are. It's like celebrities and Paparazzi.

Later,
Jason
 
I've tried it many different ways. With FX1 vs. XL2 vs. DVX, Jarred and I went and shot a million different shots on neutral settings and rendered 'em out to DVD. People were upset at the results and conclusions.

So then I went and did the six-way shootout, Z1 and HVX and XLH1 and HD100 and VariCam and CineAlta. And I brought in lots of other people, and I walked away from the testing procedures and let Jay and Adam run it. Tried to make it the most unbiased, neutral thing possible. I didn't even write the final article! And again, people were upset.

So this time I set out to do a fact-based opinion piece -- get the absolute facts, and sort through how I felt about 'em. Actually I wanted to buy an XHA1, (I wanted to see if it would be better for wide shots for resolution and for tele shots), and actually called Abel to place the order, when they volunteered to loan it to me instead. I compared 'em for a week, and decided that it didn't offer any benefits over the HVX (FOR THE TYPE OF WORK I DO, which should be spelled out more clearly and maybe I'll ask Jarred to revise the article for that). So it's "I use and love the HVX, how does the XHA1 compare" article.

Guess what? People are upset...

I put the results out there. I put the exact settings I used. The photos are absolutely raw, absolutely un-compressed, absolutely un-doctored, absolutely un-modified, absolutely un-optimized. But hey -- if someone else wants to do their own comparison, they're free to take a week out of their lives and do so; just please post the results and your settings and your reasoning for choosing them.

But don't be surprised if people get upset! :)
 
Last edited:
To make an assumption that any of us did not read the article but simply looked at the pictures is just a tad better than saying we are all idiots. I read every word of it before even looking at the pics. And I still say that the A1 looks worse than I have seen it in real life.

Since posting, Barlow has stepped in and said what I thought should be said. The HVX may be set at neutral settings, but Panasonic has chosen to make their neutral setting (arbitrary numbers) be tweaked out. So the base image of the HVX is closer to a tweaked A1. Canon has their cameras set to a true flat, neutral image. So I agree at the base setting the HVX looks better color wise. Heck, I believe the HVX looks better overall.....but not by as big of a margin as the images show. Yes...if we are forced to use neutral settings then the HVX is mucho better.

But....I submit that tweaking the A1 will significantly make the images come closer to the HVX. It won't be exact but it will be a lot closer.

And.....the HVX may be able to be tweaked too....but the increase in quality/contrast/saturation...whatever, is going to be minimal as the image is close to being "dialed in" from the factory.

So if the HVX looks great with the color at 0 setting....does that mean that increasing the color is going to make it look greater? Not necessarily. However increasing the color on the A1 could make it look at lot better because it is not even pushed at the default.

Either way I understand what Barry is saying. But I stand by the fact that these particular images really paint the A1 in a poor light. The camera is seriously crippled at the default settings. I know when someone said to tweak the A1, Barry said the HVX can be tweaked also....but again.....how much can you tweak perfect? I am not being sarcastic.....seriously. If the HVX image is really great to start with...and the A1 isn't, tweaking the A1 can get you a better image that comes closer to the HVX. So does that mean that tweaking the HVX is automatically going to keep the gap between the 2 equally distant? I don't believe so. You can only massage an image so much before you cannot squeeze more out of it.

Peace!

By the way. I don't own and A1. I own an XL-H1 and I shoot almost exclusively with the 16x manual lens. It isn't technically an HD lens but it still looks as sharp or sharper than the HVX footage I have shot. So I am not an A1 fanboy. In fact....I believe the H1 is sharper than the A1 and is better in low-light. I know many will argue but that is my experience.

The only reason I miss and want another HVX is for the variable frame rates. I'll take the resolution loss and deal with the noise to have this feature for specific shots. Plus I wouldn't really need a lot of storage either!

Okay. I'll shut up now!

Out!

Edit: By the way John.....I guess I am a Nancy. (read your post just after I finished this one).
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
So it's "I use and love the HVX, how does the XHA1 compare" article.

I put the results out there. I put the exact settings I used. The photos are absolutely raw, absolutely un-compressed, absolutely un-doctored, absolutely un-modified, absolutely un-optimized. But hey -- if someone else wants to do their own comparison, they're free to take a week out of their lives and do so; just please post the results and your settings and your reasoning for choosing them.

But don't be surprised if people get upset! :)
Click to expand...

Sounds like a better title to. Remove yourself or not from the product, any versus against anything is going to start a ruckus. Superman Versus Batman starts a freaking ruckus. Your Maternal Father versus your Step Father causes a ruckus. It's common sense. Not that this comment is aimed toward ANYONE IN SPECIFIC, it's pretty obvious that it's going to start a debate; something I thought everyone was trying to get away from so that we could all play nicely in the pool.

As far as looking at the pictures:

Yeah, twice and on a third time now. There's nothing in any of these images that will convince me that the HVX is as sharp as the A1 in 24F modes that you had them in. Tell me that I'm fooling myself or whatever, the comparisons of the HVX's image and A1's go like this for me:

HVX renders great colors
A1 is sharper

The only thing that matters to me about this comparison is the politics: Call me soft, I just want everyone to be able to congregate together instead of in separate corners.
 
Kholi rememeber that A1 uses more sharpening by default than the HVX does. So the A1 gives sharper look. So in that way the A1 gets a benefit from the HVX by setting it in neutral setting.
 
MovieSwede said:
Kholi rememeber that A1 uses more sharpening by default than the HVX does. So the A1 gives sharper look. So in that way the A1 gets a benefit from the HVX by setting it in neutral setting.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue or point I'm trying to make. Re-read the post that Barry responded to of mines. I was saying that the article's "voice" was probably what got people riled. Not that I'm telling Barry to put on Kid-Gloves or anything. Point was that certain choices of wording were obviously going to cause turmoil.

Then again, the same wording would be fine for an article entitled "I use and love my HVX, how does the A1 compare?"

It's all in the words.
 
Barry_Green said:
Anyway, I believe both products are capable of fantastic results. Pick your priorities, they're both different, and they're both capable. The two points that are clearly objective are that the HVX has a lot more flexibility, and that it costs more. And because of those two facts, it's more suitable for certain types of productions and for certain users, and less suitable for other types of productions and other users.

Pick which one suits your needs. But they're both excellent.
Click to expand...

Barry, I think this is a more realistic statement, (though we define flexibility differently) wish it had come through clearer in the review. Like yourself, I never liked Canon either, for some of the same reasons you state, and I did/do prefer Panasonic for many of the same reasons you do, but the A1 has won me over.


And though there are lots of Speilberg/film school types here, and more power to 'em, I also read posts from lots of other types of shooters., filmmakers, and professionals. The diversity of this place is what makes it great, the point of my response was to balance out your article with a different perspective. To that end, this thread combined with your review is a great resource for perspective buyers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top