HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

[Barry_Green]

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.

That's not what I meant, and I apologize if anyone took it that way.

All I meant was, much of what you're talking about was addressed in the article. For example, the color tweaking -- if you look at the maximum color XHA1 pic, it looks much more comparable to the neutral HVX pic. So when you say "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" then I point out that I tried to make that exact point in the article already.

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.

I disagree. I normally run the HVX with a Master Pedestal of -4 to -6, detail level +2, color saturation +2 or +3, and cinelike-V gamma. Which makes the image sharper, punchier, more vibrant and more colorful. I don't really like the stock flat settings.

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.

There is no way to win with this. If I do "tweaked" settings, people complain "they all look the same, so what's the point." If I do "untweaked settings", people complain that the XHA1's untweaked settings look awful.

I put a shot in there of trying to dial up the XHA1's color. Two shots, actually. Why does nobody acknowledge those? I did exactly what you're saying, I tried to get the XHA1 to match the HVX. It doesn't, but it comes close. I couldn't get it to match the HVX. And then, the HVX can be taken several steps further. So I did exactly what you're saying...

 

[Barry_Green]

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.

This is the kind of thing I just love. I look at the pictures, and I see them as comparably sharp. You look at the exact same images, and choose to discard what I consider to be "the evidence" and say "there's nothing in any of these images that will convince me that the HVX is as sharp as the A1 in 24F modes." How does that work?

I'm seriously not understanding this. Can you point to a section of any of those images that shows the A1 rendering more detail than the HVX? I know mathematically it "should", based on having 3x as many pixels, but -- I'm looking at the pictures, and I'm not seeing the differences. Where are you seeing the differences?

 

[scannon]

I want to thank Barry and Jarred for the effort to test and publish the comparison.

The opportunity to get this type of detailed info and opinions whether concurring or desenting is very valuable. In the end each prospective user will make his/her determination on the features and price point that fits their specific need. And for many the ability to rent a different camera for shoots requiring special features remains an option.

I really appreciate the time taken by Barry to go through this effort when he probably has many other projects to occupy his time.

This forum continues to be a prime resource for me and I hope others feel the same as well.

SCannon

 

[Kholi]

This is the kind of thing I just love. I look at the pictures, and I see them as comparably sharp. You look at the exact same images, and choose to discard what I consider to be "the evidence" and say "there's nothing in any of these images that will convince me that the HVX is as sharp as the A1 in 24F modes." How does that work?

I'm seriously not understanding this. Can you point to a section of any image that shows the A1 rendering more detail than the HVX? I know mathematically it "should", based on having 3x as many pixels, but -- I'm looking at the pictures, and I'm not seeing the differences. Where are you seeing the differences?

In the overall image. The entire still itself looks faintly "muddy". I think someone else in the discussion said the HVX looked a little out of focus; I agree.

I know nothing of pixel counts on the A1, either. It's just what I see between the two. It's probably just easier to tell me that I "think" I see a difference, but they're the same. To me? The A1 looks sharper.

I mean, the only critical detail I could give would be in the Battleship stills: Some of the textures seem to get muddied in the HVX still, while I can see them in the A1 still. That's not from me blowing the picture up to magnify it but from looking at them both and seeing just a bit more.

 

[Barry_Green]

Hmm. There is a difference in texture, with the HVX being "smoother", that I will agree with. But more detail? That's what I'm talking about. I can make out every single fine detail on one that I can on the other. Maybe we're referring to different things or using different terminology.

If I point it at a street sign in the distance, I can read it equally well on both systems. To me that says "equal resolution". The HVX is showing no grain, the XHA1 is showing grain, perhaps that's leading to a perception of "sharper" vs. smoother.

But I say they're equivalent in resolution. You say the HVX looks a bit "muddy" or out of focus? Seriously? I think it looks more pleasing across the board. And every bit as detailed, but smoother. But hey, individual decisions are what the pictures are for.

It's like the 24F argument -- people have said over and over that 24F is "fake" etc. Well, I put up a quicktime movie showing one and the other, and I defy anyone to make the argument that 24F doesn't work like 24P does. It does.

So I say on the other side: I defy anyone to say that the HVX isn't delivering equivalent resolution to the Canon. It does. That argument is over, and 24F moves exactly the same as 24P does, and both these HD cameras deliver a comparably-resolved HD image.

If I want the HVX "sharper" I could turn up the edge enhancement. HD100 users like to say the HD100 is "sharper" but it's all edge enhancement; as far as the base picture and resolving power goes, they're equivalent.

Man, now I wish I would have bought that XHA1, just so I'd still have it here and could run specific tests like this... sigh. Can't think of everything the first time around...

 

[J.R. Hudson]

I appears that the HVX picks up the colors better giving us more of a latitude of sorts. Color perception can help with visually picking up the details, doesn't it ?

 

[icicle22]

I disagree. I normally run the HVX with a Master Pedestal of -4 to -6, detail level +2, color saturation +2 or +3, and cinelike-V gamma. Which makes the image sharper, punchier, more vibrant and more colorful. I don't really like the stock flat settings.

Understood. But I think the images you posted look almost too saturated already so personally I can't see dialing in up much. This is a compliment as I think the HVX footage looks like it has already been Colrgraded to a filmlike look. Awesome.

I put a shot in there of trying to dial up the XHA1's color. Two shots, actually. Why does nobody acknowledge those? I did exactly what you're saying, I tried to get the XHA1 to match the HVX. It doesn't, but it comes close. I couldn't get it to match the HVX. And then, the HVX can be taken several steps further. So I did exactly what you're saying...

Okay...so maybe you did. However, I don't think the tweaked images look much better than the flat ones. Maybe a little. In all fairness I do not know how to tweak the A1 so I guess I'll shut up. I am basing most of my opinion on my experience with the H1 and I assumed the A1 is the same or better. But.....just as you stated the $5995 HVX is in a higher class than the $3995 A1 so we should expect more, perhaps the H1 (we all know it's uber price) outperforms the A1 too.....despite them having same chipset and such. Who knows?

And we will all have agree to disagree on the resolution thing. I could barely see a difference on a 30" CRT between the H1 and the HVX. But I could see it. However on a 45" LCD the difference in resolution is apparent. The H1 is much sharper than the HVX on this panel. I would not have sold my HVX and paid up to the H1 if I felt it was even close.....I could use the money!

Great article and thanks for taking the time.

By the way, having used the manual lens on the H1/XL2 for 2 years I think the focus ring on the HVX is a joke also. I hate it. I hate the default Canon servo's too. But the HVX/DVX feels nothing like a real manual focus.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Here is the street sign comparison blown up 1200%

Noticibly sharper ?

 

[Jason Ramsey]

It looks to me like you can see the difference in color space in your extreme blow up. You can see more pixel shades. The advantage of 4:2:2.

Of course, that blow up does nothing to compare sharpness

Jason

 

[Kholi]

And we will all have agree to disagree on the resolution thing. I could barely see a difference on a 30" CRT between the H1 and the HVX. But I could see it. However on a 45" LCD the difference in resolution is apparent. The H1 is much sharper than the HVX on this panel. I would not have sold my HVX and paid up to the H1 if I felt it was even close.....I could use the money!

And that was my point. I have a PNG comparison of one of Barry's two stills to show as far as the battleships go, can't upload PNG's though.

It might not be fifty percent sharper, but it is noticably sharper to me, nonetheless.

As far as the street sign above me...

I wish you would've done the HVX and A1 at the same focal lengths on that sail boat with the flags.

That way I wouldn't have to rethink saying "Look at the flag in the background... I can make out what more of the emblem/insignia on it than in the HVX photo."

They aren't at the same focal length, though, so.

My whole point was the wording chosen for the article. That's it, that's all. The comparison was pretty damned in-depth, most functions covered. It all came down to the wording to me. Call be a bietch or whatever, and maybe I read into things too much.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

It looks to me like you can see the difference in color space in your extreme blow up. You can see more pixel shades. The advantage of 4:2:2.

That is what I was wanting to ask; in having the 4:2:2, what does this do for overall image perception beyond the color capture ?

Of course, that blow up does nothing to compare sharpness Jason

Of course not; being able to count pixel for pixel does nothing .

 

[Barry_Green]

I wish you would've done the HVX and A1 at the same focal lengths on that sail boat with the flags.

You're talking about the shot that demonstrates the difference in the zoom length? I probably do have that shot at equivalent focal length somewhere, I'll have to dig around for it.

That way I wouldn't have to rethink saying "Look at the flag in the background... I can make out what more of the emblem/insignia on it than in the HVX photo."

They aren't at the same focal length, though, so.

You can't possibly compare the sharpness difference on different focal lengths, of course. I could have put the 1.6x teleconverter on the HVX, gotten equivalent zoom, and then compared, but I didn't bring it with me and didn't think anyone would be interested in that -- but then again, maybe they would.

Keep in mind with some of those shots that there was a 2-stop difference in exposure too, which means that the HVX may be exhibiting a tiny bit of shallow DOF. I tried to match exposure but you can't use the same f-stop on those cameras outdoors, because the ND filters are different strength.

My whole point was the wording chosen for the article. That's it, that's all. The comparison was pretty damned in-depth, most functions covered. It all came down to the wording to me. Call be a bietch or whatever, and maybe I read into things too much.

No prob; I chose the wording that I did because that's how I felt. Like I said, anyone's free to go do their own article and write it their own way, and I'm sure other people will too. The photographic evidence is absolutely unbiased, unmodified, un-tweaked, etc. The subjective observational differences are absolutely subjective and biased -- biased towards what I like, not who made it.

 

[disjecta]

First of all Barry, I want to thank you for taking the time out to do this. I have to say when I first see these kinds of articles, it gives me an adrenaline rush. I love hearing people's opinions.

The DVX was the first camera I really fell in love with and gave me everything I wanted at the time. I rented it for fun one weekend and bought a new one the day I returned it to the rental shop.

I was incredibly excited when the HVX first surfaced. I ate up posted footage and felt like I was in filmmakers heaven. I dreamed about the HVX. My Precious on steroids? What could be better. Pinch me.

One of the limitations I hated about SD, being a nature filmmaker was the relatively low resolution of miniDV and my longing to shoot landscapes in HD. I'm all about detail. I hated seeing the trees on my horizons represented by blobs. I cried when I saw HD nature shots on Discovery HD. So with the idea of my DVX in an HD version, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it.

But the HVX fell short for me in this department. I saw many examples of well-shot footage with landscapes only fractionally better in terms of detail. It didn't feel like HD to me. It most certainly was a much larger frame than the DVX but fell short.

I resigned myself to the fact that maybe this was as good as it was going to get for under $10,000 until Michael Pappas posted a bunch of things he shot with the Canon XLH1.

The detail (not just perceived but captured) in these shots just blew me away. There was no question that the difference in how the HVX and XLH1 were rendering similar landscapes was like night and day. The pictures from the Canon easily compared to what I was seeing on Discovery HD. There was no question in my mind which camera I had to have.

I have not been disappointed. I am constantly astounded at some of the shots I have captured and I have been able to closely approximate the DVX color palette I used to use in-camera.

I would love to have the functionality of the HVX on my Canon. I would love variable frame rates to capture exquisitely birds in flight or the movement of animals. There's also a part of me that sees the color the HVX is capable of capturing and I do see that I have not perfected it yet on my camera.

I wanted to love the HVX but I couldn't. P2 technology for my style of shooting was not even a consideration. I would be in the midst of changing out cards when a bald eagle would finally swoop down to grab that fish

If I was not shooting naturescapes and spending more of my time shooting narrative style movies, I would have chosen the HVX hands down. If I had limitless money, I would have an HVX close at hand at all times.

Having worked with the XLH1 for almost 8 months now, I would have to agree with all of Barry's assessments of both cameras. It is almost impossible to write a non-opinionated, non-biased article about something so subjective. It doesn't matter how pedestrian the work, when it comes to capturing images, it's pure art and there is not a single person on this board who will see images the exact same way.

Although the XLH1 is a dream camera to me, I still find myself wanting some of the functionality of the HVX. If I had an HVX, I would probably want some of the convenience and resolution of the XLH1. I hate and love that about myself. I, for one, will never be completely satisfied by the tools I have, no matter how good they get. I will always want more.

In the meantime, I am trying to accept this flaw in myself and trying to put more energy into appreciating the fact that, based on the images I am capturing in my chosen field, I made the absolute best possible choice.

Read Barry's article with that in mind and educate yourself outside of the borders of his words by looking at examples by users on this site and/or rent the two cameras and decide for yourself.

Again, thank you Barry for throwing yourself to the wolves.

 

[PaPa]

Cool Barry, great review! Thanks a ton!

 

[Kholi]

And after Disjecta's words--

I feel bad for reading too far into the words. I have nothing more to say on the subject of "versus". Thanks for sharing the article, and thanks for everyone else who shared opinions.

 

[strancali]

Barry thank you so much for taking the time out to write this article. To me, i think it all comes down to your budget. If you have sub $4000, buy an A1 instead of a dvx100b, if you can afford the HVX, thats the way to go! I love the image the HVX produces. After making a mistake with the xl2, i won't be in a rush to buy another camera anymore. As of right now, i will be buying the HVX.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Steven

Well put.

 

[Barry_Green]

Hey Disjecta, I would really like to see you do a comparison yourself, and see what the actual results are (recognizing that P2 cards are too small for your uses right now, but hey, when the 32gb hits maybe that'll change?)

Basically, I'll admit to being floored by the comparative sharpness results here. I really expected the XHA1 to be a lot sharper -- isn't that all we hear about? How sharp the Canon is, how it has 3x as many pixels, etc... yet in picture after picture after picture, I find them dead even in resolved detail, with occasional glimpses of the Canon having a very slight edge (Kholi's example shows probably the biggest difference, which is in the medium battleship photo; there are some red circle things above the flags on the ship's superstructure, and on the XHA1 they're resolved a little more clearly). But seriously, I'd say maybe 3%, maybe 5% difference at the most.

It's like 24P vs. 24F. Lots of internet myth and hype, but when you get right down to it, there isn't a difference. I'm saying the same thing with resolution, and showing the pictures -- lots of internet myth and hype abound, but when you look at the same shot at the same time, there's no appreciable difference.

So I'd like to see what an HVX would do in your hands, shooting what you shoot. The difference may not be as much as you think, and maybe you could get all that you want. Then again, maybe your circumstance is the exact circumstance that would show when the 3x as many pixels do make a difference -- shooting a primarily monochromatic treescape might be where the chips show a difference? Still, I'd like to see it firsthand, from your hands. Or maybe we have you and Kevin Railsback go shoot something together, each on your preferred tool? That could be killer...

Anyway, thanks to all who have participated in the discussion!

 

[icicle22]

Barry,
You mentioned monochromatic landscape and I recalled when I had the HVX being "underwhelmed" by it's HD-ness if you will. I noted to many I work with that it looks great and higher res when the subject is flooded with a lot of light and particularly when the subject has a lot of colors. However under other lighting situations that were not "ideal" i noticed what appeared to be a loss of sharpness. The image looked softer and I actually had non techie family members say "this is HD?" when viewing it.

Is this a result of pixel shift? Because in the same exact environments the H1 still looked higher res. Granted it can be a little flat and grainy but the resolution is there.

Just wondering.

By the way Disjecta.....it's nice to know I am not alone in seeing a huge resolution boost on the H1. I agree that looking at a 400% blow up on a PC/MAC doesn't show it....but the final image on an HD screen looks better IMHO.

How is it that so many see a resolution difference and others don't? Maybe we should all eat more carrots?

 

[Barry_Green]

How can looking at a blowup not show it? It's either there or it isn't... I looked at the images from about a foot away on my HDTV, and they're equivalently sharp.

As far as the monochromatic thing -- on a pure green, I suspect that that would be a place where the higher pixel count could show its merit. Spatial offset/pixel shift relies on there being some brightness information that can be extracted from the other chips. If it was a pure green or pure red or pure blue, then only that chip would come into play and you'd get no benefit from the offset. So maybe that would be a circumstance where it would show? I didn't really find any examples, but I didn't set out to run that specific test. I thought in the battleship photos that the grass in front would show it, but it seems equally detailed, so -- I dunno, it's just a theory; it seems to make sense, but if it doesn't show in the real world then it's not a factor.