HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is happening again. Why can't I see all of the posts in articles threads? I see that Barry has the most recent post, I click on the thread, but the most recent post is one from 335 from icicle. What's that about?

Jason
 
Is this a result of pixel shift?
Click to expand...

Probably: if you don't have a mix of colors in the image then you'll be pretty much limited by the low CCD resolution. I have a Z1 which does horizontal pixel shift and the resolution certainly does seem to be lower in some situations than others.

Doesn't the XLH1 have 1440x1080 CCDs? So that wouldn't be affected in the same way.
 
That's the downside to heavy reliance on pixel shift. Relatively monochromatic scenes will indeed have more detail with the Canon.

Actually the HV10 will probably achieve the highest resolution in this way because it actually has a full-raster chip.
 
Elton said:
That's the downside to heavy reliance on pixel shift. Relatively monochromatic scenes will indeed have more detail with the Canon.
Click to expand...
That's the theory. I didn't see examples of it in the pics I shot though. But it makes sense.

Actually the HV10 will probably achieve the highest resolution in this way because it actually has a full-raster chip.
Click to expand...
But it only has one chip, so no, it has to de-mosaic its image which ends up with something like a 20% - 25% resolution loss.
 
Wow, maybe so...but I've seen examples from the camera that look even more detailed than the H1's 1080i HDV. Subjective response, for sure, but that cam is very sharp in 1080i.
 
I shot a scene with the XLH1 of a mosquito about 1 mile away from the camera and I was able to count all the hairs on its legs.

:Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
Oh yeah ?

Well I Zoomed in using the HVX on a similiar Skeeter and could actually see the West Nile Virus on his genitalia

westnilevirus.jpg
 
Ok, off topic. Sorry, but this has been driving me crazy.

I think I figured out what is happening to some of the posts in the articles section:

The forum default is to display 10 posts per page.

In the articles section, the first post of every page is the "Title post". The one that gives the link to the article. This "Title" post shares the same post # with the post after it.

This is causing what would be the tenth post of each page to be thrown somewhere into limbo. You can't see it. It ain't there.

If you go into your User CP, and change the posts per page to 20, you will see what I am talking about. You will notice a few posts that weren't there before. But, what would be the twentieth post of each page is now gone.

Does that make sense?

Ok, sorry. I just had to get that off my chest. Phew I feel better now :beer:

Jason
 
Even when there are 16GB cards or 32GB cards, I cannot choose the HVX over the XHA1 because of archiving reasons, for customers and myself.

Another issue is when I go overseas with the camera, I don't wanna bring my laptop. I much prefer the physical tape for my line of work.

When I use it for filmmaking, I wouldn't feel like the XLA1 is a sub-par camera in this field, since I feel the differences are so minimal.

In the end, the digital storage versus analog storage is the overriding factor.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...


Sorry Barry didnt mean to imply that you should have undertaken the test any other way. As Elton said the Canon does come out flat from the box, but you are right that HVX is richer in color overall even with the A1 pushed up the scale. What I wanted to say was that when you do learn to paint the color with the A1 using different setting and conditions you can get a lot more out of.
 
John_Hudson said:
Oh yeah ?

Well I Zoomed in using the HVX on a similiar Skeeter and could actually see the West Nile Virus on his genitalia

westnilevirus.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks, needed a laugh.
 
i took my shirt off, twisted it around my head and spun it like a helicopter while i read this article. and i'm am omega teetering on the fence with these two cams. the tape is attracting me to the a1 for weddings and crap like that. i use a firestore so i'm not too worried about the log and capture process. but i like panny's cameras, a lot. its a hard decision.....
 
manglerBMX said:
i took my shirt off, twisted it around my head and spun it like a helicopter while i read this article. and i'm am omega teetering on the fence with these two cams. the tape is attracting me to the a1 for weddings and crap like that. i use a firestore so i'm not too worried about the log and capture process. but i like panny's cameras, a lot. its a hard decision.....
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of what Barry is saying. The right tool for the right job. The HVX is going to be a tough sell on weddings and long form events. Not only are you paying more for the camera but you have to buy additional media and/or a cineporter firestore for the long stuff and you'll have to buy a lot of additional storage. It can work but it won't be as graceful.

However the HVX is really a "filmmakers". You can adapt it to do longer events and weddings but you will ultimately be using outside of the realm where it best suited. The A1 can cover this situation well and still hold up in a film environment too. And at a lot less money.

It seems to come down to features once again.....not picture.
 
Exactly. It's all about the features. The picture is plenty good enough on both of 'em. If you don't need what the HVX does, why pay for it? If you do need what the HVX has, get it. If it won't work for your task, why get it? It's all about what you intend to DO with the product.
 
Doesn't the A1 have a 'manual' iris ring? I didn't see this mentioned in the review and since I haven't used an A1 I'd love to hear more about this!
 
Actually both Cams should show about the same res in P/F mode.

Canon uses a 1440*1080i CCD clocked at 48hz scanned progressive = 1440*540 24hz. Pixelshifted up to 1920*810 processed 1920*1080 and stored 1440*1080.

Panny uses 960*540P clocked at 24hz pixelshifted to 1440*810 processed 1920*1080 and stored 1280*1080.

So in "theory" canon could give 1440*810 in res and panny can give 1280*810.

So it is a slight advantage for the canon in theory and in practical uses it probobly even less.
 
Barry wrote:
And, finally, is it time for the DVX to retire? Has it done all that it can do, at this price point?

********
I'm going to offer a different perspective, that of adding an A1 to use along with a DVX100.

I just did a shoot with both. Shooting HD locked down on the A1 allowed me to zoom and pan in post from a wide HD shot, intercut with handheld DVX footage of the same live concert. The final product for this shoot is SD.

I was able to match the A1 to the DVX cine look reasonably well using the RGain, GGain and BGain, along with slight Color Gain and cine settings. Cranking just the Color Gain is not the way to nirvana, I found. So if Barry had had more time with the camera he may have been able to satisfy his objection there.

I agree with those who say that default camera comparisons are of limited use, you'd think the A1 looks flat because the default settings are pretty flat, but that doesn't represent what you can really do. I also agree with Barry that you just can't win by showing default settings or by attempting optimized settings, someone will complain either way. :^)

From my tests the A1 performs better in low light than my DVX, even at -3 gain and without noise reduction. BTW, Barry is right about the finer noise grain of the A1 and I think it's a visible advantage for the A1.

The DVX is easier to hand hold than the A1 (and the HVX); the DVX is lighter.

I wasn't put off by the A1 zoom ring on the lens nearly as much as Barry. Just as with the DVX I was able to do a fairly slow creep zoom with careful operation of the ring, and it's even a bit smoother than manually zooming the DVX or HVX (BTW the motorized zoom on the DVX is way too fast at its slowest speed and I almost never use it). Having even slower zoom capability would be an improvement for all these cameras.

My first impression of the internal battery design was the same as Barry. But after using it, it's not a big deal. BTW it's nice that the included A1 battery lasts long enough to be useful, unlike the lame included battery that came with my DVX.

Regarding the HVX, I'm very interested to see what Panny does with the next version (whenever that may be). Less splotchy noise, crisper 1080 performance. Along with higher capacity P2 or other form of flash memory (to record at least an hour at 1080HD uninterrupted), and maybe a next generation codec. Perhaps 2008?

Regarding the A1, It's great that it records 24 progressive directly with no cadence to remove when you capture HDV via the firewire port. But it's a bummer that they add pulldown on the component outputs, and don't give the option there of advanced pulldown for better pulldown removal later when shooting HD. It would be cool if they added additional frame rates in both outputs. They should also update the audio switching, Barry points out the limitations there.

The color differences are likely much less than Barry saw in his short time with the A1, if my DVX/A1 experience is of any relevance, because the A1 is quite customizable and can create a Panasonic-like look. It appears that some of the tape-free advantages of the HVX can be had on the A1 by adding a Firestore, although it may take one more Firestore update before it's all there. Canon's control software is also interesting, hook your camera to a laptop (Mac version is also in the works Canon told me) and you have some interesting capabilities for camera control, direct recording and monitoring that may be useful for some types of shoots, with the ability to run and gun using tape for other shoots. I don't see 720 as anything to miss, you can easily get to 720 from 1080 if necessary. I do think the Canon look is sharper in some circumstances (like detailed landscape shots) than the HVX look.

So toe to toe, as Barry puts it, I don't think the "winner" is necessarily the HVX. Depending on your needs of course.

These are just some initial impressions I had along with some reactions to Barry's article. Thanks to Barry for taking the time to share his tests and opinions.

Cheers,
-Jamie
www.JamieKrutz.com
 
Long Time Lurker......and my take

Long Time Lurker......and my take

I love dvxuser.com, and I love the wealth of information that can be found on these boards. Like everyone else I have also loved my DVX100A and was ready to upgrade to the next camera. I had narrowed the choice down to HVX and the A1. I have spoken to many people at UCLA film school about this very subject, in particular about the HVX. Almost everyone that I have ever spoken with had loved the HVX. I also love the HVX and I also love the A1. But I think the key is that they are just a tool and have different strengths and weaknesses and have many things that they cross over and both do well.

Bottom Line...
A1
I think Bang for the Buck it is tough to beat the A1 if you shoot events, documentaries, and if price (currently) is currently an issue with upgrading your equipment. You can still shoot music video's, commercials, TV shows, and movies as will be evidenced by what has been shot and what will be shot in the future. I have seen some great stuff coming out of this camera. So for $3600 you get a nice all around camera with good resolution, nice picture quality, and decent low light.

HVX
I think Panny has an incredible camera with a lot of rich features. It has a lot of versatility and a great picture with solid resolution except on long shots. It's funny that Rob Legato told me the exact same thing, He said that the camera is awesome with close ups, but not as good on wide and long shots. I tend to agree, but I still think it more than makes up for that in the Film, commercials, music videos, and studio work. It's not that it cannot do the other things, just that it requires a little more work. Once again for $4900 you get an amazing camera that has a lot of rich features and produces outstanding images in close.

I think bang for the buck the Canon A1 is the winner. If money is not a problem and you love the workflow and picture then you can go with the HVX. I have seen amazing things shot with the HVX and have just started to see some great stuff from the A1. I suspect that the DVXB and the HVX will start to drop in price a little bit.

Thoughts...Honestly get whatever camera you like better. I have no loyalty to one brand over the other. I think they are both excellent cameras but for me it is easier for me to purchase the A1 and deal with tapes then to get the HVX and have to use P2 and the increased hardware costs associated with it. I love them both. I realize that they have different strengths and weaknesses but the bottom line is go out their and film.

I would also like to thank Barry for taking the time to do the test and the write up. I like hearing his opinion and he makes me look at things in a different way. I very much agree with him on the Snap Zoom feature. I loved doing that with my DVX. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top