HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes indeed, independent films are made in controlled situations like a studio. Sport and documentaries not.

BTW, the Firestore fs100 is incredible expensive here, add an extra 700,- Euro and you have the XHA1 for the price you get the firestore alone.
 
I would like to Throw another log in to the fire if i may.
Iam considering shooting a feature film.
if i use the canon i would use the g1 shooting sdi and then coverting the footage using 10bit cineform codec.

If i go with panasonic i will shoot 1080 using the hd100 codec possibly again convert the footage to 10bit cineform file.
slow motion is not important for me but cc and how the footage will look digitally projected Via HDCAM at a film festival is critical.



Barry and Barlow would love to hear your views on this.
 
Last edited:
It's just a matter of what core imagery you find the most pleasing. Canon will be especially sharp, and SDI acquisition will give you lots of latitude for CC. The HVX will have a different look, no doubt about it.

I'd suggest renting both cameras and have your DP do some extensive testing.
 
Te G1 shuld do pretty well. but being cable tethered will be a major challenge, especially if you have any camera movement. thoughtthe G1 wih SDI will probably be beautiful.
 
I'd think the cabled situation is probably mucho overkill. It will seriously impede your freedom and flexibility -- which means it will add time and cost to your shoot. If you can afford that additional time and cost, what would you be doing shooting on a 1/3" HDV camera? Yes using an uncompressed capture can give you a small quality boost, but shooting on a 2/3" camera would probably do more for your image, and if you can afford the one you should be able to afford the other.

Check out the notice where an XLH1 film got picked up at Sundance for something like $2.3 million. I doubt they shot tethered for the whole production.
 
Barry i followed the link apparently the whole movie was shot on hdv.
Iam gobsmacked!
Barry i reckon i can summarize this whole issue its not the tool so much as the person that uses it and can make the most of it.
thanks once again Barry for your time.
 
Where's this link? Thanks for the article btw Barry it was an excellent read but I'm still gonna get an A1 :D

Edit: found the link, damn!
 
Last edited:
I get the whole cc issue in terms of latitude.

"Yes using an uncompressed capture can give you a small quality boost."

But was it not scottbillups who said that a canon xlh1 camera hooked up via sdi was indistingishble from a sony f900 when diplayed on the bigscreen?

And i guess my point is would the hvx200 image using the hd100 codec hold up on the big screen as well as the canon`s image via sdi
 
I don't know of any such quote by Scott Billups, but I can point you to a post by one of our members here who intercut the HVX with the F900 and viewed it on a 30' screen from a 4k projector, and said "It intercut almost seemlessly with the F-900. For sure there was a little extra sharpness and a little better skin tones with the F-900 but not $100,000 dollars worth."

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=85252

i reckon i can summarize this whole issue its not the tool so much as the person that uses it and can make the most of it.
Click to expand...
Well, yes, and no. It in some ways is the tool, if the tool you want to use does something the other ones don't (a screwdriver is a different tool than a hammer, obviously; shooting on a tape vs. tapeless is different, interchanging lenses is different, etc.) But let's keep something in perspective here: more than anything, it's about what you can accomplish with the tool. People are talking about an XLH1 film that sold for reportedly $2.3 million at Sundance. Now, I'm sure that people will start thinking "oh, obviously we should be using the XLH1, films made on it sell for big bucks." Let's not forget that "Tadpole" was shot on a PD150 and sold at Sundance for $6 million! A standard-def, interlaced-only PD150 DV camera. "Chuck and Buck" was shot on a VX1000, the very first original DV camera, and sold at Sundance for $1.1 million.

Buy the tool that does the job that you need done. Having shot on any specific camera is no guarantee for success (or else we all could have been making million-dollar sales on our VX1000s back in 1997!) Nor is having shot on any specific camera a guarantee of failure (witness Blair Witch Project, shot on the cheapest RCA Hi-8 camcorder they could buy at Circuit City).

Choose the right tool for the job that you need done, and count on your skills to do the rest. The tools have different capabilities; match your needs with the capabilities and price tag of the various tools to find the one that's right for you.
 
Barry, thanks for the great article. I've been on the fence for a while myself, and thorughly looked at all the footage here as well as DV.com's 2 round up articles. I don't think there is any clear winner for ultimate camera for under $10,000. HVX200 is best for MOST uses, but not all. I love the color depth of DVC-PRO-HD. I'm surprised how flat the NORM settings are on the Canon. Yes I'm sure you can get more with adjustments, but a better NORM or flat setting might have been a better idea from Canon.

I'm curious though. How would you rate the JVC HD100 series of cameras? I'm looking at all 3, and you were involved with DV.com's testing.

I think for HD the most important thing viewer respond to is color. It gives the wow factor, but also middle tones and black levels without washing out the highlights. From the DV.com tests it looked as JVC HD100 seemed to win most of those. Would you agree with that having been there in person?

I'm looking primarily for HD- indie work. Of course another money maker is sports when HD-DVD burns hit the market in a few months. So that Makes the JVC HD100 limited/harder with no auto focus, the Panasonic you then need the $1,800 Firestore. Makes the Canon A1 a nice choice for HD sports, (cheap and good)? Slap a Zoom control PGL-1 from my old sony and shoot college games...

Indie film work Panasonic and JVC HD100? Have you spent much time with the JVC HD100? Is the repeatability with the HVX200 really compare with a solid manual lens? The Sony and the older Canon's never did, (hence I own a zoom control) What were your thoughts on the JVC 100 vs the HVX200?
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't know of any such quote by Scott Billups, but I can point you to a post by one of our members here who intercut the HVX with the F900 and viewed it on a 30' screen from a 4k projector, and said "It intercut almost seemlessly with the F-900. For sure there was a little extra sharpness and a little better skin tones with the F-900 but not $100,000 dollars worth."

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=85252


Well, yes, and no. It in some ways is the tool, if the tool you want to use does something the other ones don't (a screwdriver is a different tool than a hammer, obviously; shooting on a tape vs. tapeless is different, interchanging lenses is different, etc.) But let's keep something in perspective here: more than anything, it's about what you can accomplish with the tool. People are talking about an XLH1 film that sold for reportedly $2.3 million at Sundance. Now, I'm sure that people will start thinking "oh, obviously we should be using the XLH1, films made on it sell for big bucks." Let's not forget that "Tadpole" was shot on a PD150 and sold at Sundance for $6 million! A standard-def, interlaced-only PD150 DV camera. "Chuck and Buck" was shot on a VX1000, the very first original DV camera, and sold at Sundance for $1.1 million.

Buy the tool that does the job that you need done. Having shot on any specific camera is no guarantee for success (or else we all could have been making million-dollar sales on our VX1000s back in 1997!) Nor is having shot on any specific camera a guarantee of failure (witness Blair Witch Project, shot on the cheapest RCA Hi-8 camcorder they could buy at Circuit City).

Choose the right tool for the job that you need done, and count on your skills to do the rest. The tools have different capabilities; match your needs with the capabilities and price tag of the various tools to find the one that's right for you.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
Have you spent much time with the JVC HD100?
Click to expand...
I've spent way too much time with the HD100, I actually bought one of those before I got my HVX. I sent it back. Search through the old posts and you'll find lots of commentary. I would take an XHA1 over an HD100 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday. It can do a good job, but I was profoundly disappointed with the JVC; I really wanted to like it, but it just had too many problems and issues, and the lens is a complete joke (including punchline). Other people seem to love their HD100s. The HD100 has its own unique position in the market (interchangeable lens and shoulder-mount form factor); if those are the things you need, then the HD100 is the obvious choice. But if those aren't things you NEED, I'd buy an HVX or XHA1 over the HD100 any time, any place, any where.
 
I noticed almost no comment on the new image stabilizer on the Canon(s). While this doesn't really play into the footage Barry shot, (or how he normally works - studio work I believe) I'd like to hear more about it. For people into run and gun, or Paul Greengrass type filmmaking, a better IS is something that might make a point of difference. Comments anyone?

Otherwise I thought the article was great and very informative, and the tests were reasonably fair. Sure a slight bias, but Barry is an HVX guy who wrote a book on the HVX. What do people expect?! I tip my hat to him for doing this test in the first place. Obviously, one needs to buy the camera best suited for thier type of work. This article helped point the differences between the cameras out in a very good way - differences, not just good versus bad. Plus when it comes to shooting, the person using it will have a tremendous amount of influence on the footage that comes out of it. The old saying couldn't be more true: It's the carpenter, not the tools. Give John Toll a 1 chip DV camera with a truck full of HMI's, Kinoflo's etc. and give your average film student an IMAX camera, and I'll guarantee you Toll's footage will look way better.
 
the OIS on the XLH1 (which is similar to the one on the XHA1) is really amazing. I use it quite often with my style of shooting where I do a lot of handheld work. That is one of the great features (and the long lens) that, as a nature filmmaker, I would have a hard time giving up.
 
snowleopard said:
Give John Toll a 1 chip DV camera with a truck full of HMI's, Kinoflo's etc. and give your average film student an IMAX camera, and I'll guarantee you Toll's footage will look way better.
Click to expand...

How come the film student doesn't get a truck?
 
disjecta said:
the OIS on the XLH1 (which is similar to the one on the XHA1) is really amazing. I use it quite often with my style of shooting where I do a lot of handheld work. That is one of the great features (and the long lens) that, as a nature filmmaker, I would have a hard time giving up.
Click to expand...

I didn't do side by side tests but my experience was that the A1 OIS is not as good as the H1. That may be due to the form factor more than the OIS itself. The H1 is inherintly more stable due to the mass and the shoulder mount design. So perhaps that is the difference. But having used both I have to give the nod to the H1 and it may be the OIS design. They are not exactly the same technology in both camera. They are similar but there is a difference in the technology behind it.
 
snowleopard said:
I noticed almost no comment on the new image stabilizer on the Canon(s). While this doesn't really play into the footage Barry shot, (or how he normally works - studio work I believe) I'd like to hear more about it. For people into run and gun, or Paul Greengrass type filmmaking, a better IS is something that might make a point of difference. Comments anyone?
Click to expand...

The OIS on the A1 is truly exceptional. Excellent for a handycam.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comments on the stabilizer. I'll have to look at Elton's footage tomorrow, but I'm very curious.

Happy asked why the film student didn't get the grip truck in my example. Well, the idea was to emphasize that there was a lot more to making good movies/shots than just the camera - the lights play a factor too. But of course, give the student the grip truck to go with his IMAX camera, and I'd still take Toll and the 1chip DV camera. Wouldn't you? :happy:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top