HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

[mvb]

Vegas 6.0, using Raylight for the HVX files. Imported the files directly into the timeline, set on best/full, exported as a still from the timeline. Brought into PhotoShop and resized to 1920x1080.

For the record Raylight does smooth the chroma but many Mpeg2 decoders (in Vegas is it MainConcept?) do not, since, if the images are likely going back to tape or to an HD monitor, there's no need.

Smoothing 4:2:0 color for a still image is tricky, it actually takes 4 fields to do it correctly. If the decoder doesn't do it it can be tough or impossible to do it later esp. after a conversion to RGB and 24P.

Another thing to consider is that when a color-saturated image goes through compression, there are more bits required to compress the image vs. the same image with undersaturated colors. meaning that for a constant bit rate, the less saturated image may look more lightly compressed and sharper.

 

[Mirezzi]

And, the point remains -- the HVX emulates a movie camera. It emulates the 180-degree shutter. It emulates the frame rates. It provides the actual cine-like gamma curves. The Canon doesn't do any of those things.

The Canon emulates a still camera. It shoots still photos. It shoots 'em to card too. It can synchronize with a SpeedLite flash through a hot shoe. The Panasonic doesn't have any of those capabilities.

You were serious with the still camera emulation thing? It sounded like a piss take! Nevermind what I wrote then, 'cause I thought there was no way you honestly thought Canon was trying to make the A1 a "still camera" more than a "movie camera." So I retract and now digress.

Just got to this part, so maybe I should calm down a bit then. But for the sake of the board let's not start flame wars regardless of the sincerity or levity behind it; people will pick up this stuff and run with it. I very nearly didn't even bother to write this article at all, because I really *don't* need the aggravation that goes with it. But I'd already called Abel and told them I wanted to buy an XHA1; it was they who said "well, how about we loan it to you first." And after a half a dozen calls from various people on the board, I figured a comparison is what everyone wanted, so fine, I did another one. And the results are, of course, more accusations of whatever it is I'm being accused of.

Adam Wilt warned me about this stuff; he said that whenever you do a comparison you'll inevitably end up goring someone's sacred cow. But I'm not about to just go saying "oh, they're all lovely, it really doesn't matter what you choose, just join the happy family and drink the kool-aid and everyone will hold hands and sing Kumbaya." Lots of people make their living with video, and lots more wish they did. These are the tools they're going to be using. There are differences between these products. I'll point those out, and I'll point out why I think they're important, and let the reader choose what they agree with, and I'll put the raw images up so the reader can judge for themselves. And still, people will be mad. Can't help that, so I'm not really gonna try.

Well played, Barry. I should have disclaimed my post straight off rather than inserting it at the end. If you had known I was going to give you a hard time, with respect, that may have saved some aggravation.

But come on, Rocky and Apollo Creed, that was funny! You didn't even bite.

 

[snowleopard]

Hey, Canon makes movie cameras too, ya know. :happy:

 

[TimurCivan]

hey it shoots 60P...... @ 1/10 HD.

 

[Barry_Green]

Hey, Canon makes movie cameras too, ya know. :happy:

I know. I've got one! :thumbsup:

 

[xray]

You can tweak all sorts of settings, but you'll never get it to look like the HVX does even at the HVX's default, and the HVX can be tweaked from there. If you want logic behind that, you'll have to ask Canon; I didn't design the product, I just used it.

Don't understand this burst but anyway:

You dont need too, you can't make a HVX look like a A1 either. You don't want a
A1 to look like a HVX. That is why you bought the A1, with the high resolution and the long lens and no banding noise in shadow parts in the first place. And if you will, you can do it (HVX look) in post.

Even when tweaked to the max, if you accordingly tweaked the HVX to the max, the Canon still looks flatter and blah (as shown in the max-color-courthouse and trees pix). But I showed those max color photos too, so you can certainly form your own opinion. The only empirical thing that can be decided from this is: the Canon has more control over a more limited palette; the HVX has a much wider palette, but not as much control within that palette.

Somewhere you are right, but the Canon can make a pleasing end result and that is all that matters, You showed the HVX oversaturated, it's a setting you never use and I never liked.

And, the point remains -- the HVX emulates a movie camera. It emulates the 180-degree shutter. It emulates the frame rates. It provides the actual cine-like gamma curves. The Canon doesn't do any of those things.

No. The A1 is a 24P capable shooting filmcam, emulating film with actual cinemode, cinegamma and colors.

The Canon emulates a still camera. It shoots still photos. It shoots 'em to card too. It can synchronize with a SpeedLite flash through a hot shoe. The Panasonic doesn't have any of those capabilities.

It shoots stills (with all camera settings, handy!) to card, it does a long list more in handy things the HVX is not doing, like Kelvin whitebalance, handy framesettings, button behaviour etc. It's to many to name and you have to get used to it, but after that, you never want to miss it.

I'm not about to go trashing the XHA1, I think it's a breakthrough and with just a few changes (true manual zoom control and recording to AVC-HD instead of HDV) it would be the screaming steal of the year. But with that said, it ain't no HVX.

No it's a A1, good heaven. Happy with that, you can shoot one hour productions with it, it looks nice, you can wait for the Indy film and doc film productions that are made with it, it's image quality is unbelievable ok. Both can happily live together, and the filmmakers too...

 

[Elton]

Adam was right, Barry. Just remember though, this is a free internet and you have the right to be wrong.

JK!! I actually agreed with a fair amount of your criticisms of the A1--particularly about lens controls, but I think on the bright side it actually stirred up a fairly healthy debate.

 

[MovieSwede]

Actually I think that most DVX100 owners are very intrested in hearing what Barry has to say about the A1. Because if he gives it a green light, most of us thinks its a safe purchase. And after all its written for dvxuser...

 

[KyleProhaska]

He pretty much explains that in the article. Minus the manual lens and some audio limitations, its got the DVX + More.

- Kyle

 

[USLatin]

thank you Barry!

 

[jackal2513]

only just read this article. an interesting read and thanks for writing it
i'm a DVX owner but don't consider myself biased either way
if i was buying another camera then i'd buy a Bernard Matthews HD cam is one existed and it was the best

but i have to say this read very biased to me


"Or, put another way, the HVX has a lot of capability that the XHA1 just doesn’t have"

i struggled to read that line for example. All the text before that line seemed to suggest to me that for as many things that the HVX does that the canon can't, there are equal things that the Canon can do and that the HVX cant ??? Its just that, as an HVX user, the things lacking on the Canon and in the HVX's favour are OBVIOUSLY FEATURES THAT THE WRITER HAS BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO USING & RELYING UPON. The author appeared to pontificate and expand upon these HVX advantges whilst skimming the extar capabilities that the Canon was able to perform.

No, the way it read to me was that given all the swings and roundbaouts, the cameras are VERY much equal and in exactly the same class... but one is miles cheaper.

As for the colour I didn't like it much in either of the stills. The canons output looks readily gradeable whereas the HVX looks horribly unatural and overblown, like your grocery store roll of cheap crappy Kodachrome that has the colours boosted to oblivion in order to impress the ill-informed amateur.

 

[alpi69]

"Or, put another way, the HVX has a lot of capability that the XHA1 just doesn’t have"

i struggled to read that line for example. All the text before that line seemed to suggest to me that for as many things that the HVX does that the canon can't, there are equal things that the Canon can do and that the HVX cant ??? Its just that, as an HVX user, the things lacking on the Canon and in the HVX's favour are OBVIOUSLY FEATURES THAT THE WRITER HAS BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO USING & RELYING UPON.

for me as a cameraoperator there is one part very much more important than the other: lenscontrol !
All these modern cams are actually good cameras. All these cams can be graded if you absolutely love to sit at your desk and they all can be tweaked sharper or softer which for the normal viewer will be more rez or less rez, while it is only sharpness.
But I cannot tweak the zoom. When in run-gun-mode I work almost exclusively in manual with the HVX (and did with the DVX). It is so important to be from full wide to full in in 0,3 seconds sometimes.
I think that´s what Barry means. Some of the A1 features are plusses, but they many (like the stills, the flash-sync) are not needed to make it a better filmcamera. They are not something a person coming from film or ENG will miss on the HVX. Maybe I am oldfashioned, but for me the HVX is a professional tool. I use it for certain productions. I bring my still camera for others and I only bring my handy for a party when I am fine with a 3MP snapshot.

 

[Elton]

I agree with you Alpi69, and is one reason I use the 16x manual lens with the XL-H1. It's a big reason people choose the JVC, even with the Fujinon's flaws.

It's certainly an important consideration and something anyone considering both cams (A1 and HVX) should carefully think about before pulling the trigger on either.

Zoom is only one aspect of run and gun, IMHO. I think good OIS is another critical thing.

 

[Emanuel]

Actually I think that most DVX100 owners are very intrested in hearing what Barry has to say about the A1. Because if he gives it a green light, most of us thinks its a safe purchase. And after all its written for dvxuser...

I agree though I wouldn't wait for the Barry's Green light in order to buy. But yes, indeed: there's a whole POV behind. And market too. This is his realm.

 

[ggrantly]

Thanks Barry

Thanks Barry

I appreciate your report AND your OPINIONS. I am a DVX owner and plan to upgrade at some point. If I wanted to read some bland descriptions of the camera features and do a technical cross comparison that could be done using the B&H website. I am much more interested in reading about YOUR real world situation whether you do the same thing as I or not. Knowing about how you work with any tool is valuable to me because IT IS DIFFERENT. How I grow in any pursuit is to study what others do and adapt that to my situation...and maybe that will help spawn my own creativity. It is disappointing that some of the listers here ripped you because you didn't include their little space in the world. I think the rippers are insecure and ripped you because you, Barry, are not just like them. Yours may not be the only view that I use in order to make a decision, and that is exactly the point. One review is not the final word, only a viewpoint which I will use to make my own decision.

With regard to the cameras, I am curious about performance in interlaced mode.

It is surprising to me how much concern there is about a small difference in image, and a lack of concern about the huge difference in audio features which is half of the product delivered to the end user.

I didn't intend to troll here but I did want to thank you for the effort and tell you that for this reader, I appreciate YOUR opinion.

 

[nickangel]

My own decision ...

My own decision ...

For what it’s worth, here’s what I ended up doing when confronted with the great HVX200 – XH-A1 conundrum.

Having played around with HVX200 I really, really wanted one – for the variable frame rates, the true progressive mode, and above all the manual zoom. It just feels like a proper camera. And when I saw the pictures a friend had made, I positively lusted after it.

By contrast, when I played around with the XHA1 it felt like a high-end consumer camera, perhaps more so even than the Z1 – the zoom being the worst culprit of all in this respect. Urgh.

But … I need a camera to make a 40-minute documentary, and am going to be in the field almost all of the time. I love the idea of P2, but the reality is entirely impractical – and horrendously expensive. Meanwhile the HVX’s low light capability seemed really poor – and normally I’m only filming with available light. And the LCD screen was more or less entirely useless.

There are some good things on the A1: the wide angle is fantastic – better than my VX2000 is with a WA converter, and the 20x zoom is also excellent. Both are superior to the HVX. That’s important from a documentary perspective. Of course, the A1 shoots HDV – and the pictures are lovely – which gives you 60 mins recording time rather than a P2 card’s 8. And the “fast zoom” function (in the customised settings menu on the A1) goes some way towards compensating for the lack of a mechanical one. Oh, and the LCD screen – although small – is greatly superior to the HVX’s. I tried them side by side, and could focus much faster on the A1.

So although, emotionally, I wanted to get the HVX, there were too many practical problems with it, and I ended up buying an A1. It feels more like a marriage of convenience than a true love match – but then I suppose it is a camera we’re talking about, and you can always sell it.

It seems to me that, whichever camera you choose, you make a compromise. My ideal camera would be the HVX200 with a proper LCD and the option of using HDV, or at least an affordable P2 system. Oh, and an interchangeable lens. If Panasonic came up with that, I really think this debate would be over.

 

[Huy Vu]

It's interesting that initially a lot of people thought that the A1 would not be in direct competition with the HVX because their basic functionality is too different (HDV vs. DVCPRO, P2 vs. Tape). Instead there was quite a bit of buzz between the A1 and the V1U because it's a more apple to apple comparison. But now it seems like the V1U isn't even in the game anymore despite a price that puts it squarely between the A1 and the HVX.

The A1 forum continues to grow everyday while the V1 forum is almost completely dead. Is it just the "oil paint effect" that's putting people off the V1? I wonder if Sony dropped the ball with this camera.

 

[MovieSwede]

Well all those image issues (V1) didnt impress me.

So its a HVX vs A1 for me.

But right now its HD DVD or Bluray for me...

 

[snowleopard]

Something puzzles me about this entire zoom conundrum. That is, if run and gun/doc style or heavy ENG shooters must have a fast manual zoom - ie. being able to zoom min to max in .3 seconds, how are they dealing with the P2 cards regarding having limited magazine time, or having to own numerous cards, plus keep an assistant around to download the footage? Most run and gun doc style people I know like to have the camera running a lot of the time, and burn through footage. While this is possible with the HVX, having to own a half dozen P2 cards, and/or having the downloader and an assistant is also expensive, pushing the cost of the HVX way, way above that of the A1.

It's mentioned here in this thread about Barry and Jarred mostly doing studio work where the HVX and P2 cards are not a problem, and in many ways a great advantage. I believe that's very likely true. But in the studio when do you need to go from super wide to full tele in .3 seconds?

The question I then have for run and gun shooters is this: Which is more of a day-to-day, moment-by-moment issue for you: Dealing with a lens that doesn't zoom in .3 seconds, or dealing with P2 cards in the field? And if you've resolved the P2 issue, what was your end cost to do so?

I should note that I do not own any of these cameras, though I have handled all three of them.

 

[marco0782]

I think that this comparison, while overall very helpful, is flawed. You're comparing the cameras at their default settings when it's possible that Canon's default settings are not very good. If you tried to tweak both cameras to their optimum settings to produce beautiful pictures you might have come to a different conclusion.