Blackout
Veteran
Well I finally was able to get my hands on all of the 'big three' cameras (HVX200a, Sony EX1, Canon XH-A1) over the last week and I am kind of dissapointed with all of them for different reasons to tell you the truth. I mean do these companies actually conspire to give the perfect weakness to each camera? Yeah, I know they don't but sometimes it seems like it.
Coming to this visual test my heart leaned towards the HVX200a because I have had the DVX100 for several years since it was first introduced. Before that I was a big Canon fan because the 30fps frame mode on the XL1 was the closest thing to a native film look on a DV camera there was at that point in time (although it was blurry as hell).
But on to the big three shootout:
I shot similar footage on all three cameras both indoors and out in 720 24p and 1080 24p (I was not interested in any of the video interlace modes) followed by a resolution chart on the HVX200a, the Sony EX1, and the Canon XH-A1 (couldn't get a hold of the Xl-H1 but I am told it produces pretty much identical images minus the interchangeable lenses)
The results surpised me. I viewed all the footage on a 6 foot diagonal Sony HD plasma first and then for the big test I projected the footage onto a very large 15 foot diagonal screen on a high end 1920 x 1080 infocus HD projector in a pitch black screening room.
ON THE SONY 6 foot plasma - the HVX200a stood out with apparantly nicer colors, a more filmic look in general with it's 24p motion characteristics that have made it famous, and no artifacting that I could see. Again this was on the 6 foot Sony plasma. The EX1, while looking stunningly sharper than the hvx200a at first glance, is a mess of a camera with all sorts of issues that I really dont understand how anyone deals with. Perhaps I am a complete nut job or I had a broken EX1. I thought people were being overbearing and overexagerated with the rolling shutter, long GOP, and jellovision stories that I have read online, but it really is a serious problem. Now at first glance - on slow cuts and pans - the EX1 image seems to slamn dunk the HVX except for some strange look of resolution loss or detail loss that appears to happen right after you start moving the camera for the pan - but the EX1 is so sharp that when it losses its detail (perhaps the codec lowering detail to avoid artifacts...although that of itself IS an artifact) it looks more similar to the HVX200a footage, but on fast whips and very fast handheld stuff I saw all sorts of issues and weird skews and slants that there is no way I could deal with. Philip Bloom may have some amazing images but they are all locked down and I don't do locked all the time down so this camera is out.
The Canon XH-A1 was pretty damn stunning though and I was very surpised at the clarity and filmic look of the 24F mode. I had expected this camera to be the dud of the three but I actually far preffered it's images to the Sony EX1 because even though it was not quite as sharp as the EX1 is - it was pretty damn close, and it was noticably sharper and had more detail than the HVX200a while exhibiting none of the wierdo artifacts that the EX1 did when being handheld and whipped around. The colors and highlights were not as nice off the bat as the HVX - the A1 had more of a video look with it's settings right out of the box, but with some tweaking the look closely approached the Panny's famed 24p cine gamma settings. You can tweak colors, but you can't tweak up resolution or detail.
Now where things really stood out: ON TO THE INFOCUS dlp projector:
This is where I really noticed a difference. When I was watching the footage of all three of these cameras projected on about a 15 foot diagonal screen the HVX200a was noticeably soft. I didn't do split screens or anything like that, I was just watching one camera's footage after the other after the other of the same shots. On the Sony 6 foot diagonal plasma I really only noticed the softness of the HVX when I watched the HVX footage immediately after or before the Canon XH-A1 or Sony EX1 footage in a direct comparison, but on the big - BIG screen it was another story. I could see there was some detail lacking on things like a man's whiskers and some tiny flowers in a garden wide shot where I would have liked to have seen some more detail and sharpness on the HVX. The same shots of said man's face with whiskers and wide garden shot were a considerable amount sharper on the EX1 and the XH-A1 and it really showed on the big screen whereas I didn't notice it quite as much on the 6 foot although I did notice it. Again, on the big screen the EX1 dominated in vivid detail but it's out of the question for me because of it's bizzaro artifacts. The XH-A1 was right behind the EX1 and even on the big screen I surprisingly did not notice any compression artifacts from the HDV when I really thought for sure I would see some because I am an artifact stickler. I was pretty damn impressed. The HVX200a still ruled in color, but not by THAT much. The big deal with the HVX of course is that it does have the beautiful variable frame rate that the XH-A1 is painfully lacking, but I found myself longing for some more snap and detail in certain wide images while viewing them on the HD projector. The HVX200a does have a real filmic look and it did look like I was watching 16mm projected images, but it looked like soft 16mm. Making movies for projection display for large audiences is what I am interested in doing and yes yes of course story and content is the most important thing but when you have a great story you do want the best possible capture and display of your images and it's why we're all here. When these things come down to a consumer HD screen of average size or the web, the HVX200a wins, but on the big screen I have to say the XH-A1 looked better because there was definitely increased detail, and it's a couple thousand dollars cheaper too which doesn't hurt.
So now I am at a total loss. The camera I find myself really wanting is not existant. it's the HVX200a with an increased resolution chip because I want tapeless recording and I want variable frame rate...BUT I WANT HIGHER RESOLUTION too damnit! The XH-A1 does not have variable frame rates and that is upsetting, and it's HDV which I would say is not good but it sure looked good - but the HVX200a is more than a bit soft on the big screen. What to do what to do!?
On a resolution chart, I only got what appeared to be a little over 500 lines, maybe 520 if even that on the HVX. What the hell is going on with the other 1400 lines? I don't know.. attack of the clones? Granted I did all this rather quickly and it wasn't a total science, and audiences don't watch resolution charts - but you guys who say you don't want more resolution out of the HVX are nuts! The HVX desperately NEEDS MORE RESOLUTION! Screens are only going to get bigger and more detailed and not vice versa. I really think Panasonic needs to up their game and provide a next generation HVX of sorts that really hits the 1920 x 1080 mark in sharpness and detail, along with all the other qualities that people love about it. I would gladly pay a little more if not double for that because if the Panny had the resolution of the EX1 or even the XH-A1 yet still had it's 100mbit codec and variable frame rates - it would be NO CONTEST and I believe that would be the ultimate dream HD camera for indie film that is going for any sort of theatrical release on a budget. Untill we all get to 4k - but we have a while until that unless you are shooting on RED but I am not a huge RED fan. The RED has it's own issues to my eyes but that is for another article.
As for right now I am stumped between the XL-A1 and the HVX200a and I am going to dunk my head in some cold water.
- Blackout -
PS: I heard the film "THE SIGNAL" was all shot on Canon Xl-H1s and then transferred to film for theatrical release - can anyone confirm this? Are there any films that have had theatrical release that used the HVX200a (yeah I know it's probably too new for that). if not how about the HVX200? And please lets not talk about Cloverfield I don't mean a film that used the hvx200 as an effective home video camera effect in a 'real movie' that's not what I'm looking for. I'm talking about an entire movie that was shot on HVX200 or 200a camera and then transferred to film for theatrical release.
Coming to this visual test my heart leaned towards the HVX200a because I have had the DVX100 for several years since it was first introduced. Before that I was a big Canon fan because the 30fps frame mode on the XL1 was the closest thing to a native film look on a DV camera there was at that point in time (although it was blurry as hell).
But on to the big three shootout:
I shot similar footage on all three cameras both indoors and out in 720 24p and 1080 24p (I was not interested in any of the video interlace modes) followed by a resolution chart on the HVX200a, the Sony EX1, and the Canon XH-A1 (couldn't get a hold of the Xl-H1 but I am told it produces pretty much identical images minus the interchangeable lenses)
The results surpised me. I viewed all the footage on a 6 foot diagonal Sony HD plasma first and then for the big test I projected the footage onto a very large 15 foot diagonal screen on a high end 1920 x 1080 infocus HD projector in a pitch black screening room.
ON THE SONY 6 foot plasma - the HVX200a stood out with apparantly nicer colors, a more filmic look in general with it's 24p motion characteristics that have made it famous, and no artifacting that I could see. Again this was on the 6 foot Sony plasma. The EX1, while looking stunningly sharper than the hvx200a at first glance, is a mess of a camera with all sorts of issues that I really dont understand how anyone deals with. Perhaps I am a complete nut job or I had a broken EX1. I thought people were being overbearing and overexagerated with the rolling shutter, long GOP, and jellovision stories that I have read online, but it really is a serious problem. Now at first glance - on slow cuts and pans - the EX1 image seems to slamn dunk the HVX except for some strange look of resolution loss or detail loss that appears to happen right after you start moving the camera for the pan - but the EX1 is so sharp that when it losses its detail (perhaps the codec lowering detail to avoid artifacts...although that of itself IS an artifact) it looks more similar to the HVX200a footage, but on fast whips and very fast handheld stuff I saw all sorts of issues and weird skews and slants that there is no way I could deal with. Philip Bloom may have some amazing images but they are all locked down and I don't do locked all the time down so this camera is out.
The Canon XH-A1 was pretty damn stunning though and I was very surpised at the clarity and filmic look of the 24F mode. I had expected this camera to be the dud of the three but I actually far preffered it's images to the Sony EX1 because even though it was not quite as sharp as the EX1 is - it was pretty damn close, and it was noticably sharper and had more detail than the HVX200a while exhibiting none of the wierdo artifacts that the EX1 did when being handheld and whipped around. The colors and highlights were not as nice off the bat as the HVX - the A1 had more of a video look with it's settings right out of the box, but with some tweaking the look closely approached the Panny's famed 24p cine gamma settings. You can tweak colors, but you can't tweak up resolution or detail.
Now where things really stood out: ON TO THE INFOCUS dlp projector:
This is where I really noticed a difference. When I was watching the footage of all three of these cameras projected on about a 15 foot diagonal screen the HVX200a was noticeably soft. I didn't do split screens or anything like that, I was just watching one camera's footage after the other after the other of the same shots. On the Sony 6 foot diagonal plasma I really only noticed the softness of the HVX when I watched the HVX footage immediately after or before the Canon XH-A1 or Sony EX1 footage in a direct comparison, but on the big - BIG screen it was another story. I could see there was some detail lacking on things like a man's whiskers and some tiny flowers in a garden wide shot where I would have liked to have seen some more detail and sharpness on the HVX. The same shots of said man's face with whiskers and wide garden shot were a considerable amount sharper on the EX1 and the XH-A1 and it really showed on the big screen whereas I didn't notice it quite as much on the 6 foot although I did notice it. Again, on the big screen the EX1 dominated in vivid detail but it's out of the question for me because of it's bizzaro artifacts. The XH-A1 was right behind the EX1 and even on the big screen I surprisingly did not notice any compression artifacts from the HDV when I really thought for sure I would see some because I am an artifact stickler. I was pretty damn impressed. The HVX200a still ruled in color, but not by THAT much. The big deal with the HVX of course is that it does have the beautiful variable frame rate that the XH-A1 is painfully lacking, but I found myself longing for some more snap and detail in certain wide images while viewing them on the HD projector. The HVX200a does have a real filmic look and it did look like I was watching 16mm projected images, but it looked like soft 16mm. Making movies for projection display for large audiences is what I am interested in doing and yes yes of course story and content is the most important thing but when you have a great story you do want the best possible capture and display of your images and it's why we're all here. When these things come down to a consumer HD screen of average size or the web, the HVX200a wins, but on the big screen I have to say the XH-A1 looked better because there was definitely increased detail, and it's a couple thousand dollars cheaper too which doesn't hurt.
So now I am at a total loss. The camera I find myself really wanting is not existant. it's the HVX200a with an increased resolution chip because I want tapeless recording and I want variable frame rate...BUT I WANT HIGHER RESOLUTION too damnit! The XH-A1 does not have variable frame rates and that is upsetting, and it's HDV which I would say is not good but it sure looked good - but the HVX200a is more than a bit soft on the big screen. What to do what to do!?
On a resolution chart, I only got what appeared to be a little over 500 lines, maybe 520 if even that on the HVX. What the hell is going on with the other 1400 lines? I don't know.. attack of the clones? Granted I did all this rather quickly and it wasn't a total science, and audiences don't watch resolution charts - but you guys who say you don't want more resolution out of the HVX are nuts! The HVX desperately NEEDS MORE RESOLUTION! Screens are only going to get bigger and more detailed and not vice versa. I really think Panasonic needs to up their game and provide a next generation HVX of sorts that really hits the 1920 x 1080 mark in sharpness and detail, along with all the other qualities that people love about it. I would gladly pay a little more if not double for that because if the Panny had the resolution of the EX1 or even the XH-A1 yet still had it's 100mbit codec and variable frame rates - it would be NO CONTEST and I believe that would be the ultimate dream HD camera for indie film that is going for any sort of theatrical release on a budget. Untill we all get to 4k - but we have a while until that unless you are shooting on RED but I am not a huge RED fan. The RED has it's own issues to my eyes but that is for another article.
As for right now I am stumped between the XL-A1 and the HVX200a and I am going to dunk my head in some cold water.
- Blackout -
PS: I heard the film "THE SIGNAL" was all shot on Canon Xl-H1s and then transferred to film for theatrical release - can anyone confirm this? Are there any films that have had theatrical release that used the HVX200a (yeah I know it's probably too new for that). if not how about the HVX200? And please lets not talk about Cloverfield I don't mean a film that used the hvx200 as an effective home video camera effect in a 'real movie' that's not what I'm looking for. I'm talking about an entire movie that was shot on HVX200 or 200a camera and then transferred to film for theatrical release.
Last edited:
