An hour with the HVX

What's this about the XLH1

What's this about the XLH1

What is all this talk about the Canon XLH1? Every time I've seen foootage shot from it, I think it looks terrible. Honestly, all of the test charts in the world don't mean a thing if the footage looks crappy. I have seen some really nice stuff from the JVX100U, and I'd consider it if the HVX never shows up, but has anyone actually seen footage from the Canon that looks good? I feel like I'm missing something.

Seamus
 
I think it's more the resolution from the XL H1 that gets people excited. The color from the Canon footage is flat and the latitude is poor, but there's no denying the images are sharp. The DVX always had better color than the XL2, and I think most people have been waiting ages for an "HD DVX." Since preliminary tests have shown that the HVX has a lot less resolution than we all expected, I think the easiest way to bash it is to compare it to it's strongest rival in that area, the XL H1. I still think that the color and latitude, yet again, will help to separate the HVX from the rest of the pack. My biggest concern is the amount of noise and artifacting in dark areas that no other cameras in this range seem to display. This is actually a step back from the DVX, and that's quite discouraging to me.
 
Damon Botsford said:
Now that you've had quite some time with the HVX (preproduction version and now hot off the production line), can you relay to us your overall impression of the cameras picture. I'm not looking for anything fancy, maybe just a "not bad", or an "A Okay" or a "you guys aren't gonna believe this $%#@!!$# thing!!!". Is there anything holding you back from telling us we finally have the camera we've been dreaming of? I mean, you're the EF Hutton of DVXUser. When you talk, people listen.
Click to expand...
No matter what I say, someone will whine "bias" here or there. Well, yes I'm biased, I'm biased towards good product.

The HVX is exactly what you'd expect from a high-def DVX. It has all the DVX mojo, plus excellent high res which we side-by-sided against the FX1 and HD100 and it's unquestionably sharper than both of 'em, and it's got more features than all the other cameras put together. Is it the one you've been waiting for? yes. Is it magnificent? yes. Does it produce the best picture of all three? Unquestionably. Does it produce a better picture than the XLH1? Don't know yet, should know that next week, haven't done a side-by-side yet.

Look at the desert footage. Look at the kitchen table footage. Look at the basketball footage. That's what this camera does. And it does it with the sweetest combination of image controls, manual control, auto features, and it does things the others can't even start to think about (like true film-style variable frame rates, and tapeless acquisition, and all sorts of other fantastic features.) I bought an HD100, I sent it back. I've used the XLH1 briefly, and even if it has better resolution (which I think it probably does), I find the lens controls and viewfinder absolutely intolerable. It'll be interesting to get other opinions on those things next week.

The thing is, there are factors other than picture that you should be using to evaluate your choice. Like audio. Do you care that the HVX is the only one with uncompressed audio? I do. People seem to forget that in their quest to determine whether there's image noise or not. Yes there's noise. Some people say it's a lot, some say it's less than their Z1 (see spinflight's comments). They all have noise. How much in the same shot I can't say yet, but should be able to definitively say next week. Is one higher res than another? Obviously; the Canon looks way sharper than the Sony, but then again I shot plenty of comparisons that show the HVX noticeably sharper than the Sony too. Image is important, yes -- vitally important. But it's not the only thing -- like I said on another thread, if the HVX blew all the others into the weeds, but you really really need to record six hours of footage a day and hand it over to a client, then the HVX would be the wrong choice for that.

Pick your priorities, then pick the tool that matches those priorities.

If the XLH1 has a sharper resolving capability, but your shots are out of focus because you can't use the focus assist while recording -- is that really better? If you need to zoom and focus at the same time, would it bother you to find that the Canon and Sony simply cannot physically do it? It's impossible AFAIK. And neither lets you use the focus assist while recording, so it would be nearly impossible to pull that shot off anyway.

Pick your priorities, then pick the tool that matches those priorities.

If a 35mm DOF adapter is your priority, would it bother you to find out that the JVC can absolutely choke and cause nasty horrifying ghosting artifacting on high-contrast moving scenes when using one of those adapters? And that all the MPEG-2 cameras are susceptible to that? It sure would bother me. The dancing grain pattern of the mini35 overloads the MPEG encoder and causes the image to go way soft and (at least on the JVC) caused massive distracting double-triple red shadowing artifacting. I wouldn't care about fifty extra lines of resolution if the tradeoff was a massive triple-image ghost artifact surrounding the footage!

Pick your priorities, then pick the tool that matches those priorities.

Next week we'll try to get to the bottom of what the actual capabilities are. If one is substantially superior (or noticeably inferior) in terms of dynamic range or resolution or noise, we'll get those answers. Then we'll put them in a real-world context and get some expert opinions as to how they perform. I expect them all to deliver satisfactory overall performance.

But there are other things to consider than just raw image. To use the typewriter analogy again: it's like some old-school technophobe saying "I can type just as fast on my typewriter as you can on your fancy-schmancy word processor!" Well, you know what? He's telling the truth. He probably can type just as fast on his old typewriter as I could on my word processor.

But what happens when you decide halfway through the page that you want a bigger type font? Oops... hmmm... all of a sudden "comparable typing speed" becomes a whole lot less important, doesn't it? What if you want a second copy, or a third, or a fourth? The typewriter starts to look pretty impaired, doesn't it? What if you decide that after you've typed it up, you want your document centered instead of left-justified? There's a reason nobody uses typewriters anymore.

Yes there's a whole lot more to consider than just the raw resolution numbers, or the raw noise level, or the raw sensitivity, or the raw dynamic range. Those things are all a part of your decision, but they're not the only factors. I expect the image to be the most similar item in the whole comparison. It's the other things the cameras do that differentiate them.
 
Seamus McFlannel said:
What is all this talk about the Canon XLH1? Every time I've seen foootage shot from it, I think it looks terrible. Honestly, all of the test charts in the world don't mean a thing if the footage looks crappy.
Click to expand...
Just saw this post. Excellent point -- numbers and charts are one thing, but how it all works together is something else. The XL2 is unquestionably sharper than the DVX in 16:9, yet the DVX outsells it something like 15:1 because the overall image is just nicer and more pleasing.

That's why we'll test for both -- individual components, which is strictly objective; then how it all works together, which is of course strictly subjective.
 
Barry, thanks for reminding me for why we love the HVX.

Having owned the FX1 briefly, I thought the image was great. If the HVX is at least as good, then I'm happy.

My gut feeling says the Canon H1 is much better rez wise by a fair margin... but all things considered, I'm gonna go for the HVX.... the rez is good enough.

Ofcourse, if the Canon H1 had all the goodies the HVX has, then choosing the H1 would be a no-brainer, even at 10K, but it doesn't.
 
You're a credit to this community and this industry Barry. That you hear these words so often and still keep your feet on the ground speaks volumes for your character. On the matter of perceived bias - it's possible that when you are passionate about your view you also become more intense and descriptive in your argument. This energy may be interpreted as an attempt to influence. Nothing personal in this statement, just an observation.

Personally speaking, thanks for cutting about 2 months off a new moviemaker's development (those facts I can't back up!)
 
Really appreciate you taking the time to answer our questions, Barry. Much more than I could possibly ask for. That pretty much validates my purchase. Look forward to the tests. Thanks!
 
Barry, I would like to clear up some information about autofocus assist.
I have the Sony Z1 and it definitly does allow you to use the auto focus assist while you are recording. So, which Sony camera are you refering to when you stated.

Quote, If the XLH1 has a sharper resolving capability, but your shots are out of focus because you can't use the focus assist while recording -- is that really better? If you need to zoom and focus at the same time, would it bother you to find that the Canon and Sony simply cannot physically do it? It's impossible AFAIK. And neither lets you use the focus assist while recording, so it would be nearly impossible to pull that shot off anyway. Unquote.

I feel there is a lot of information that is not being researched before it goes out on the forum. Also any capable camera person can keep a camera in focus with manual focus, even the horrible XL1. Although I admit it was nearly impossible while shooting basketball.
 
greenheron said:
Barry, I would like to clear up some information about autofocus assist.
I have the Sony Z1 and it definitly does allow you to use the auto focus assist while you are recording. So, which Sony camera are you refering to when you stated.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about auto focus, I'm talking about the magnified "focus assist" function.

I feel there is a lot of information that is not being researched before it goes out on the forum.
Click to expand...
Any time something is factually wrong, absolutely it should be corrected. Hope the "magnified" thing clears up the confusion.

Also any capable camera person can keep a camera in focus with manual focus, even the horrible XL1.
Click to expand...
But it's infinitely more crucial in high-def. In standard-def it's so dramatically simpler.

In standard-def, first of all focus isn't that crucial at all because, heck, everything's in focus on 1/3" cameras anyway. But high-def makes the job much, much more demanding.

Second, in standard-def, you can easily use deeper apertures to keep more of the image in focus. F/11 or F/16 can give you extreme deep depth of field. But in 1/3" high-def, those apertures are a huge no-no. Shooting at an aperture smaller than f/8 causes noticeable and significant resolution drops. That's why the Canon maxxes out at f/9.5, and why the Sony offers a menu item to stop your autoiris system from going smaller than f/5.6 or f/8.

So you've got a situation where focus errors are dramatically more noticeable, you've got limits on your ability to establish deeper depth of field, and then you end up with no magnified focus ability while recording. That results in a significantly tougher job for the 1/3" HD shooter.
 
Barry, I agree with you completely when you state that focusing is crucial and that focus errors are dramatically more noticeable in high-def. When I shot with the Sony 900, the focus was very difficult in certain situations. It is not near as difficult with a 1/3" HD camera, but more challenging than SD.

With regards to the "focus assist" we were talking about two different items. The "magnified or expanded (sony) " focus is not that useful to a professional camera person. You cannot tell if you are indeed in critical focus. The Sony Z1 viewfinder resolution is 250K as is the 3.5" LCD. I could not tell critical focus with the magnified focus button in most situations. Since the viewfinder on the HVX has an even lower resolution, I doubt the magnified focus will be of much use except as a quick check. Therefore I will rely on typical focus methods of zooming in all the way to the subject matter and checking focus.

The "Auto Focus Assist" that I was refering to (on Sony Z1) allows you to use the extremely accurate Auto Focus and at the same time dial in the subject manually.
This work very well in documentary and fast action work. If I have the luxury of enough time, again I always use the manual focus method.

I bought the Z1 to replace my PD-150 which I mostly use for docs and reality shows and as a backup camera to my larger DVCPro unit. I am interested in the HVX to shoot commercial and small feature work. It would also make an excellent backup camera for the Varicam. Alot of the disagreements in this forum seem to come from a different need in terms of production requirements.

I have no interest in getting caught up in all the fury about different cameras on this forum. Just wanted to clarify a few points. Best regards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top