Canon A1 vs XL H1
- Thread starter Ogranado
- Start date
Joe Calabrese
Well-known member
The H1 uses the same sensors, compression, and tape mechanisms as the A1. The only differences are the interchangable lenses (if they even make more than 2 lenses for the H1), the professional outputs (HD-SDI), and obviously the form factor.
I would trade up if you have about $3k to spare. An H1 with a Nanoflash unit out of SD-HDI would combine the L1's high resolution with a durable codec and would get you off tape. Add another $4.5k for a Letus 1/3'' relay lens and adapter and you've got a pretty banging setup.
Otherwise there's really no reason to trade an A1 for an H1.
Otherwise there's really no reason to trade an A1 for an H1.
I saw the nano flash unit for about 2995 and the relay lens would definitely add at least another 5k without the lenses... My question Huy is it even worth it? I had a chance to use the EX-3 and I dug the form factor. The one thing that I enjoyed about the EX-3 was the look it produced and the real 1080p. Something that Canon cannot match. People are telling me to jump **** to the EX-1, but frankly I think it's a little bit too sensitive. I don't think it can hold up to rigorous shoots.
I think an EX1 would hold up much better than the A1/L1 over the long term considering it has no moving parts. It's also more sensitive with a higher resolution image (although the A1/L1 is up there). Bottom line is if you're not happy with the A1 and prefer the EX1, then why not? Unless there is something specifically about the L1 that you need, then why bother?
I mentioned the Nanoflash option only because right now the XH-L1 happens to fall into that price range (used, ~$3k) where it offers a way go tapeless and get higher quality codec out of the camera for under $6k. The Panasonic HMC150 can do it, but the resolution isn't quite high enough for my taste. If I have $10k right now to spend I would seriously consider the L1 + Nanoflash + relay combo, simply because I love the sharp picture of the Canon. I'm a big XH-A1 fan and I hate the fact that it doesn't have HD-SDI or HDMI so I can invest in the Nanoflash. I'd invest in a G1 but for $6k I might as well get an EX1.
yommytacoe
Well-known member
In my opinion, I think it's a complete waste of money to go from the XHA1 to the XLH1. I'm hanging on to my A1 until canon announces something new.
NonFiction
Active member
I would be surprised if the more expensive camera didn't offer slightly nicer glass, so if you're a freak for optics, check into that. I've not seen a comparison, however, so I'm guessing on this one. For some purposes and some shooters, good glass is worth a lot.
I own the Canon XL H1S and its image is plenty sharp.
I am contemplating on a Nanoflash purchase for it as I have captured through the HD-SDI of the camera, and the image is stunning.
Going to the XL from the XH is totally not a waste of money if you are going to take advantage of the modularity and form factor of the XL (interchangeable lenses, HD-SDI, etc.). But if you are not and just going to use the base camera, it may be better to stay with the XH A1 if you are comfortable with the form factor.
I am contemplating on a Nanoflash purchase for it as I have captured through the HD-SDI of the camera, and the image is stunning.
Going to the XL from the XH is totally not a waste of money if you are going to take advantage of the modularity and form factor of the XL (interchangeable lenses, HD-SDI, etc.). But if you are not and just going to use the base camera, it may be better to stay with the XH A1 if you are comfortable with the form factor.
Duke M.
Veteran
I read this post and I had to think about it and come back to it. Currently I own an XH-A1.
Its my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the A1, G1 and H1 all have the same 1440x1080 3CCD (1.56 megapixel effective video) interlaced sensor. They create 24f through a combination of the fields for a slight loss from 1.67 megapixels.
Since the HDV to tape is 1440x1080 the compression loss on using HDV tape isn't a 25% resolution loss (as it is with a 1920 sensor like in the HV20/30/40 series when it records to videotape.)
Both the G1 and H1 have HD-SDI that outputs 1920x1080 at 4.2.2 as does HDMI. However, that increased resolution and increased color space is simply an up rez of the original signal from a 1440 chip, isn't it?
Is it true then, that a G1 or H1 into a Nanoflash is simply bypassing the mpeg compression, that's the only real difference?
I'm wondering if there is that much difference between that and when I run firewire captures through Neo scene to make 10bit 4.2.2 1920x1080 files at 24p?
(My own tests of direct capture of an HV20 via a Black Magic card and HDMI do show a slight resolution increase of about another 100 lines but we don't know if thats because its a 1920 sensor or just from by passing compression.)
Have you seen any resolution tests of this with the Nanoflash?
Its my understanding, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the A1, G1 and H1 all have the same 1440x1080 3CCD (1.56 megapixel effective video) interlaced sensor. They create 24f through a combination of the fields for a slight loss from 1.67 megapixels.
Since the HDV to tape is 1440x1080 the compression loss on using HDV tape isn't a 25% resolution loss (as it is with a 1920 sensor like in the HV20/30/40 series when it records to videotape.)
Both the G1 and H1 have HD-SDI that outputs 1920x1080 at 4.2.2 as does HDMI. However, that increased resolution and increased color space is simply an up rez of the original signal from a 1440 chip, isn't it?
Is it true then, that a G1 or H1 into a Nanoflash is simply bypassing the mpeg compression, that's the only real difference?
I'm wondering if there is that much difference between that and when I run firewire captures through Neo scene to make 10bit 4.2.2 1920x1080 files at 24p?
(My own tests of direct capture of an HV20 via a Black Magic card and HDMI do show a slight resolution increase of about another 100 lines but we don't know if thats because its a 1920 sensor or just from by passing compression.)
Have you seen any resolution tests of this with the Nanoflash?
You're confusing resolution and compression. That's really two separate things.
The A1, like many other camera, process the incoming data as a 4:2:2 signal before throwing away most of those information when it compresses to HDV tape. The Nanoflash would tap into this signal before the compression happens and gives you a bigger bitrate bandwidth so that not so much information is lost when compression does happen. Neoscene doesn't give you a 4:2:2 file or true 10 bit because by the time you capture using FW the compression has already occured and that original data is gone; the codec simply attempts to interpolate what is missing which is not the same thing.
Resolution wise, a codec really has very little to do with how much detail a camera can resolved, that's mainly a sensor issue. Uncompress is not going to net you extra resolved details beyond what the sensor can produced. What it allows you to do is take full advantage of that instead of being constrained by a low bitrate (i.e in an extremely detailed scene the image won't break up due to running out of compression bandwitdth).
The A1, like many other camera, process the incoming data as a 4:2:2 signal before throwing away most of those information when it compresses to HDV tape. The Nanoflash would tap into this signal before the compression happens and gives you a bigger bitrate bandwidth so that not so much information is lost when compression does happen. Neoscene doesn't give you a 4:2:2 file or true 10 bit because by the time you capture using FW the compression has already occured and that original data is gone; the codec simply attempts to interpolate what is missing which is not the same thing.
Resolution wise, a codec really has very little to do with how much detail a camera can resolved, that's mainly a sensor issue. Uncompress is not going to net you extra resolved details beyond what the sensor can produced. What it allows you to do is take full advantage of that instead of being constrained by a low bitrate (i.e in an extremely detailed scene the image won't break up due to running out of compression bandwitdth).
Well a chipset will have a set pixel resolution, but actual final resolution of an image can be greater (like what Panasonic does with cameras like the HVX/HPX).
Pixel shift can create increased resolution from what the native sensor can generate.
Such is what is happening in the XL H1(s). The native resolution is 1440x1080, which is very sharp already. But when capturing from the HD-SDI, their is horizontal pixel shift which is converting the signal to 1920x1080.
I've captured from HD-SDI into ProRes from my AJA Io HD at the same time as capturing to tape.
There is a clear resolution increase on the HD-SDI material.
Pixel shift can create increased resolution from what the native sensor can generate.
Such is what is happening in the XL H1(s). The native resolution is 1440x1080, which is very sharp already. But when capturing from the HD-SDI, their is horizontal pixel shift which is converting the signal to 1920x1080.
I've captured from HD-SDI into ProRes from my AJA Io HD at the same time as capturing to tape.
There is a clear resolution increase on the HD-SDI material.
Duke M.
Veteran
To both Huy Vu and mgalvan,
I'm not confusing resolution with compression, and you've both spotted different aspects of the debate. I've done extensive research and testing on this subject.
The A1, and I think the H1 and G1 too, also have green channel offset to increase resolution, plus in actual fact the 1.56 effective sensor megapixels is slightly more than 1440x1080 resolution to start with.
When I test the HV20 with a 1920 sensor through HDMI it was in fact better resolution than the HV20 captured through firewire. The debate raged on whether it was due to the lack of compression artifact or taping into the data stream before the data is thrown away.
The problem in HDMI tests is that even if you play HDV 1440 signals at 4.2.0 through HDMI they come out 1920 and 4.2.2. You are entirely right that the data has already been lost and this is an up rez scheme. You can't go by the fact that the output is 1920 and 4.2.2. The hardware is filling in the blanks from nearby data.
However, live capture either bypasses the compression or gives full sensor access, or both. For my own purposes I decided that it didn't matter which was the cause, but rather the results. HDMI direct capture out of an HV20 does yield higher resolution. Period.
Now your H1, which is pretty darn good anyway, is a little better than regular 1440 resolution (for the reasons stated above.) Therefore, the fact that it outputs 1920 4.2.2 data streams doesn't satisfy me as an answer and the fact that it looks a little better than HDV tape isn' t the answer.
Really, someone needs to have done a resolution chart test to a) see if there is an actual increase in resolution when capturing from HD-SDI, and b) is it more of an increase than the slight increase just from the sensor (1518 to 1597) which is a tiny fractional increase, as opposed to the HDV to HDMI increase on the HV20 which is a 25% increase in data.
So my question for both of you is; Have you seen an actual resolution chart test of this set up for an actual determination? Subjective results are very hard to quantify.
If its an increase of .8% its not worth doing. If it's a 10% or more increase we'd be getting in the EX1 type of results, and I think the presets and several other features of the A1, G1 and H1 series are better than the EX1 in many regards. They just don't have the resolution of the EX1/3, or tapeless capture.
I'm not confusing resolution with compression, and you've both spotted different aspects of the debate. I've done extensive research and testing on this subject.
The A1, and I think the H1 and G1 too, also have green channel offset to increase resolution, plus in actual fact the 1.56 effective sensor megapixels is slightly more than 1440x1080 resolution to start with.
When I test the HV20 with a 1920 sensor through HDMI it was in fact better resolution than the HV20 captured through firewire. The debate raged on whether it was due to the lack of compression artifact or taping into the data stream before the data is thrown away.
The problem in HDMI tests is that even if you play HDV 1440 signals at 4.2.0 through HDMI they come out 1920 and 4.2.2. You are entirely right that the data has already been lost and this is an up rez scheme. You can't go by the fact that the output is 1920 and 4.2.2. The hardware is filling in the blanks from nearby data.
However, live capture either bypasses the compression or gives full sensor access, or both. For my own purposes I decided that it didn't matter which was the cause, but rather the results. HDMI direct capture out of an HV20 does yield higher resolution. Period.
Now your H1, which is pretty darn good anyway, is a little better than regular 1440 resolution (for the reasons stated above.) Therefore, the fact that it outputs 1920 4.2.2 data streams doesn't satisfy me as an answer and the fact that it looks a little better than HDV tape isn' t the answer.
Really, someone needs to have done a resolution chart test to a) see if there is an actual increase in resolution when capturing from HD-SDI, and b) is it more of an increase than the slight increase just from the sensor (1518 to 1597) which is a tiny fractional increase, as opposed to the HDV to HDMI increase on the HV20 which is a 25% increase in data.
So my question for both of you is; Have you seen an actual resolution chart test of this set up for an actual determination? Subjective results are very hard to quantify.
If its an increase of .8% its not worth doing. If it's a 10% or more increase we'd be getting in the EX1 type of results, and I think the presets and several other features of the A1, G1 and H1 series are better than the EX1 in many regards. They just don't have the resolution of the EX1/3, or tapeless capture.
Last edited:
Well with the HV series cams, the sensors themselves are a full 1920x1080, so capturing live through the HDMI allows for that to stay intact. There should be a noticeable difference when capturing from the HDMI, but only live, not from HDV tape footage.
The offset green channel in the XL CCD is what helps in the 1920 resolution output on the HD-SDI of the camera. Unlike the Panasonic cameras, which need to do this technique in both the horizontal and vertical directions, the Canon XL only needs to do it horizontally and only on HD-SDI output.
Although I have not shot a chart, I can confirm that there is an easily noticeable resolution difference between the HDV tape and capture from the HD-SDI. On a still object, details are easily more "detailed" at the same camera settings. THe gap only widens as you move the camera or shoot a moving subject.
It shows that 1)the still object shows the resolution increase 2)the moving footage shows what a higher bitrate can do for Long GOP.
There is definitely an image quality increase. And that's not even going into the extra leeway you have in post production.
But you have to determine whether this is all worth the money for you. In a lot of ways it is: substantial image quality increase, along with the best of both worlds of tape and tapeless.
The offset green channel in the XL CCD is what helps in the 1920 resolution output on the HD-SDI of the camera. Unlike the Panasonic cameras, which need to do this technique in both the horizontal and vertical directions, the Canon XL only needs to do it horizontally and only on HD-SDI output.
Although I have not shot a chart, I can confirm that there is an easily noticeable resolution difference between the HDV tape and capture from the HD-SDI. On a still object, details are easily more "detailed" at the same camera settings. THe gap only widens as you move the camera or shoot a moving subject.
It shows that 1)the still object shows the resolution increase 2)the moving footage shows what a higher bitrate can do for Long GOP.
There is definitely an image quality increase. And that's not even going into the extra leeway you have in post production.
But you have to determine whether this is all worth the money for you. In a lot of ways it is: substantial image quality increase, along with the best of both worlds of tape and tapeless.
Duke M.
Veteran
Exactly.
Now if there was only a decent way to do it on an A1 I'd be all set. Unfortunately the Component to HDMI converter that I tried was lousy. There ought to be one though as a Matrix card, and others, can do a good conversion when capturing.
True, but remember, the files from the Nanoflash will be of much higher quality than what you will be getting off the EX1's SxS card.
You have to gauge whether you want the image quality/post flexibility of the Nano+XH or the front end imaging of the EX1.
Having owned the EX1, I ended up sticking with the Canon XL H1s, which I love. This is of course personal preference.
I decided to purchase a Nanoflash, so I'll post an example of something when I can.
You have to gauge whether you want the image quality/post flexibility of the Nano+XH or the front end imaging of the EX1.
Having owned the EX1, I ended up sticking with the Canon XL H1s, which I love. This is of course personal preference.
I decided to purchase a Nanoflash, so I'll post an example of something when I can.