Canon XH A1 vs HVX200

I've been saying since before the HVX200 was released that it should have been based around high-end CompactFlash cards rather than P2, but there are some technical advantages to the P2 format. As far Sony's SxS cards are concerned, they cost as much as P2 but hold up to 4 times the amount of video per card and transfer data significantly faster using the ExpressCard interface. Both types of cards are overpriced for basic videography purposes, so it will be interesting to see how well the new Panasonic HMC150 fares using more affordable SD memory cards. That's another option worth considering in this price range if you're in the market for a new camera later this year.
 
Personally I think that the HMC150 will be overpriced from what I've been reading and hearing that is coming on the market competitively since there are just too many camera co's looking to make SD or CF cameras at or below the HMC150 price with more and better options, that is, look at a A1 and compare the cost AND no back up archive without creating it and presently a very challenging codec computing wise as I understand it form folks here discussing it.

So for us, we're just thinking either more P2 cam's or move to HDV and let the dust settle at the expense of someone else's wallet and then chose a format.

That is, I've been doing more thinking about this whole HDV vs DVCProHD and reiterating, am I better to shoot in DVCProHD then down compress to some M2 format in order for my dual xeon machine to edit it and then output to DVD mpeg2 or start with a compressed HDV and edit natively with the same desired output? hmmmmm, seems like the same picture (pun) ???
 
Kevin:

What are your views on HDV versus DVCProHD taken to SD DVD?

I and others have been there, and to be honest, HDV doesn't come close to what DVCProHD does when delivered via SD DVD.

You say end viewers won't view your DVCProHD quality.

That's true, but when our clients looks at HDV versus DVCProHD originated SD DVDs, they always prefer to DVCProHD ones.
 
David S. said:
What are your views on HDV versus DVCProHD taken to SD DVD?

...when our clients looks at HDV versus DVCProHD originated SD DVDs, they always prefer to DVCProHD ones.
Click to expand...

I find that HDV works well enough for me and most other HD videographers I know, but if your customers prefer the look of downconverted DVCProHD source then I can't argue with that. My only question would be whether you gave HDV a thorough test using different cameras, frame rates and color grading options to make sure you got the best results. It's probably safe to say that HDV can take more fussing to make it look good than DVCProHD, but once you find a good formula it's fine.

Regarding editing of DVCProHD footage, I'm surprised to hear someone say that dual Xeon processors aren't up to the task. I transcode my HDV footage to an intermediate codec (Edius HQ) similar to DVCProHD, then edit that on a modest dual-core laptop.
 
Well Kevin, we had three different models HDV cams.

And yes, we did fuss around trying what you stated and more.

The SD DVDs did not look nearly as good to our clients than out of the box DVCProHD footage taken to SD DVD.

And no we did not transcode DVCProHD footage to an intermediate codec as you did with your HDV footage.

All of our customers prefers DVCProHD over HDV footage.

But that's just our experience.

Have you showed your clients DVCProHD footage taken to SD DVDs?

What did they think?
 
David S. said:
Kevin:

What are your views on HDV versus DVCProHD taken to SD DVD?

I and others have been there, and to be honest, HDV doesn't come close to what DVCProHD does when delivered via SD DVD.

You say end viewers won't view your DVCProHD quality.

That's true, but when our clients looks at HDV versus DVCProHD originated SD DVDs, they always prefer to DVCProHD ones.
Click to expand...
Wow, so you went to the trouble of recording something in HDV and then in DVCprohd as well so that your lucky customer could choose between the two? Wow man, all I can say is excellent service!
 
Atwinator said:
Wow, so you went to the trouble of recording something in HDV and then in DVCprohd as well so that your lucky customer could choose between the two? Wow man, all I can say is excellent service!
Click to expand...

As strange as it may seem we did the same double recording and without telling the customer the purpose we just said, "we have two different takes and would like to get your opinion on which 'you' like the best and 'why'?"

Our client said that it they liked the DVCProHD and the reason was the color looked richer. We felt the same and until recently have used this as our primary argument as our reason for sticking to DVCProHD along with the I-frame image. However, with the most recent cameras that are hitting the market that appear to be cleaner still than the XH-A1 on image clarity and fineness we are starting to ask ourselves if we should stick to the 100Mbs stream and the difficulties it encumbers as compared to a simple "tape in" and "shoot" then "digitize & edit" compared to the "off loading" requirement and almost always "media operator" requirement plus one or more laptops on any totally or semi continuous record or greater than say 32 minutes. The workflow of P2 is really disturbing us, let alone we have always been worried about data loss. When one shoots "live" data loss is a serious mission critical application and in all our years of production we've only had ONE tape breakage and it was our fault where the operator (me) got anxious and just pulled the tape out instead of work with the camera to get it out . . but even in that case . . we sent the tape off and for $25 we got it restrung and lost about 5 secs of video and that was it. On solid state we have lost an entire project becuase an operator (again me) accidently deleted the files but fortunately not a "live" project just a commercial where we could just say, "we didn't like the video and need to reshoot." it was a truth . . when i looked for the video on the hard drive and it wasn't there i didn't like that video :o)

EDIT: Also in the DVCProHD's favor is the ability to have some nice sweet color corrections wherein all MPEG2 format material has always looked way too "video" or very limited on color correction. If we go to HDV (which as of this writing is looking quite possible) we will have to spend way more time on field color control that is a surety because our experience with what we have worked with so far says that the color band for a correction is very limited. Sure one can go from black to full color on MPEG2 codec'ing but the steps aren't rich and fine with lots of cross tweaking. Our first movie really suffered in this area where we did not realize that the MPEG2 format was used as the codec until it was too late :o(
 
Last edited:
I'll just chime in a bit here on this HDV vs. DVCPROHD issue.

Color reproduction has nothing to do with the codec. If the client liked the color, they liked the camera, not the codec it shoots on.

There is no question that DVCPROHD is a more durable codec if you're looking to push your footage in post, but it's worth noting that I've pushed the HDV codec on the A1 very hard in term of CC, and it hasn't failed on me yet. The V1U on the other hand I've seen example of it going to microblocking hell when pushed, so different HDV implementation makes a difference.

Shooting solid state is a scary experience, there's always that nagging doubt in the back of your mind that you've screwed up in the back up process; tape has the extra security in that way. In the future though prices might drop to the point that P2 (or SxS or whatever) becomes storage media instead of acquisition media; we can afford to just keep a few 16GB or 32 GB in our pockets and not have to format the card and risk losing the data.
 
Color reproduction can certainly be influenced by the codec, or, better put, by the color sampling method that the codec uses.

Shooting solid state is a scary experience
Click to expand...
Er, maybe for a first-timer, but I find absolutely nothing scary about it at all.
 
Barry_Green said:
Color reproduction can certainly be influenced by the codec, or, better put, by the color sampling method that the codec uses. . . .
Click to expand...

Barry, could you explain this a little? That is, is the DVCProHD codec more better on color sampling and thus the reason we see better color corrections on it and the MPEG2 worse . . or . . is it something else that occurs that is fixable on the MPEG2 so that the CC is better equipped ?
 
Well I picked the A1 over the 200 and am more then happy with the results.
Over-reading these X vs. X pages put plenty of doubt in my mind. In the big picture, they're all about the same for their price range.
 
I described it in the color sampling article. The lower color sampling causes the camera to have to average color pixels together, resulting in lower overall color accuracy. Should only ever be an issue on finely detailed items, but ... well, it's there. Just sayin'.
 
Barry_Green said:
I described it in the color sampling article. The lower color sampling causes the camera to have to average color pixels together, resulting in lower overall color accuracy. Should only ever be an issue on finely detailed items, but ... well, it's there. Just sayin'.
Click to expand...

There's obviously a difference in color information, but how much difference there are in the colors that appears to our eyes? Can you really look at HVX footage and say that the color looks that way because of 4:2:2? I would say that has more to do with the factory settings in the camera.
 
It's definitely far more due to the factory settings. I was only saying that color accuracy could be affected by the averaging done in a lower-color-sampling codec. But that's a small percentage of the difference, most of the difference is obviously due to the in-camera processing.
 
I'm about to come to the conclusion that a lot of the issue of DVCProHD vs HDV is partly in the eye of the beholder. That is, if it looks alright then it is. Not saying that it necessarily is but that "it is" in the eye of the beholder.

Then there comes an issue of workflow of getting the material stored, transferred, and used. Here again the P2 struggles with storage issues in the field. As DV it's great sort of like an external HDD but without all the issues associated with external HDD's. But the 1080 results in 16 min limits unless one has a nice bank role for a bundle of 16 or 32 Gb cards or cumbersome up the works with an external HDD.

Then there are other issues that are related to ingesting, recognition, and editing. That is, certainly P2 is easy to get into a machine and quick to edit but there isn't an easy archive and depending on the format recorded from straight DV 25 Mps all the way through DVCProHD 100 Mbs one's NLE may or may not be able to read the material.

Then there is the render issue where rendering in native format results in a significant overload on the workstation computer. That is, all the DVCProHD 1080 we tried to edit with in native render codec, the workload on our dual xeon (even our dual xeon with dual core and hyperthread) resulted in lock ups, sloooooooow downs, and other serious issues with long wait times when applying lots of graphcis and Hollywood effects or transitions. The downrub is that to speed the process up to acceptable (and have render folders that were less than 100Gb's on a 15 minute video) we ended up having to use an M2t or some kind of MPEG render and thus . . are we ahead of the HDV MPEG standard or have we downconverted to it in the process to be able to work it ??

Lastly, there is the archiving issue. To archive DVCProHD we have to have lots of external HDD space or BRD or gads of dual layer DVD's for even a medium sized project. This is not a workable solution to most. That is, although HDD's have come way down in price their reliability for long term storage isn't a good idea. Personally I've lost several HDD's, SD cards, and even P2 card data files (the latter only due to operator error = me when the file was accidently deleted) while anything with tape or inexpensive small space storage is much preferred financially.

Although we have always preferred DVCProHD and Panasonic anything over anything in the market the purpose of this post was to seek a comparison and hear from folks having used both to decide whether to fully investigate the HDV route comparison or to stay where were are and build upon it (the latter of which we cercumvented the test and opted to buy an HVX200A just for the better light) but in the meantime have shot three projects in a 720pN @ 24p just to buy some serious shoot time in hopes to be able to produce our television shows with P2 and HD (85 mins on two 16 Gb cards :o) but even that has resulted in issues where neither our Avid or Edius Broadcast versions will allow us an easy workflow.

Thus this weekend we rented two HDV camearas (older generations) like the XH-A1 and next weekend two newer versions (one released in May) and so far the XH-A1 (which is the only footage we've digitized thus far) compared to our HVX footage and is equally clean outdoors with and without extensive ND filtering and is much cleaner than the HVX200 and equal to our HVX200A. We haven't digitized the Sony material yet but just like Barry stated in his report on the XH-A1 the camera lens controls are definately squirelly and we don't like the XLR one way or other for both channels but we do like the picture, the ease of use of the format (tape) plus the archivability. If we were to go Sony it presents another issue also and that is of course tapes . . the Sony tapes use wet lubricant and as far as I know everyone else uses dry lubricant; however, we'd just know that HDV = Sony . . again that is IF we were to go Sony. If any of the other HDVers then we'd be ok.

Once we finish our tests we'll report back our +'s and -'s if folks would like and why we went one way or the other. If not, we have definately enjoyed reading the pros and cons of all who have posted in this thread and the reteric has helped significantly in the process . . in particular, a couple folks have said either directly or referenced to in these threads posted which i reworded down to a single sentance that will surmize how we have finally come to see it

". . it all boils down not to technical but accepability, functionality in the workflow, and simplicity . . " This statement from my report sums it up. Regardless of how technically advanced one method is over the other if one is easy to use, brainless in the user, and for all practical purposes look the same or close enough, the simple one is the answer. In fact, our business has been built on simplicity with our internal motto being "Simple as 1,2,3" and otherwise, somewhere a disaster. It's hard to beat the simplicity of HDV that is a given. Nothing special to have to deal with, just grab a miniDV tape, go shoot, drop the tape in the pouch, digitize, and edit; nothing much really to think about and thus Simple as 1,2,3. Again if one has lots of money to work with then P2 cards is not a problem. But if conversely, is a problem.

I will not argue nor debate the reliability of the P2 cards, we have never had a P2 card fail, but conversely if we did it would be 100% loss. We do too many "live" productions to risk it and if we always shot multiple camera P2 then even if a card's data was lost, still no failure. But a one camera gig on P2 just makes this old industrial scientist feel shaky. Having lost only one tape in over 150 projects a year, that's pretty darn reliable; and, that tape wasn't even lost, for 25 bux it was recoverable by having it restrung and we only lost about 6 secs of video; not bad; simple as 1,2,3.

So again, if folks would like for us to report back on this extensive test, will do so; otherwise, thanks again to all for the insight, discussion, and information, which served to help us in this very challenging and difficult decision process . . and . . the decision isn't made yet just the decision to make the evaluation which wasn't going to happen because of the rentals and time.

ADDENDUM

Perhaps the biggest decision process swing occured when Panasonic announced AVCHD and I saw it at the Government Video Expo in Washington, DC . . AND . . the support for the format here at DVXuser from loyal DVCProHD fans. The idea that Panasonic would develop and consider a loooooooong GOP with all the sales hype to I-frame sort of left me confused. Then seeing that Sony instantly adopted it made me ask this question, "If long GOP is acceptable to the pros here then why isn't long GOP HDV?" So, we began looking at the real facts, not the technical facts which look absolutely astonishing technically speaking for I-frame, but the real facts, the viewer. These facts suggested that the viewer doesn't care. We find this to hold true for all of our clients. They simply do not care. They only care about image and when we shot our HVX200 (not the 200A) up aginst a Sony 3 chip palmcorder and took it to our largest client and asked, "which looks better?" and they had to watch it three times to say, "the A clip looks a little better but we're not sure what you're asking us to look for and for the most part they both look the same." In this simple test bear in mind this Sony HDV camera was a camera that cost around a 1000 bux with a very simple workflow compared an HVX that cost us over $6000 when we bought it and to me that was disturbing.

So in conclusion, our reason to look for alternative HD sources is rooted in the Panasonic AVCHD offering for what is termed PRO cameras which is long GOP like HDV and also that the pro discussions here have supported how well this AVCHD is going to be for producing high quality high definition images; and thus, all of this says that even Panasonic and the Panasonic DVCProHD folks believe in and support the idea of long GOP as an acceptable format.

Finally, speaking with one of our international clients we brough up this P2/HDV issue and wondered if it would circumvent our ability to transcode BBC PAL materials that we do on occassion and he said, "No worries, the BBC has high standards and they have approved HDV." Done deal to go ahead and do the tests and make the conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Here's a few more thoughts for you on the XH-A1 vs HVX200

1. The guys from FreshDV tested the HVX200's DVCPROHD 100, compared to the EX1 35Mbit variation HDV, and found that the pany codec did not hold up nearly as well as expected at its high bit rate. Canon's HDV codec is excellent at 25Mbits and their implementation is better than the older Sony HDV cams.

2. Resolution wise, the XH-A1 has more than the HVX200, even in 24f mode.

3. In low light I find the HVX200 image very noisy, less so with the Canon. Both need good light to get very clean images. Our HPX500 (2/3" chips) is incredibly clean, and if the HVX200a comes close, then I'd have a close look.

4. The XH-A1 does have chromatic issues, however they disappear when using our flipped config MP.1 lens adapter. I haven't tested any other flip adapters...so I can't comment on them. The XH-A1 lens with respect to close macro focus (edge to edge sharpness) is close to perfect.

5. The XH-A1 presets are outstanding and offer a huge amount of image control. Using the camera in its "stock" mode is a big mistake particularly when a great variety of presets can be freely downloaded and transferred via an SD card.

6. We've been using both P2 cards and SxS cards here and I have to admit that with a laptop, capturing footage via the ether express slot is miles faster than tape. With a 1920x1200 pixel screen we can instantly preview footage right from P2 or SxS cards to ensure we didn't miss anything. The solid state workflow is incredibly efficient and almost 100% of our studio shoots are done on P2 or SxS these days. That said, if going on an extended shoot where equipment had to be limited...I'd bring our XH-A1 and a few tapes.

7. You didn't mention overcranking but the HVX200 and EX1 are your only options under $7000 if this is required. You can get excellent slow motion from the XH-A1, but it requires a lot of rendering time and a steep learning curve if you're using tools like Twixtor.

8. The Panasonic "Cinegamma" footage (DVX/HVX/HPX) has an organic feel to it that no other camera quite emulates.

9. If you plan on a lot of keying/green screen use, then 4:2:2 (DVCPROHD) is best. HDSDI to a capture card from the EX1, or XH-G1 would work well too at 4:2:2 for studio use.

9. Battery life on the XH-A1 with the larger battery is something like 8 hours...it blows every other camera we have out of the water in that regard.

If you're considering the XH-A1 vs the HVX200 then you really should be looking at the XH-A1 vs the HVX200a or EX1. One thing to consider though is that you can likely purchase two XH-A1s under $7000..and you don't need to budget another $1000(s) for cards.

Hope that helps with your decision :-)
 
Last edited:
Don't forget about getting an HV20...useful little camera for BTS footage on your films, Bcam if your doing lower quality productions or weddings, and its the perfect deck to capture footage without running your A1's heads all the time.

I did the HVX vs. A1 debate many times before taking the dive for HDV and the A1. The biggest thing for me was resolution. The image is just so darn gorgeous and sharp. I HATED the HVX's 1080 image, made me want to barf. Things close up? Sure they looked adequate but anything farther away looked awful, there just wasn't enough on the chips to render the stuff. Also the horizontal lines in the noise of the image really annoyed me, looked awful (I'm not sure of the name of this problem...banding maybe?).

HDV has come a long way, and its implemented better in the H1/A1/G1 cams than any other cam I've seen. If you have doubts that HDV can be heavily Color Corrected then you need to watch Celste at marlontorres.com He color corrects up the wazoo and doesn't have issues.

Using tape still is time consuming sure and I would love to go tapeless but its a small price to pay to get such a sharp 1080 image. It looks incredible on a plasma TV, on DVD also awesome.

4:2:0 color space on the A1 doesn't bother me, and whoever said it sucks to key doesn't know a thing about keying footage. It keys just fine, you might have some issues when you get into very complicated stuff but thats the risk you take. Other wise it does an excellent job (b/c of the resolution and how much information is there, 4:2:0 or not). Blocks in the image are minimal and they are hard to see....put the footage on DVD and all edges of the image become perfect anyways, problem (if there is one)...is solved.

If I had the money I would love to have both the new 200a and an A1 to have the best of both worlds. Still my biggest gripe with the HVX in the end is its chips. I don't care how clean the image seems to get, your still working with a pixel count that works best for 720p and not 1080p. Its 720p image is awesome whether its the HVX or the new HVX200a...BUT the 1080 image is just too soft for my taste. I want 1080HD, not 720.

Both are excellent cameras and offer a lot of stuff but its the A1 for me...half the price too. :P Made more wallet room for the Letus.
 
Wow thank you Dennis for that wonderful insight and input some of which was actually in our thought process to consider HDV. In fact, the newer HDV cameras have an entire clean up process to remove some of the noise and color issues that were former problematic areas to to some HDV cameras. One has an entire processor devoted to removing noise and light bending by turning the CMOS chip which also ended up affording much lower light levels (1.5 lux) which for our event productions has always been an issue with the 200 but less of an issue with the 200a (which btw has similar light capabilites as the XH-A1 in answer to your comment about taking a look at the 200A :o) and thus low light may be a helpmate in the determination process. For if we change we will change both our camera groups one at a time each of which have 4 cameras and for the test thus far we are not even messing with the presets and already are pleased with the look. So, if it gets better through adjusting presets (which we learned it did on the HVX series) then more power is yet to come ?

BTW, something I left out something in my long above which I added under ADDENDUM which was the final push to make the decision to look at HDV. That is, although we had glanced at HDV we had not really taken it as any credit to worth but upon reading and listening here, we did make the decision to move forward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top