DVX or XH-A1

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Here's my situation. I work for a small company that does a lot of web work. The majority of our video is shot in front of a green screen in a small studio and ends up being finalized at about 360x240 resolution. We currently shoot with a Sony VX2100.
But eventually we'd like to start doing more DVD's and possibly local TV spots. I'm trying to get my boss to pony up for a new camera. Ultimately I'd like to get a HVX200 in our hands but I think my boss would never go for spending that much money on a camera right now. I think the best I can shoot for is something in the range of the DVX100b or the Canon XH-A1. Although I will start by presenting the HVX and wait till that gets shot down first.

I honestly can't decide which would be the better bet. I've never gotten my hands on either camera and there is no place I know of locally to rent them. I know the DVX has a great track record and excellent on board audio but is it wise for a company to invest in a standard definition camera these days?

Personally in my opinion right now anything is better then the VX2100 as we do web based video shooting progressive scan is very important to me. But I'm not sure I could sell my boss on that and better audio alone. But is Canon HDV any good for keying in a small studio? How is the audio circuitry in the canon compare to the DVX?

I should also state that we have both Premiere Pro and Sony Vegas for our editing abilities. I prefer Vegas, but when we upgrade to CS3 I'd like to start using Adobe onLocation (DV rack) to start doing our studio capture straight to the computer with a backup on tape. Eventually it call gets sent to After Effects for compositing. I don't know how much affect this will have on camera choice.


Just trying to weigh out the best bet for our present and future right now. Thanks
 
Last edited:
DV Rack/OnLocation has full support for both products, so that's not much of an issue (other than the inherent HDV lag that occurs; DV Rack displaying HDV is always delayed by over 1/2 second because of the way HDV works).

Working with a Canon you would also have another choice, which is Canon's Console software.

As for keying -- either is going to do fine for 360x240. You may actually be able to pull a better key off the Canon in those circumstances, if you've shot HDV and resized down to 360x240 before keying.

Progressive is going to be better than interlaced for keying, no doubt at all, you'll get better web video from either of these than you would from a VX2100.

DVX is going to be a stop faster than the Canon, maybe two stops faster if you were to use interlaced mode. DVX has precise manual lens control, and more control over audio. If shooting in HDV mode the Canon's audio is going to be compressed MPEG-1 Layer II, but if shooting in DV it'd be using the same uncompressed PCM audio recording system.

The main question is: how much do you have available to spend, and how much do you value HD? And, furthermore, is Panasonic going to cut the DVX100B's price? Right now both cameras are carrying a retail price of $3999, but the Canon has a $250 rebate on it. No rebate is shown on the Panasonic website right now. If they're the same price, I'd have a hard time justifying a DVX over an XHA1 unless you specifically need some of the features the DVX has that the XHA1 doesn't. Or, if the XHA1 doesn't work for you for one reason or other.

If the DVX was substantially cheaper, it'd make the decision a lot easier -- you'd know what your budget was, you'd have a clear choice. As is, they're the same price so budget doesn't help you decide; now you're down to lens vs. audio vs. HDV vs. DV-only vs. etc...

Standard-def DV at full resolution is not good for keying, from any camera. Downrezzed HDV, or downrezzed DV to 360x240, will do much better for keying.
 
Barry_Green said:
Standard-def DV at full resolution is not good for keying, from any camera. Downrezzed HDV, or downrezzed DV to 360x240, will do much better for keying.
Click to expand...
is that because of the 4:2:0/4:1:1 colour compression?

so would downrezzing 4:2:0 HD footage to 25% of it's original resolution give the best results? as far as chromakey goes? for use in an SD production?
 
Now that's interesting the find out. I was not aware the A1 could shoot DV. Does it also allow you to shoot 24F and 30F in DV mode with uncompressed audio?
If so how does that footage compare to the native DVX footage?

It sounds like the A1 is the better bet. As for budget I'm only guessing at this point. Doing my homework before I present it to the big bosses. I'm the new video guy at the company and the VX2100 was here when I got here, so I'm trying to stay in the ballpark of what it would have cost brand new. But I also have to take into consideration that we are going to try to break some new ground for the company and work our way into DVD's and possibly local TV spots. So I want to make sure the camera is a little future proof because who knows when they'll buy another one.

Seems to me the lenses on both should be pretty nice. From doing still photography I know Leica's reputation but I currently shoot with Canon and know L lenses are great quality as well. Both appear to go pretty wide so that's good to know.

I knew that starting with a higher resolution original and then downrezzing was good for image quality but I wasn't aware it also helped when keying footage. If that's the case it would probably be best to go with the A1 just to pull quality keys when the end result is to be standard def like a DVD or TV commercial.

Either way we aren't buying until at least after NAB and even then the boss could possibly put this purchase off for 6 months. Things like that tend to happen. I'm just preparing all the evidence in hopes we can pull the trigger sooner.
 
themagickite said:
is that because of the 4:2:0/4:1:1 colour compression?

so would downrezzing 4:2:0 HD footage to 25% of it's original resolution give the best results? as far as chromakey goes? for use in an SD production?
Click to expand...

It's very important to note that to actually take advantage of the added chroma that's possible from 1440x1080 4:2:0 HDV downrezzed to SD--you need to use software that will intelligently downsample and THEN you need to actually save it in an SD codec that's true 4:2:2 (in SD) or better. Whatever you do--DON'T downconvert to DV or you will defeat the whole thing.

I use MPEG Streamclip to convert m2t's to better SD codecs. Make sure to check the "better downscaling" option and uncheck all the interlace options. It's possible to get near 4:4:4 SD by downconverting to PhotoJPEG, Animation, Sheer or other codecs that can contain full chroma sampling. Make sure to choose 100% on the quality setting.

You can also downconvert to DVCPro 50 and get quality SD 4:2:2 in that format as well...but it's more of a FCP-friendly codec at the current time.
 
Last edited:
Just to make sure the 24F and 30F are basically the same as progressive scan correct. I'm not going to get any scan lines or anything like that?
 
Yes, it's actually progressive-rendered output. 24 fps (23.98) and 30 fps (29.97) with no interlacing lines.
 
roxics said:
Just to make sure the 24F and 30F are basically the same as progressive scan correct. I'm not going to get any scan lines or anything like that?
Click to expand...

Correct, its 24P and 30P. No weirdness.
 
themagickite said:
cheers, so FCP can downsample hdv to dvcpro?

would you do that when capturing off tape?

or export it as dvcpro?
Click to expand...

If memory serves me right, you would just export from FCP to tape using a DVCPRO deck, it all should work out fine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top