*** DVXuser Exclusive! *** Canon G1 Footage and Stills! DV and HDV now online!

Barry_Green said:
This is true. But we're talking about "detail", as in artificial edge enhancement, not "resolution", as in: the camera's ability to resolve the image.

When you set them at equivalent edge enhancement settings they resolve almost identically. But JVC's edge enhancement is much more aggressive than the HVX's. Set the HVX on absolute maximum edge enhancement (+7) and you'd have to set the JVC DOWN to -6 in order for them to match, as far as artificial enhancement goes. Set a JVC to -5 and it'll be more edge-enhanced (aka "detail" in the HVX's menus) than an HVX is even capable of. Set it all the way up to 0 (aka "normal" in the JVC's menus) and it'll be grossly oversharpened as compared to the HVX.

So what you're seeing is not resolved image or truly higher resolution, what you're seeing is the effect of the edge enhancement circuitry (aka "detail level").
Click to expand...

Nice that someone point that out. With -7 the image shall look soft. Every test with the HVX ive seen they put the detail to -7. That wouldnt give the image justice, it wouldnt give the DVX justice either that way.

I would like to see a test were they really push the HVX200 to its limits.
 
Cant really argue with Barry if only because I cant really differentiate between subtle edge-enhancement and increased resolution. They "look" the same (if indeed that is why the JVC has more detail).
 
It's real easy to demonstrate -- turn the edge enhancement off with the JVC, and then look at it. You'll see a massive difference between with it off and with it on. Off = what it's truly resolving. On = artificial edge enhancement.

They all do it, but the JVC is a lot more aggressive than the others. Canon is second place in edge enhancement, Sony and Panasonic are mildest. At least with the JVC they let you turn it all the way off; the Canon doesn't, and the Sony -- well, it's odd. It looks like off is about 5, and anything lower than that seems to be actually blurring the image.
 
Wouldn't be surprising if it did blur the image. I'd be surprised at that function being on a prosumer camera though, but on cameras such as the HDW-750 the detail can be put into the negatives to soften it more than had the detail just been turned off.
 
Interesting point. So can the detail be turned off for the HVX as well, for a side-by-side comparison with sharpness off for both? Has anyone done that?
 
Simon Wyndham said:
but on cameras such as the HDW-750 the detail can be put into the negatives to soften it more than had the detail just been turned off.
Click to expand...
HVX, JVC, and Canon all offer negative settings, but all are still edge-enhancing. For example, on the JVC the lowest three settings are "OFF", "MIN", and "-9". -9 is more enhanced than MIN, which is still quite enhanced as opposed to "OFF".

The Sony is the only one that doesn't use a negative scale, it goes from 0 to 15. Yet anything below 5 is alarmingly soft. So maybe they're doing as Simon says, but it's curious why they didn't rank it on a negative scale.

But in the end, the point is that none of these scales matches the others. -7 on an HVX does not equate to -7 on a Canon or -7 on a JVC; MIN on a Canon is equivalent to about -3 on the HVX, -6 on the JVC is about equiv. to +7 on the HVX, and 5 on the Sony is about equiv. to Min/-7/Min on the JVC/HVX/Canon.
 
Fugitive said:
Interesting point. So can the detail be turned off for the HVX as well, for a side-by-side comparison with sharpness off for both? Has anyone done that?
Click to expand...
Turning it to -7 is not specifically claiming that it's "off". The only one that actually claims to go all the way off is JVC, none of the others do. But -7 on the HVX does look equivalent to "off" on the JVC, as far as enhancement goes.
 
Juan Diaz said:
I don't think it would be a miraculous feat for Canon to put out a camera that performs like the XL H1 for the price of the A1. It makes perfect business sense for them to do this. Tech companies do this all the time.

Imagine, Canon has already invested a ton of money on R&D developing their 1/3" optical block and signal processing. It makes sense that they would want to maximize their investment by putting their (already developed) technology in a package that they can sell in greater volume.
...
Click to expand...

Juan -

What you wrote makes perfect sense. I don't find XH-A1 price surprising at all and don't believe Canon compromised core imaging system quality in A1 or G1. We shouldn't forget major chunk of XL-H1 cost went to the JackPack. XH-G1 equipped with that costs ~$7k. From this point of view, $4k for XH-A1 is perfectly right.

I wouldn't be surprised if A1/G1 actually perform slightly better than H1 with standard 20x lens. Big guy's advantage is more versatile connectivity, interchangeable lenses and form factor.

Canon G1 and Sony V1 footage looks very good to me (thanks Mikko!), even though it was not full test of finalized products. The market becomes more and more interesting. My impression is in progressive mode G1 goes hand to hand with V1, maybe with slight edge for Canon. In 1080i Canon is the king. No doubt about that. If only Sony had given us 1/3" sensors, I'd have hard time making up my mind. Without that, my choice was simple to go with Canon.
 
Bogdan said:
In 1080i Canon is the king. No doubt about that.
Click to expand...

There we go again...

What are we talking about here, resolution? bang-for-the-buck? Looks? Each one has a different answer...
 
What did I say again to make you react like that? Canon H1 and soon A1/G1 are the only camcorders in this class that provide full HDV2 (1080i) resolution support plus with pixel shift it gets even better over HD-SDI. That's why H1 and soon G1 are so attractive to TV producers and broadcast studios on budget. So far, nobody else gives us 3 1440x1080 sensors in this ballpark and I hope you agree with that at least.
 
I definately do. :)

My apologies for comming across as rude if I did because that sure wasnt the intention. I just keep trying to point out that "better" is always in respect to something.

So, I was asking, better in which sense? Resolution? Then the Canon wins hands down. But there ARE other things that can make a camera better, and not necessarily resolution. Those can be "Bang-for the Buck", Looks, true progressive, variable frame-rates, or whatever else.

All in all, only trying to point out that using a blanket statement like "Canon is king" or "XYZ is best" doesnt make sense until you specify what it is that you think its best "at".

Besides, before you think I am a Canon-basher, I love their Optics, OIS, and the XL-2 just makes me drool. The XL-2 was my dream cam before HD. Honestly :)
 
By saying "in 1080i" I meant resolution, of course. Other image quality aspects are more or less subjective since all cameras in this class are so close. Canon are my favorite and XL2 was my king also :) Nothing is perfect in video equipment, especially for less than $10k, but Canon seems to spec their products slightly better than others, imo. I find HVX images very pleasant, but little soft and noisy. Sony images (including V1) are very clean on the other hand, but carry that sort of plastic appearance. Canon's images (even though Mikko's test was just a quickie) have more life, more filmic appearance imo.

I don't consider you Canon-basher, maybe Pana-fanatic a little bit ;-)
 
Lol. Pana-fanatic? And I keep talking about how the resolution of the HVX quite doesnt (IMHO) hold up to the JVC...I had to remind Barry and Filmaker1977 that I wasnt trolling, or trashing the HVX for that matter. Besides, I am probably the most active guy in the Silicon Imaging forum.

I dont play favorites, because I dont mind switching in a heart-beat if I think the image is better. Its all in the image. I am a film-maker, not a marketing advisor... :)


p.s: There are definately things where other cams are not so close, i.e interchangable lenses(JVC), Variable Frame-rates & tapeless workflow (Panny), lack of noise & affordability (Sony- FX1). Each camera is quite distinct in these factors. Others things? quite close.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't 100% serious about that pana-fanatic :)

I do my best to bring some useful information to this forum and others but in many cases I find myself correcting inaccuracies in various opinions or statements, more for the sake of technical correctness rather than critique. I get labeled "troll" for that from time to time also.

Image quality is the ultimate factor by which we should judge and choose our tools and in this term all 1/3" (and 1/4) cameras are not far away. Workflow and features of course differ a lot. I agree, resolutionwise JVC has the edge over HVX, but HVX offers unique features. If some day I need to reach for variable frame rates, HVX will be the choice unless SI or RED becomes handy :)
 
Bogdan said:
By saying "in 1080i" I meant resolution, of course. Other image quality aspects are more or less subjective since all cameras in this class are so close.
Click to expand...

That's kind of a silly statement. Many will tell you that the resolution on these 1/3 CCD cameras is prett close (People like Barry, Ash, and BobDiaz for instance). What's not subjective is a 100mbs DVCProHD codec with 4:2:2 color compression comared to a 25mbs HDV codec with 4:2:0. What's also not subjective is that the Canon has interlaced CCDs and Adam Wilt and several others have pointed out that it's vertical resolution drops to around 540 lines (same as the HVX200) when using 24f. Variable frame rates aren't subjective either.

All the cameras have strengths and weakness but suggesting that all other aspects, save resolution, are relativly equal is quite rather absurd.

Canon are my favorite and XL2 was my king also :) Nothing is perfect in video equipment, especially for less than $10k, but Canon seems to spec their products slightly better than others, imo. I find HVX images very pleasant, but little soft and noisy. Sony images (including V1) are very clean on the other hand, but carry that sort of plastic appearance. Canon's images (even though Mikko's test was just a quickie) have more life, more filmic appearance imo.
Click to expand...

See this strikes me as an odd statment. I won't bother arguing the detail or noise of the HVX200 since we do that enough on other threads but claiming that the Canon's images or more filmic strikes me as the very definition of subjective. Many feel that Pansonic is better than anyone at the film look. I don't understand why you dismiss real things as "subjective" and then make a statment like this.

Claiming any of them as the king of 1080 is just silly. They are different cameras with different strengths and weakness (even a piece of crap like the FX1 has it's place).
 
DavidBeier said:
...

What's also not subjective is that the Canon has interlaced CCDs and Adam Wilt and several others have pointed out that it's vertical resolution drops to around 540 lines (same as the HVX200) when using 24f. Variable frame rates aren't subjective either.

All the cameras have strengths and weakness but suggesting that all other aspects, save resolution, are relativly equal is quite rather absurd.


See this strikes me as an odd statment. I won't bother arguing the detail or noise of the HVX200 since we do that enough on other threads but claiming that the Canon's images or more filmic strikes me as the very definition of subjective. Many feel that Pansonic is better than anyone at the film look. I don't understand why you dismiss real things as "subjective" and then make a statment like this.

Claiming any of them as the king of 1080 is just silly. They are different cameras with different strengths and weakness (even a piece of crap like the FX1 has it's place).
Click to expand...

David -

I think you should read my posts again. I was talking about resolution (not camera features) in 1080i i.e. interlaced mode and as proven by many tests, resolution-wise Canon has the lead in the class while in progressive (F) mode it's been still under discussion. Canon H1 (and soon A1/G1) are the only camcorders in this class that provide full, native support for HDV2 resolution. By saying "king of 1080i" I meant just that and I think I explained myself precisely enough.

As far as film look or personal taste is concerned, please pay attention to couple of "imo"s in my posts which stands for "in my opinion" :)
 
Last edited:
Bogdan said:
David -

I think you should read my posts again. I was talking about resolution (not camera features) in 1080i i.e. interlaced mode and as proven by many tests, resolution-wise Canon has the lead in the class while in progressive (F) mode it's been still under discussion. Canon H1 (and soon A1/G1) are the only camcorders in this class that provide full, native support for HDV2 resolution.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read your post again too. You claim that all other aspects of the cameras, save for resolution, are subjective which simply isn't true. I gave you a number of very objective differences between it and the HVX200 and there are many more. For that matter, 1080i can mean a number of things. Right now, nearly all 1080 recording formats are interlaced even if you're going for a progressive image. 24p and 30p are still recorded onto an interlaced signal. Perhaps you might have wanted to argue it's the kind of 1080 60i, in which case it does beat the others in resolution. Still, that's hardly the whole battle.

*deep breath as I actually do the impossible and say something nice about the FX1/Z1*

In the 108060i realm, the FX1 and Z1 tend to be much more popular. Why? Because those who tend to tend not to care about a profressive image in any way shape or form also seem less concerned with resolution. Those who like 60i tend to have much less concern for the overal image. Thus, they flock to the Sony cameras because of their better low light performance, their smaller and easier to handle design, and their higher compatibility with NLEs and decks. Labling anything "king" is just uninformed no matter how you try to justify it (and if you think all other differences between the other cameras are subjective then you are very uninformed). Why not just say, "the XLH1 produces the highest resolved detail in 108060i?"

As far as film look or personal taste is concerned, please pay attention to couple of "imo"s in my posts which stands for "in my opinion" :)
Click to expand...

Wow. And all these years I thought it stood for Interchangible Monkey Opportunity. Saying IMO doesn't change the rather hypocritical nature of claiming some really technical strengths of the other cameras are "subjective" then promoting the Canon based on your own subjective opinion.
 
DavidBeier said:
Maybe you should read your post again too. You claim that all other aspects of the cameras, save for resolution, are subjective which simply isn't true.
Click to expand...

I don't enjoy this childish conversation with you anymore since you twist my words and opinions in quite unfair way.

What I wrote in my own words, was for example "Other image quality aspects are more or less subjective since all cameras in this class are so close." If you don't get it then let me explain it to you one more time before I finish.

"Other image quality aspects" does not mean "all other aspects of the cameras" as in your manipulated version.

"more or less subjective" as I claimed does not mean "are subjective" like you wrote.

Since the subject was IMAGE QUALITY, not "all other aspects of the cameras", in my opinion dynamic range, film look etc. are not that far away apart in 1/3" class camcorders or can be easily changed in the camera or in post. If you don't agree with that please post side-by-side comparisons that will prove that any of these cameras blows away others beyond any doubt.

And since you are so willing to attack my opinions, please think twice before calling FX1 camcorder "piece of crap" because many people make their living with that equipment and I'm sure they would challenge your, not so objective statement.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top