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

Bogdan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but so now color sampling isn't a factor of "image quality?" Niether is motion compression, or lattitude, or any of this other stuff? I havn't seen you post any pictures to prove the Canon is vastly better than the others in what you claim. Not to mention it isn't even a matter of that but math. 4:2:2 color space is quite different from 4:2:0. It had nothing to do with being in a "1/3 class camcorder." It's a codec and how it's stored. Interframe encoding is very different than having 24, 30, or 60 pure frames rather than generated ones based on only one in six (in Canon's case) or one in eleven (Sony's I believe) I frames. Once again, these are not "more or less subjective." These are simple facts of the codecs. I think most who use the Sony's will tell you their low light performance is not "more or less" subjective either. Maybe you just don't know what the word subjective means. Saying "they're about the same in my opinion" doesn't change the fact that you're wrong. It doesn't suddenly make HDV stop using interframe encoding or 4:2:0 color sampling. It doesn't make the noise you'll get from upping the gain in the Canon disapear. You like Canon and that's fine. If I wanted to shoot 1080i60i landscapes and resolution was paramount then I'd call the Canon the king of that maybe (though having a bit less lattitude can kill you on at times). Calling it the 1080i king is almost as silly as claiming everything aside from resolution is "more or less subjective." Not to mention, once again, a lot of pros I know say that the resolution of the 1/3 cameras is closer than not and it's the other features that really distinguish them.

As for the FX1 and Z1, I think they are pieces or crap for what I want to do but they have their place (weddings and other low light videography affairs) and I'm fine with anyone arguing different. I guess piece of crap is a bad term. I just don't find them useful for what I want to do.
 
You know David, you make some excellent points, but something you seem to fail to recognize about DV100 "4:2:2" is that it is sub-sampled raster 4:2:2, which can still look great, but in reality it's a reduced resolution 4:2:2. It's actual color sampling isn't quite the leap that 4:2:2 would seem to be in comparison to HDV...especially DV100 720p. It's still fairly heavy compression, and yes, it doesn't suffer motion compression, but it has it's own set of compromises.

Ever seen full 4:2:2 SDI from the H1? I'd be happy to show you some examples down the road if you'd like to see the difference between full raster 1920 x 1080 4:2:2 and DVCPRO HD 1080 4:2:2 (1280x1080)
 
DavidBeier said:
I'm sorry but so now color sampling isn't a factor of "image quality?" Niether is motion compression, or lattitude, or any of this other stuff? I havn't seen you post any pictures to prove the Canon is vastly better than the others in what you claim. Not to mention it isn't even a matter of that but math.
...
Click to expand...

You are really persistent in playing around with my words. Can you do me a favor and tell me when did I say Canon is "vastly better" or "blows away all the competition"? "Better" may be very subjective and I perfectly understand it. To some it's image resolution, to others interchangeable lenses or tapeless workflow etc.

In my opinion XL-H1 produces the best looking images of the bunch, but the difference is not big. In fact, I used words like "Canon has the edge" or "slightly better". Don't you think it's a little bit different from your interpretation? I relied more on final images than the math and that's why I didn't get very technical in this discussion.

Btw, latitude is dynamic range and I included it in my post as one of the most important image quality aspects.

Talking about math, HDV compression is effective enough so one really needs to look closely to notice any motion or other compression artifacts. Maybe you witnessed some of those watching examples available on the Web, but keep in mind those movies are usually quite heavily compressed so judging HDV image quality based on that is wrong.

Color sampling and DVCPRO HD codec are valid arguments, but don't forget Canon starts with 3x more sampling points than HVX200, so do your math again. Even with HDV sacrificing some quality, final images speak for themselves. Again, I do not claim HVX200 is bad camera, but only that Canon has the edge, so please don't "quote me" again like you did before.

H1 (and soon G1) offer uncompressed digital output and that's one of the reasons why I dared to call Canon the king of 1080i in the class. Full HDV2 resolution and connectivity make these cameras more attractive to TV producers and small TV stations than other models.

I don't own XL-H1 and don't have access to this camera currently, but hopefully will get A1 soon. I think I will squeeze couple of hundred bucks to rent HVX200 and do side-by-side comparisons then.
 
Elton said:
You know David, you make some excellent points, but something you seem to fail to recognize about DV100 "4:2:2" is that it is sub-sampled raster 4:2:2, which can still look great, but in reality it's a reduced resolution 4:2:2. It's actual color sampling isn't quite the leap that 4:2:2 would seem to be in comparison to HDV...especially DV100 720p. It's still fairly heavy compression, and yes, it doesn't suffer motion compression, but it has it's own set of compromises.

Ever seen full 4:2:2 SDI from the H1? I'd be happy to show you some examples down the road if you'd like to see the difference between full raster 1920 x 1080 4:2:2 and DVCPRO HD 1080 4:2:2 (1280x1080)
Click to expand...

Fair enough but a few points. 1. Both HDV and DVCProHD make compromises yes but they are different and produce different results. They aren't things which I would simply dismiss as "mostly subjective" which was my point. 2. From messing with some HDV stuff in post along with DVCProHD, I can say that there is a big difference to me. It's ultimatly just a more resiliant and stable codec. 3. Motion compression, to me, is by far the biggest draw back and a huge deal since it's actually a step backwards from DV. I get frustrated enough dealing with interlaced pulldown in 24p. Adding motion compression just isn't acceptible to me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Tim posted an article about a HD TV show that normall used a CineAlta on their stuff who decided to stick with regular old DV for PoV shots over HDV because of the motion compression (though that was based on the Sony Z1). Later the switched to the HVX200. Motion compression really is a big deal to many of us.

And yeah, I'd love to take a look at some SDI out stuff from 24f mode. It was never an option for me sadly since, with the XLH1 already being $3500 more than the others, the expense for SDI out wasn't in my range (nor do I like being tethered to a laptop). Still, I'd love to see what's possible.

Bogdan said:
You are really persistent in playing around with my words. Can you do me a favor and tell me when did I say Canon is "vastly better" or "blows away all the competition"? "Better" may be very subjective and I perfectly understand it. To some it's image resolution, to others interchangeable lenses or tapeless workflow etc.

In my opinion XL-H1 produces the best looking images of the bunch, but the difference is not big. In fact, I used words like "Canon has the edge" or "slightly better". Don't you think it's a little bit different from your interpretation? I relied more on final images than the math and that's why I didn't get very technical in this discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but did I hallucinate this?

In 1080i Canon is the king. No doubt about that.
Click to expand...

I also can't help but find it a bit hypocritical that you ask me to show images to prove my point but refer to ones you havn't posted in defense of yours. Also, if you don't want to get into a technical discussion then don't make uninformed technical generalizations.

Talking about math, HDV compression is effective enough so one really needs to look closely to notice any motion or other compression artifacts.
Click to expand...

See, it's statmens like this that really strike me as ignorant. You saying, "talking about the math," and then go on to make a generalization that doesn't have any factual evidence. There's quite a big difference between havin 24, 30, or 60 pure frames (as the HVX200 does) and having a bunch of generated frames and only a real one every 11 frames or every 6 in Canon's case (yes, I think Canon has a much better HDV codec but it's still different).

Maybe you witnessed some of those watching examples available on the Web, but keep in mind those movies are usually quite heavily compressed so judging HDV image quality based on that is wrong.
Click to expand...

Remember what they say, when you assume you make an ass out of you and...well actually just you in a case like this. For someone who whines that I've twisted his words your own invetions come accross as rather hypocritical. I've seen uncomressed HDV. I've worked with HDV. The difference is quite there. Honestly, do you really think there's not going to be much of a difference between a 20 mbs codec and a 100 mbs one? The HDV codecs aren't even all the same. As I've already mentioned Canon's is different from Sony's and I believe Sony's is different from JVC's. The bottom line is that making generalizations like you have been is just silly. There's a world of difference in so many respects. Labling one king and then trying to defend such a statment by saying that everything but resolution is more or less subjective is out and out wrong.

Color sampling and DVCPRO HD codec are valid arguments, but don't forget Canon starts with 3x more sampling points than HVX200, so do your math again. Even with HDV sacrificing some quality, final images speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

These magical final images that you still won't post but demand from others. Hate to burst your bubble but I've looked at a hell of a lot of images from the two cameras and I find the HVX200's more pleasing. I know I'm not the only one. The same ones who praised the Canon's resolution in the shootouts praised the HVX200's colors. It was the images that go me to buy my HVX200 in the first place. I still don't claim, based on that, that the HVX200 is "the 1080p king. No doubt about that." And it's not the sampling I'm refering to but he compression. Try working with HDV and try working with DVCProHD. There's a world of difference as far as CC goes. If you're using SDI out the it's a different story. It also comes down to specifics not dumb generalizations.

H1 (and soon G1) offer uncompressed digital output and that's one of the reasons why I dared to call Canon the king of 1080i in the class. Full HDV2 resolution and connectivity make these cameras more attractive to TV producers and small TV stations than other models.
Click to expand...

Once again yet another uninformed statment. The G1 isn't out yet so we can't gage it's reaction but I havn't seen any evidence that the XLH1 is being used more for TV than the other cameras. Point of fact, most indicate that it's the poorest selling of all the under 10k cameras (not neccesarily a jugment on it's quality). Why do you continue to say things with nothing to back them up?

don't own XL-H1 and don't have access to this camera currently, but hopefully will get A1 soon. I think I will squeeze couple of hundred bucks to rent HVX200 and do side-by-side comparisons then.
Click to expand...

Have you even tried the camera? Something I'd like to do before I claim one camera is "king." The bottom line is that you made a stupid statment and then tried to backpeddle with another stupid one. It's OK. We all make stupid generalizations. Me calling the FX1 a piece of crap was one. Stop trying to defend it.
 
Shoot i'll take either camera....... I'd Give an arm for a HVX or an XLH1..... i'd make like 3,000$ off of it in two weeks.... in a month if i wasnt happy i'd buy the other.....
 
Well, that's the point -- these are business tools. If you can make that kind of cash with one or the other, how do you lose? If you find that you think the other one would be more suited to your workflow, you can always sell the one you've got on ebay and recover most (if not all) of the price difference!
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, that's the point -- these are business tools. If you can make that kind of cash with one or the other, how do you lose? If you find that you think the other one would be more suited to your workflow, you can always sell the one you've got on ebay and recover most (if not all) of the price difference!
Click to expand...


Dude, barry, you taught me this bussiness model. It works im all about renting now a days.
 
Renting cameras rather than buying? Or do you mean renting out a camera? I would feel nervous renting out my camera...
 
I wonder...why HVX fan/owners in A1/G1 thread? Here to argue or here because they want both? Makes no sense!

I hope we can get back to talking about this camera.

NCJE is at an unveiling as we speak?
 
meta4 said:
I wonder...why HVX fan/owners in A1/G1 thread? Here to argue or here because they want both? Makes no sense!
Click to expand...

It's just a healthy interest in a competing camera. Lots of people want to see whether the XH cams deliver the goods or not.

Have you noticed how many current DVX owners are seriously pondering the new Canon's? The competition has become much stiffer and everyone will benefit as a result.
 
^
Very true. If the A1 delivers on what it promises then it might be a decent augmentation to my HVX200 if I ever get a second camera. Something to use for wide shots where the extra horizontal resolution would be nice. It's also good to know what people are going to use which can make a difference in support (both technically and community wise) and whether TV networks and shows will accept footage from it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top