Finally got to see "the big three" cameras on a HD projector

I agree with Buck Forestor about the EX1.
Flash issues?- Yup. I got use to it. Clients do not seem to see it. They don't mention it.
I have seen the fast pan jelly images- but I have never seen it on my camera. I tried swinging the camera back and forth like crazy the other day- it would not "jelly". Lines were solid.
The EX1 had a lot of issues out of the gate. Since then there has been several firmware updates. Also, certain settings can cause problems.
That said- There could just be some bad EX1's out there.

I have owned all three cameras. I currently use the EX1 and even if I still had the other two I would always reach for the EX on the big $$ gigs.
I was able to dial in a "HVX" saturated look on the EX. It looks fantastic.
The only characteristic I'll give to Panasonic is the 24p motion. The others have an odd stutter. (to my eye)
I shoot 30p with Sony and it's smooth- so that's what I do.
 
Last edited:
Blackout said:
.... I really don't see any of the features of the H1 being worth the increased price over the A1.
Click to expand...
No offense taken. I absolutely agree with your statement though. There is no justification in such a wide price gap between the A1 and the H1. Nice review by the way.
 
By the way the issue with the HVX is not the codec (from what I understand it's a very good codec) but it's the lower resolution 960x540 imagery (IMO). That is basically barely above standard definition. And then it uses Pixel Shift technology to increase the image size. That's where the image softness is coming from (which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing). That softness, along with everything else, is what is contributing to that "film look." These are just my opinions so....
 
Did you have the cameras all set close to each other, as far as image controls go?

I've seen a heightened moire effect with the EX1, noise around the edges of the image on the HVX200 (especially in 1080 mode), and a very clear but slightly video-ish look with the H1.

A few years back, we did a comparison of the Z1 in 50i/CF25 mode, the H1 in 24f mode and the HD100 in 24p mode. The settings were as close as possible (though the Z1 doesn't have as great of imaging options vs. the other two), and we realized the HD100 had the most filmic look to it. We had heard someone else did this test, and we wanted to see if the results were the same, and they were. The Z1 was nearly identical to the H1, but with a less "video" look.

We may set up the HVX, H1 and EX1 to see what happens. Thanks, Blackout.

If you are still looking at cameras and can't decide, trying renting one and seeing how it works out. It's so much cheaper to find the perfect camera that way, vs. buying a unit you're not happy with. Ask anyone out there who bought an old JVC HD10 vs. a DVX100!

David
 
Blackout, do you need to have the camera right away? If not, you may be able to find a compromise much like the one I have chosen. RED is coming out with the Scarlet in the Spring. We should have locked down specs in early November, but it will be a 2nd generation CMOS camera design so rolling shutter issues ought to be much better than the EX1, and it is supposed to do 3K resolution up to 120 frames per second.

The specs are about to change, but it was initially 3K for $3K. The price is right, the resolution is right, and the variable frame-rates are right, it records in RAW so you will have the ultimate flexibility with color, and it will be available in the Spring.

So personally, I opted to get a "get by" camera right now. I purchased a HMC150 to do weddings and coporate events and concerts for now, and will sell it in the Spring for the new Scarlet camera. Maybe you could do something like that with the XH-A1???
 
I think your kinda right on getting a "get you by" camera.
For me.... I was gonna get 2 EX3's.... Than I thought Just one EX3.... Than thought 1 EX1 or 1 Pana 170 to hold me over till there is a camera I like.

Truth is, in the next 24 months there will be more choices than the Red Scarlet.

frisco


TheMusician said:
Blackout, do you need to have the camera right away? If not, you may be able to find a compromise much like the one I have chosen. RED is coming out with the Scarlet in the Spring. We should have locked down specs in early November, but it will be a 2nd generation CMOS camera design so rolling shutter issues ought to be much better than the EX1, and it is supposed to do 3K resolution up to 120 frames per second.

The specs are about to change, but it was initially 3K for $3K. The price is right, the resolution is right, and the variable frame-rates are right, it records in RAW so you will have the ultimate flexibility with color, and it will be available in the Spring.

So personally, I opted to get a "get by" camera right now. I purchased a HMC150 to do weddings and coporate events and concerts for now, and will sell it in the Spring for the new Scarlet camera. Maybe you could do something like that with the XH-A1???
Click to expand...
 
Ahhh... I wonder if shooting 24p makes a diff, because with my EX1 I only shoot 30p and I haven't noticed any skewing and I'm pretty rough with it. I don't "freeze" the frames though, I just watch the footage. I figure Long GOP won't freeze with motion as well as intra-frame, but since the footage is watched fluidly, that's just how I watch it too. I have paused on motion shots though and have not noticed any skewing, but the image is obviously not sharp because the camera is in motion. But that happens with my still camera too. Anyway, I'm not trying to make a defense of the EX1 by any means, I was just curious because I wasn't seeing the same issues.
 
hey blackout,wait to you watch the a1 footage on a 15ft with the sgpro and a good lens on it on it.
 
Buck Forester said:
Ahhh... I wonder if shooting 24p makes a diff, because with my EX1 I only shoot 30p and I haven't noticed any skewing and I'm pretty rough with it. I don't "freeze" the frames though, I just watch the footage. I figure Long GOP won't freeze with motion as well as intra-frame, but since the footage is watched fluidly, that's just how I watch it too. I have paused on motion shots though and have not noticed any skewing, but the image is obviously not sharp because the camera is in motion. But that happens with my still camera too. Anyway, I'm not trying to make a defense of the EX1 by any means, I was just curious because I wasn't seeing the same issues.
Click to expand...

If you stand straight and look straight and rotate your whole body slowly, you can still see the surrounding image quite clearly. When your rotating speed (panning) increases, the image have more and more motion blur until you can't figure out what it is. This is the same for video camera. When you pan too quickly, the footage is useless be it CCD or CMOS. Come to think or it, will SONY be stupid to roll out EX1 and EX3 if the cameras is only useable for still shooting and not panning? I don't think so.
 
Jimmy Moss said:
I own both the XH-A1 and HVX200a and yes, the A1 is noticably sharper than the HVX. Too bad it dosent have the variable frame rates and DVCPRO HD. Then again the pixel count/rez is built into the codec. HDV 1440x1080 and DVC PRO 1280x1080.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the hvx's imager isn't 1280x1080, if it did it would be noticably sharper, that to me is what they should have done when they put the new imager in the 170, that would have been awesome.

Remember the texas shootout? The hvx's imager is 960x540 and then it upresses to 1280x1080, like how the the z1u's imager is 960x1080, instead of 1440x1080. These cames should try to have a native res at the ceiling of their codec. The A1 does it and the EX1 does it, panny should have done it and no one would be complaining about softness.

The best overall option (other than slo-mo) is probably a canon g1 and going to prores 422. But I've actually got slo-mo on the a1 down to a science anyway, shoot 60i, shutter at 250, I made a compressor preset to convert it to 60p prores, and then use cinematools to conform to 24p. It actually doesn't take more than a few minutes at most.

I'm gonna put up a test of that soon.
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
No offense taken. I absolutely agree with your statement though. There is no justification in such a wide price gap between the A1 and the H1. Nice review by the way.
Click to expand...

Yeah it made so sense but now canon has the hl-h1a at like 6gs.
 
ecking said:
Yeah but the hvx's imager isn't 1280x1080, if it did it would be noticably sharper, that to me is what they should have done when they put the new imager in the 170, that would have been awesome.

Remember the texas shootout? The hvx's imager is 960x540 and then it upresses to 1280x1080, like how the the z1u's imager is 960x1080, instead of 1440x1080. These cames should try to have a native res at the ceiling of their codec. The A1 does it and the EX1 does it, panny should have done it and no one would be complaining about softness.

The best overall option (other than slo-mo) is probably a canon g1 and going to prores 422. But I've actually got slo-mo on the a1 down to a science anyway, shoot 60i, shutter at 250, I made a compressor preset to convert it to 60p prores, and then use cinematools to conform to 24p. It actually doesn't take more than a few minutes at most.

I'm gonna put up a test of that soon.
Click to expand...

I agree. When I was doing my initial research on the HVX200a, I had heard it had a new imaging block with 'higher resolution' chips - and this was even in some of Panasonic's literature - yet it now seems to have been removed. Still, I was told again and again that 'resolution doesn't matter' it's the codec it's the codec ect by the panasonic lovers, and that the green pixel spatial offset doubles the effective resolution.

You can go over these things theoretically all you want but nothing really matters until you see the real images yourself displayed the way you are planning to display them. I am not planning to get a camera to just do cute little web videos that look like film in a 6 inch window on a website - I need it to hold up on a 15 foot or wider and on a film transfer and sadly the HVX200a in my opinion doesn't cut it - it needs some more resolution pure and simple and it would dominate. 960 x 540 in theory would be doubled by the green offset and be 1920 x 1080 - perfect HD resolution, but in the real world green offset only increases resolution by about 25% or maybe 30% under the most ideal of circumstances.

Again, it's all just talk until you see the images and while the Panny looks really fine on a smaller screen, I want to capture more detail. I do not believe that a soft image is part of the 'film look' I think that's "I need to make myself feel better" talk. Movies shot on film have razor sharp focus with the modern stocks that are used today - and making the image soft as an artistic choice should be just that - a choice, not a must.

I am leaning more towards the A1 now with a letus extreme and a nikon lense. Maybe I should just sit and wait. Or I will buy and A1 and then sell it because it doesn't pay to rent it. I really want a next generation HVX or HPX that meets the resolution of the other cameras. Anyone know if anything like this is in the works?

As to my EX1 experiences that some people say they can't duplicate - I am extremely sensitive to that sort of stuff and some people probably just don't notice it. What I did not like the most was that on some shots I could clearly see different parts of the picture updated slightly later or behind others - which made the progressive image look non progressive and like it's scan lines were out of synch. It may have been as slight as a 5 pixel difference per line but it drove me bonkers. The camera was new out of the box so I would find it strange that the firmware was old but I wouldn't count it out as a possibility.
 
Based upon what has recently hit the market, I would not hold your breath for any new Sony or Panasonic cameras. Scarlet may actually be a reality someday, but nobody even knows what it is going to be now, much less when you will actually be able to buy one.

DSLRs have become a destabilizing force on the market and I am sure that their release has resulted in an abrupt change of plans in more than one corporate boardroom. Things are changing for the better but I am not sure when exactly we will see what most of us want, a RED level camera with a large chip with no rolling shutter artifacts and changeable lenses for $7,000.00.

For me, I just purchased an HPX-170. For my markets and clients, its resolution is enough, although I agree with you, for large screen projection, it may be lacking in pure resolution. For your needs, it sounds as if you may need to consider a larger, much more expensive camera like the HPX-3700 honestly. You will not get away from the troublesome XDCAM EX codec and chipset even with the more expensive EX-3. The HPX-500 is not really any sharper than the HPX-170. If higher native resolution is a primary requirement, I would consider the HPX-3700, it is a true native 1080 chipset and with a great lens, will make outstanding pictures for the big screen.

Dan
 
Yes I have taken a nice drooling look at the hpx3700. Now where's that winning lottery ticket of mine so I can pay for it?

Anyone got a hammer, saw, and nails? I'm gonna jerry rig the 3700 chips into a HVX body.
 
i used to own a A1 for 2 years before the HVX and now the HPX. A lot of people were saying that it was possible to obtain the HVX colors on the A1 with proper settings. It's just impossible. I've tried many many different settings but, let's be realistic, HDV is not DVCPRO. It was obvious as soon as I started to play with my HVX. A1 looks A1, HVX looks HVX. The main differences i noticed is that you can make good footages with the A1 almost every time. HVX can give ugly/uninteresting results sometimes BUT when you know the camera and you have the good conditions to shoot it's just incredible. It's less sharp than the A1 but not that much.
 
Yes I do agree the colors look better on the HVX. The A1 has that same kind of want to go towards this weird blue/grey spectrum that tends to look more videoish than the HVX - but with some tweaking it was better. The motion characteristics of the 24p are also definitely better on the HVX - there is something in the 24f mode that makes it look slightly like there is some sort of high speed shutter on even when there is not. This is all my opinion of course from playing with both cameras for only a few hours.
 
puredrifting said:
For me, I just purchased an HPX-170. For my markets and clients, its resolution is enough, although I agree with you, for large screen projection, it may be lacking in pure resolution. For your needs, it sounds as if you may need to consider a larger, much more expensive camera like the HPX-3700 honestly. You will not get away from the troublesome XDCAM EX codec and chipset even with the more expensive EX-3. The HPX-500 is not really any sharper than the HPX-170. If higher native resolution is a primary requirement, I would consider the HPX-3700, it is a true native 1080 chipset and with a great lens, will make outstanding pictures for the big screen.

Dan
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you're lucky enough to get an actual film transfer something as small as a 15ft screen would be the least of your worries. Might as well start with something that's made for such things: a better camera.

Most people won't even see a 6ft screen, which makes all of these cameras winners for the most part.

I've seen old HVX200 footage + Redrock Micro a while back projected at the Kodak and it was fantastic. I'd love to see 170 + Letus Ultimate or RRM2.5 today.
 
I will be showing finished short film projections on a very large standard movie screen in combination with a live action stage show. The projection system is a very high end 2K resolution projector with incredible brightness and clarity so yes, I want the best image I can get. I have played some blu-rays off of it and it looked like I was playing a film print. It has a pretty amazing upscaler though even standard def and the DVX100 looked decent on it but I want better than decent:

Marty%20Scene.jpg


Theater%20From%20Back%20Small.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yep i think thats a great test you did there Blackout, interesting results!

I gotta say though, i find the conclusion you draw for requring more res for the cinema screen a wee bit amusing. Why oh why would anyone get a prosumer cam at all if there seriously contemplating a film out?

While so many films are shot on so many formats that res is just not an issue to me (but thats subjective and its totally cool that for others it is - it can also change from project to project!) But hehe, if res and cinema screens are so important your looking at a bigger cam anyway ;)
 
I am getting a prosumer cam because I don't have 30 to 50 grand laying around just yet to get a higher level one and I think the prosumer cams can do it. I want to make it clear that the HVX200a did not look bad at all, just somewhat soft, and I would have liked some more detail. I really think the next level of this camera will be 'it' if they use improved resolution chips because everything else is great. I want native 1920 x 1080 and I think everyone wants that.
True, most people are not going to be playing their productions on a big screen but a lot of indie film makers will get played on big screens in the festival circuit so of course some extra resolution helps there. Native HD projectors are also drastically coming down in price and once you have one of those in your home you won't want to go back to small plasma screens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top