HL H1 vs HVX comparisons? Hellp!

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kgg

Active member
I like the HVX for film look--but prefer the HLH1 for res.

Can the look for the HlH1 be altered to look more film like?

And if you need a 35mm adaptor for both cams--what comes out on top in terms of res?

How do both compare for film outs vs HD tv display?

Can one recommend some shoot out comparisons?

Help.
:crybaby:
 
kgg said:
I like the HVX for film look--but prefer the HLH1 for res...Can one recommend some shoot out comparisons?

Help.
:crybaby:
Click to expand...

The latest DV magazine has some pretty good reviews of both cameras from Adam Wilt.

My take: HVX for variable frame rates, built-in wide angle, and in-camera cinegamma. H1 for resolution, tweakability, low light, lens options and SDI.

It's a tough choice.
 
Last edited:
It is a tough choice.

The HVX has multiple framerates, better cine-gamma, better colors, more color resolution, and pure frames without motion artificats. P2 is a blessing or a curse depending on how you look at it but I like it.

I actually am quite impressed with XLH1 however. It certainly wins in the resolution category (with real extra resolution instead of edge enhancment like the HD100). I also think the colors, while not as good as the HVX's, are quite nice and better than the HD100's. The changible lenses aren't really an issue for me since I can't afford them same with SDI. Honestly I'd really have a hard time chosing if it wasn't for 24f. The idea of a.)interpolating the image and losing much of the resolution (the key selling point of the camera) b.)not having it be compatible with any decks meaning I'll have to use my camera as a deck thus risking destroying the head and turning it into a 9k paperwieght, and c.)the fact that 24f isn't supported by many editing systems is just too much of a workflow headache for me to imagine.

Based on the image quality it would be a very hard choice but 24f makes it easy for me to pick the HVX.

It's a shame though that someone can't just make a camera that combines the strength for the same price. And HVX200 with sharper chips and perhaps removible lenses (for those that can afford that) or an XLH1 with better cine-gamma, 4:2:2 color sampling, multiple frame rates, and no 24f.
 
Most of the NLEs available have announced at NAB that they will be supporting 24f so this is just a temporary issue.
 
Drat. This is why i was looking outside those to the SDX or a varicam. Hoping to find one clear winner--and yet then people say that those are SD while these two are HD. I hear good arguments for all of them. Ahhh!!!
 
David,

We just want it all, don't we?!

There are great arguments for either camera, but let me say this: with SDI as an option, I don't think of the H1 as HDV only--and with a Firestore the deck thing becomes a non-issue. Yes, of course HDV will be the common recording format, and with the Canon I think it's terrific, but if and when extra color resolution or total avoidance of the so-called "HDV artifacts" is an absolute must...SDI is tough to beat. And I mean this in the sense that we're talking about using the camera in a filmmaking capacity that isn't just run-and-gun doc style. I'm talking a production with the requisite "video village" etc. Is it really that cumbersome to add a NLE SDI capture station or an SDI HD deck/Wafian to the mix in production when other things are tethered too?

The other item is that HDV 24F is a subjective thing. To my eyes, when shot well it looks like legit 1080 24p--a lot like HDCAM Cinealta.

Just my impression, but I would say that if 24F looked so low res and interpolated as you describe it, there just wouldn't be much to talk about because most everyone on these boards considers 24p a necessity. If it looked so lossy it would be like talking about Cineframe 24 on the FX1. It sucks so nobody talks about it.

24F looks fantastic to me--every bit as progessive and filmic as I could want, but with the added bonus of higher resolution, interpolated or not.

I've said this before but I think all of the cameras are embarrassingly good. It's just a matter of what particular strengths appeal the most to you and what tradeoffs you can comfortably live with.
 
Last edited:
The xlh1 is a killer machine and it really makes HDV codec sing.

But personally, i think the HVX with DVCpro is more attarctive to me. I just love 4:2:2 color clarity.

My personal feeling is, HDV is what MicroMV was trying to do , MPEG2 stream recorded to Tiny tiny tapes. Thats a distribution format, not an aquisiton medium.

I would love HDV coded DVD's though..... that would probably look badass. Unfortunatly we would need 27 GIG DVD's to hold 2 hours of HDV.
 
TimurCivan,

That's the funny thing about HDV. At first blush it would seem to be a distribution-only format, but the MPEG2 encoders have evolved so well that it just isn't that simple.

I think of Canon XL H1 HDV as an acquisiton only format. My workflow is to work in an intermediate codec, and upon the final grading stages, bump to 10 bit uncompressed and push the image as much as you want. Then encode h.264 for distribution. No MPEG2 editing whatsoever.

You need huge hard disk space to do this but until Cineform arrives on the Mac it's the best way to preserve image quality most of the way through the chain.
 
I think we all want it all Elton. I think what attracted so many of us to RED was the idea it would be the end all be all camera for our price range (didn't happen but we can dream right?)

As for SDI out, it may well be a great thing but like the interchangible lenses it's not something I can afford.

The Firestore is also kind of in that category since, with the Canon already costing 3k more than the HVX200 or HD100, it's kind of hard to justify paying another grand for a decent firestore.

Finally, as for 24f, I'm basing it simply on what I've heard from hearing it operate. If you'd like to post some quick comparison clips showing the resolution difference between 24f and 60p, I'd love to see them.

And yeah, all these cameras are amazing.
 
Elton said:
TimurCivan,

That's the funny thing about HDV. At first blush it would seem to be a distribution-only format, but the MPEG2 encoders have evolved so well that it just isn't that simple.

I think of Canon XL H1 HDV as an acquisiton only format. My workflow is to work in an intermediate codec, and upon the final grading stages, bump to 10 bit uncompressed and push the image as much as you want. Then encode h.264 for distribution. No MPEG2 editing whatsoever.

You need huge hard disk space to do this but until Cineform arrives on the Mac it's the best way to preserve image quality most of the way through the chain.
Click to expand...

That sounds great, not having to deal with constant decoding.
Y
ok, but what do you do in the rare case where the HDV codec falls apart. and your CCing? like they examples barry provided where a sudden firework, or flash of light left a few frames a total mess. IT becomes a Macroblocked image. How can you get around that? and i know most people say, its like Red in DV, you jsut work around it, but the pixelated red, does not show up on a TV set, in HD you bet your butt macroblocked sections will show up blaringly.

i dunno. i suppose you would have ot see it moving. perhaps the 2-3 frames just passes so quicly you dont notice.

BTW, i am pretty sure, 24F looks really good........ its just cineframe 30, but the XLH1 suddenly runs at 48htz, and so the 30, becomes a 24. Cineframe 30 looks pretty good imsure the 24 looks good also. and who knows maybe with less image data to deal with it makes the HDV codec more efficient.
 
Last edited:
I really think CC is the biggest problem with 4:2:0 colorspace. If you can perhaps get just the right look you want out of the camera then you'll be ok but the image really tends to break up in my experience when you start to mess with it. Of course, I'm not using something as expesive as Davinci 2k but if I could afford that, I'd probably just rent a Varicam or Cinealta.
 
If I could rent a Sony HDW F900 in Vancouver Canada(with a DP to go with it) I would go that route for sure. What a cam! But the HLH1 held up well in the comparison tests i saw at dv.com (which I got off the dvinfonet board).
 
i can tell that 25f looks exactly like 25p. this is no simple deinterlacing. if i do a playout at 25p, i get true 25p with no artifacts. motion seems to be true 25p.
and i think that the h1 has a far more filmic look than the hvx. i waited a long year for the hvx and looked at every footage available. i came to the conclusion, that every footage from the hvx looked like soap operas, very videoish, even if everyone screamed:"amazing, this looks film like". everything i saw from the canon looked filmic to me and so i bought one, and i don`t regret it, because i have impressed one of germany`s top feature film producers with a piece shot with the h1.
sdi may not be an issue for some right now, but it is future proof. you arn`t limited to only one codec like dvc pro hd and you can get uncompressed material, if you need it.
the variable framerates are really nice, but 720p is a dead end. in the near future, everything will be at least 1080. 720 is and allways will be "middle definition" (thats wy the hd100 didn`t made it for me).
shooting with p2 sounds good, but the workflow seems adventerous to me. in my opinion it`s not that much easier than shooting hd sdi with the canon right now. i know it`s like shooting film, but a film roll gets put in a can within a minute and you don`t have to worry about immediate storage. this will get better in the future but it`s also risky, because there is no safety to say that the format p2 will survive.
i won`t start talking about firestore (or what so ever) hdd recording. everyone who trusts a hdd has guts like hell, or not that important material.

to sum up the pros of each of the two cams:

hvx:
-variable frame rates (720p useless in lets say 2-4 years)
-p2 (will shine in the future, or may not / direct editing: nonsense! if you have to offload the cards every 4-20 minutes, it`s equaly time consuming)
-dvc pro hd (pretty cool now, lame in the near future)
-good audio codec

xl h1:
-hd sdi (will secure future proofness for a long time)
-resolution (sharp as hell)
-interch. lens (i don`t need it now, but gives me a good feeling of future proofness)
-good design (not truely professional, but far better than the consumer look of the hvx)

i really wanted the hvx to shine, but it became clear to me, that the canon will be the best investment for the future. oh and if i buy a hd camera, i want to get high resolution and not tuned sd or at best "middle definition" (disapointed with panasonic). i know: "the colors and the codec", but if i want, i can have this as well and better. and hell yeah, it`s pretty cool to shoot for hours on a low cost tape, without thinking about someone running around, waiting to offload a card.

this was my approach on which cam to choose, it wasn`t easy. i hope that i don`t hurt ones feelings, but this is my opinion and i may talk alot of nonsense.

hope i could help!

bye bye
MAS
 
TimurCivan said:
but what do you do in the rare case where the HDV codec falls apart. and your CCing? like they examples barry provided where a sudden firework, or flash of light left a few frames a total mess.
Click to expand...

Canon's HDV codec can handle lots of things thrown at it, and even explosions if given a little preparation. I've shot lots of stuff with sudden overexposures and the H1 handled it well. If you do get larger macroblocks, there are ways to minimize them, but I've never had giant macroblocks on any footage. And if I was in a situation where I absolutely had to avoid the possibility of codec breakdown, I'd just tap the SDI.

The issue of color correction: I've found H1 HDV CC's extremely well, but I certainly don't do it in 4:2:0 HDV timelines. I use PhotoJPEG as an intermediate, and do final timeline renders either in PhotoJPEG or 10bit uncompressed, and then encode h.264 from there. Quality is virtually identical to the original footage, but with the benefit of CC tweaks and filtering.

...and who knows maybe with less image data to deal with it makes the HDV codec more efficient.
Click to expand...

24F is very efficient because it's progressive encoding, written to tape using only the bandwidth needed for 24fps.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top