HVX and Canon

M

meddesigner

Active member
Hi -

Any thoughts on this Canon HD1 workflow:

For field shoots:
1. Shoot to HDV
2. Play HD-SDI out to HD-SDI in on Aja Kona LH card
3. Take the audio out of the camera and into Aja's Analog inputs
4. Create new DVC-PRO HD file or HD-CAM file
5. Edit and deliver

Questions:
1. My big problem here is with sync. I was rather disappointed to find out today from the Canon rep at Macworld that the HD-SDI output does not have audio embedded. The solution could be to record audio to an external recorder and take the time code out of the camera to the time code in on this recorder and then just sync up the files to time code.

More work but with the higher quality glass in the lens the 1080i images could look great - especially if one shot in a studio and recorded the video directly out of the HD-SDI out which appears to be right after the sensor but before any compression is applied.


The big problem I see here is how audio is handled. Nothing really seems to be a good solution. I like the fact that you can shoot shoulder mount and felt the camera had a good stability to it.

Any thoughts about this? I think the HVX still has to be a contender because of the above limitations. It just seem all the pieces of the puzzle will not be ready to March or April. But something also tells me I should look at the HD1 closely because of the material we produce and "potential" quality of the video although I have not seen any and Canon had none to show.

Is there any?
:undecided
 
If you're shooting to HDV, why bother with the whole HD-SDI workflow? Once you've shot to tape, firewire transfer is the best quality you're going to get.
 
Barry's right about skipping SDI...if you're only shooting to HDV tape.

If, like me, you have a Kona...well, that presents a whole lot of options, depending on whether you want to be tethered.

If you are shooting run and gun, simple setups, don't even consider anything but HDV. BUT! If, say, you're shooting a feature with a reasonably sized crew, and you want to monitor you're shots in a "video village", as many productions do, well SDI is very interesting. If you go this route you can record HDV while also recording into an SDI enabled computer or deck. You can acquire in a higher quality (debatable) codec than HDV, but also have the safety of a backup tape format.

Honestly, you should consider the H1 a very high quality camera head, with all sorts of flexibility in various depts. It's a modular camera, and it's EXTREMELY HIGH RESOLUTION. As far as the lack of embedded audio and timecode...you should consider it a dual system film type shoot...although the audio in the H1 is actually pretty good. For dialog, it's probably just fine. Most who have seen HVX and H1 footage can tell that the H1 is the rez king...but there are all sorts of factors to consider between the two cameras.

I would wait for more HVX and H1 material to surface in cyberspace, and consider renting both of them for a day or two.
 
Some of it is run and gun - like down in our emergency department the rest is a variety of material - medical education which needs to be high res of some flavor and a variety of other stuff.

If you have seen Trauma Life in the ER (4 episodes shot in our er) and Resident Life ( shot in our ED and medical center) then you get an idea of some of the types of things we will want to produce - only in HD.

My big gripe with HDV is the audio. I can almost live with intraframe compresssion on the video but the audio is another story.

I plan to buy a Kona LH and some form of RAID in the next few months. There are things I like about the Canon. If one is in our studio shooting interviews then I could go HD-SDI right into the Kona LH and record that signal as DVC Pro HD. It has not been compressed yet. The audio is the big question here.

But I think the Canon would work better in the ED itself. The viewfinder everyone complains about did not bother me on the HD1. Have you had issues?
 
meddesigner said:
My big gripe with HDV is the audio. I can almost live with intraframe compresssion on the video but the audio is another story.

I plan to buy a Kona LH and some form of RAID in the next few months. There are things I like about the Canon. If one is in our studio shooting interviews then I could go HD-SDI right into the Kona LH and record that signal as DVC Pro HD. It has not been compressed yet. The audio is the big question here.

But I think the Canon would work better in the ED itself. The viewfinder everyone complains about did not bother me on the HD1. Have you had issues?
Click to expand...
Audio: Pipe uncompressed XLR directly into Kona or HD deck, or consider the new Tascam HD-P2 (yes, it's called that) Compact Flash w/Timecode field recorder and go dual system. Honestly, I think the audio is quite good...but if you have to do a whole lot of noise reduction in post, well, it might not hold up quite as well as uncompressed, but if the background noise is so severe, you will hear artifacts from the post processing anyway.

It seems like the scenarios you're talking about, the H1 is ideal. You wouldn't want to swap P2's in the middle of stressful situations.

The H1's compression is very clean. I have a sunset shot I piped SDI into my computer(shot out my backyard) and converted to DVCPROHD . It's regular 1080i, but there is a native DVCPROHD clip and a m2t of the same scene. The m2t is a longer pan, but it will give you a good impression of both codecs.

The viewfinder and the (relatively)sluggish servo zoom are the only things of slight distaste for me. You simply can't do any whip zooms with the lens. Not a biggie, but it can be a fun gimmick depending on the content. I want to look at the monochrome FU-1000 on this puppy to see if it helps with eyeball focusing, but I can live without it. Peaking assist in b/w mode is where I think things become comfortable with the default setup. But I love that I have options! Same with the lens. I am yearning for the 16x manual. It will probably be my next purchase.

www.homepage.mac.com/mrbarlowelton
 
Elton -

Thanks for the link. I am at MacWorld and will be back to my "big-honkin-machine" in the next few days. Your solution sounds like it might be a good one. A few questions:

When you ingest the video would you chase locks the incoming SMPTE timecode from the Canon and have it output the audio over S-PDIF to the Kona LH and while the video would be on the HD-SDI in's?

By choosing this road you could capture very high quality audio and video. Since the video is before the compression of HDV one could choose DVCPRO-HD or HD-CAM or whatever. For the material that is shot in the field you will have the HDV codec already applied but transfering it to a new format should not be that big a deal. I have seen a bunch of footage like this at MWSF.

Now the downside is 1080i only and the audio production workflow that would be required. If the HD1 is not 20% better than the HVX as to pure image quality then the trouble may not be worth it. But the lens appears to be a good deal better so that has to account for something. Plus the HD1 is goin to be much better for handheld shots.

So with all the stuff I am looking at buying camera, Aja stuff, hardrives, new tri-pod, the Tascam if needed, this new 1700W Panasonic monitor with all the inputs (but I am considering a cinema display with the aja converter box) will be 20k -25k.

Sometimes I feel the time is not right as it seems the things we want are just not out there yet. But it something I think my department wants to do.
 
As far as I've seen, the H1 is definitely not 20% better in image quality in comparison to the HVX.

The H1's 20x, a good deal better? I dunno about that, from the short time I played with the H1, I noticed it was a pain to focus. In auto mode it's a nice lens, but in manual, no way. Not to mention the chromatic abberation and cold tones.

You can also do analog uncompressed out on an HVX via the component channel. All you have to do is get the Aja component to hd-sdi converter.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...s&Q=&sku=259904&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

With the HVX you'll already get uncompressed audio so that's a definite plus. I honestly just don't see the benefit to the H1 and uncompressed out yet. The cost just doesn't justify the means.
 
It does if you have an existing HD-SDI workflow, but after seeing the comparisons I truly don't believe the HD-SDI is giving any better image than DVC-Pro HD over firewire.
They are both pure digital signals, and it seems that the Canon's interlaced chip is the only thing giving it the slight sharpness bumb.
 
meddesigner said:
Now the downside is 1080i only and the audio production workflow that would be required. If the HD1 is not 20% better than the HVX as to pure image quality then the trouble may not be worth it. But the lens appears to be a good deal better so that has to account for something. Plus the HD1 is goin to be much better for handheld shots.
Click to expand...

It's NOT 1080i only, (24F) and it's definitely better (by itself) for handheld shots. You know, this image quality thing is so ridiculously subjective. 20%? That's just a number, and a vague one at that. I think it's at least 20% sharper and defined in 1080i and maybe even P. (24F mode) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I like the flexibility and flat out hi-def (in 1080) this camera puts out. If you like 720p and all the selectable frame rates (I'm a big fan of 720 60p) than the HVX is your cam...but it doesn't sound like you're getting it to make indie movies. It seems that you have a very specific, scientific use for the technology. If resolution and signal flexibility (built-in...adapters are kind of a PITA) are critical, than you should strongly consider the H1. I've seen A LOT of HD, and I feel like the H1 comes the closest to the HDCAM level of resolution and quality.

If you're strongly considering the HVX, don't even think about it until there are hard drive solutions. Do you want to be swapping a card after rolling a small amount of footage? If you have 2 8GB P2 cards, you will get roughly 16 minutes of 1080i HVX footage, and to top that, it makes it a roughly $10K camera...so there goes the price argument. I have my suspicions that HVX 1080i is merely an uprez from an undersampled CCD. Download some of Kaku's HVX footage and see for yourself.

You need to hear the HDV audio before you dismiss it. You can always work in a different format in post, but I doubt you'd run into any problems with the audio unless you're producing a live music performance, or something. With the Kona, you can just pipe XLR audio separatley from the SDI video feed, and get sparkling quality, but if you roll HDV tape simultaneously and then compare both tracks in post, you would have to have incredibly golden ears to hear the difference.

An intangible that is worth considering is the look of the camera. People tend to believe what you are doing is more serious with a bigger camera. It's obviously dumb, but I happen to need a professional looking camera, and at the end of the day, the HVX is still a handycam. The most professional one yet, but still has that look.

My keyword I keep coming back to with the H1 is MODULAR. It's a very flexible camera...and at the end of the day, my footage is already archived.
 
Mr. Blonde said:
As far as I've seen, the H1 is definitely not 20% better in image quality in comparison to the HVX.

The H1's 20x, a good deal better? I dunno about that, from the short time I played with the H1, I noticed it was a pain to focus. In auto mode it's a nice lens, but in manual, no way. Not to mention the chromatic abberation and cold tones.
Click to expand...
Again, image quality is a vague thing. So many facets...but chromatic abberation and cold tones? Please, the HVX has some issues too. Cold tones? COLD TONES?!! Sheesh, you can dial-in the look...but a lot of people just like the instant gratification of the HVX...I can't blame them...but it's weak. Anyone ever heard of grading in post?

If you really think you're indie is going to film, you'd want you're image to be acquired as flat as possible anyways. Nobody seems to get this...all they can talk about are the lovely cine-gammas.

Mr. Blonde said:
You can also do analog uncompressed out on an HVX via the component channel. All you have to do is get the Aja component to hd-sdi converter.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's just one more thing to dangle. I believe you can get a better DVCPROHD 1080 out of the H1. The HVX is really a Varicam lite...which is undeniably wonderful, but has a different appeal.

Mr. Blonde said:
With the HVX you'll already get uncompressed audio so that's a definite plus. I honestly just don't see the benefit to the H1 and uncompressed out yet. The cost just doesn't justify the means.
Click to expand...
It's not just about uncompressed out. Mr. Blonde, if you really hate Canon, it's ok to say it. I really don't understand the beef towards them.

There's more under the sun than is dreamt of in Panny's philosophy. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

The H1 has different aims than the HVX, but they do overlap. The HVX caters to the indie filmmaking crowd almost exclusively, but it omits some important features. The H1 is a low cost entry into a good HD camera head, and a system that could work well for multi-cam shoots. If I'm not mistaken, THAT"S TV!!

Personally, I would love to own an HVX. I think it's actually the more fun camera, but I need to make a living with my kit...and that's a harder sell with the HVX.
 
Elton you say, "the instant gratification of the HVX...but it's weak...." ?
Please explain.....

I see nothing weak about the images produced by knowledgeable shooters with the HVX... i.e. Barry n Jarred's first footage. To this date, I haven't seen anything come close to the quality of the original HVX footage produced by an XL H1.

Also, you have to remember, all the footage that has been shown (besides Barry & Jarred's, the singer shots, and the slow-mo/green screen stuff) was shot by a less than knowledgeable shooter.

Heck even the footage shot by Nick Hiltgen of dvinfo using an XL H1 in 24f mode with a p+s mini35 and 85mm zeiss superspeeds wasn't anything to brag about, and that's a primo and quite costly H1 setup wouldn't you say?

Now you say that you believe you can get better dvcpro hd out of the H1, nobody wants to hear the "I believe" speech, show us some proof, you aparently have a Kona setup, let's see that money being well spent, show us something to admire.

You also say, as all Canon fan boys do when I criticize a Canon product a tad, that I really hate Canon. Dude I could care less about the brand. I'm not some sucker who sits there and loves a certain camera just become it says Panasonic or Canon on it. I'm looking for the product that will give me the most professional and high quality image possible and that just doesn't seem to be the Canon right now. You've got to be a fool to be brand biased, after all, it's the brands that are working for me, not vice versa.

You say that the HVX omits some important features, let me guess, detatchable lens and hd-sdi out will be your answer right?

I've never heard about what making your living entails? And a hard sell with an HVX, I couldn't think of a situation that this would be true. Everyone nowadays KNOWS that Panasonic brings the goods and trusts that it will produce a quality product.

You also say that looks matter, I don't think the Canon looks anymore professional than the HVX does. Pop a matte box and some barns and a Marshall on top and you've got a "professional" and impressive looking cam.
 
To put it simply, the cost doesn't justify the means when it comes to the XL H1.

For the cost an XL H1 alone, as an indie filmaker you can purchase:
HVX 200 with 2 4gb P2 cards
a
Marshall "7 onboard monitor
and a
Cinemek G35.

Now tell me that isn't going to be THE indie film maker setup.

Or as a doc or live event user you can purchase an HVX 200 and a 100gb Firestore for even less than an XL H1 alone.

Let's be serious here...
 
Mr. Blonde said:
Elton you say, "the instant gratification of the HVX...but it's weak...." ?
Please explain.....
Click to expand...
What I mean is the images are malleable in camera or in post. Everyone is so gung ho about cine-gammas, but don't talk much about grading. These cameras inherently have a different look, BUT SO WHAT! You can change that look with tasteful color correction...but you can't get back detail that was never there to begin with. It's all about getting a good image in acquisition, and then bending it to your will in post.

All I'm saying about the HVX...it's a fantastic mini-varicam, but it sure looks like an uprez in 1080, and I've worked with HDCAM so I know what that extra pop in detail looks like. That is NOT damning with faint praise. These cameras have different strengths. After having carefully evaluated what I could about both cams, I went with what I thought gave me a little more flexibility and a whole lot more resolution.


Mr. Blonde said:
Heck even the footage shot by Nick Hiltgen of dvinfo using an XL H1 in 24f mode with a p+s mini35 and 85mm zeiss superspeeds wasn't anything to brag about, and that's a primo and quite costly H1 setup wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
I have a minor theory about that one: The H1's CCD might be so dense that it could problematic for the mini-35 in that the glass grain may be harder to mask. Pffft...big deal. I actually like the gritty look and I admire Nick for not fence sitting and just going for it with a very good low cost tool.

Mr. Blonde said:
Now you say that you believe you can get better dvcpro hd out of the H1, nobody wants to hear the "I believe" speech, show us some proof, you aparently have a Kona setup, let's see that money being well spent, show us something to admire.
Click to expand...
Hey, I've been contributing some clips, humble as they may be. What've you got to show? Do you really think that I'm trying to PROVE something to you? I've merely offered another voice with experience related to the H1, and I criticize it where it's deserved.

Mr. Blonde said:
You've got to be a fool to be brand biased, after all, it's the brands that are working for me, not vice versa.
Click to expand...
Totally agreed. I own the DVX. It's a great cam, but like a lot of folks here, I've been waiting to see how the "affordable" hd cameras stacked up before I bit on anything.
I wasn't as wowed by the HVX image as I was by the H1, but to each his own.


Mr. Blonde said:
You say that the HVX omits some important features, let me guess, detatchable lens and hd-sdi out will be your answer right?
Click to expand...
Well, yes, the lens is an important start. You asked in a previous thread why I chose the H1...so let me restate:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde
Elton, I must ask, if you see the HVX winning in so many aspects, why'd you purchase the H1 instead then?


1) I **WORK** in video production, so P2 and the smaller form factor are hindrances.

2) Everything in color is adressable with the H1.

3) The jackpack is a big plus

4) Killer resolution

5) Low light performance

6) 24F is plenty good

7) Interchangeable lens

8) Telephoto applications

9) Killer resolution

10) Looks. Say what you will, but most paying clients will think it's reasonably professional looking, whereas they would scratch their heads and eyes would glaze over when you attempt to explain the superiority of frame-discrete DVCPRO HD and variable frame rates, and the joys of tapeless acquisition. They'll just think P2 is a PITA and that the HVX is a funky, fat handycam...and will wonder what they're paying for. Fair or not.

11) The shoulder mount. The combination of the excellent optical stabilization and the shoulder rest mean I can have very steady hand-held shot for much longer periods of time. With the HVX you need one of those funky stabilizer doo dads.

12) My belief that it's a better engineered product. I also believe Canon doesn't have a virtual ceiling for it, whereas I have my suspicions over just HOW GOOD Panny really wants their little cam to be. I think the issues with the HVX (noise, disappointing rez) have origins that go beyond mere engineering challenges.

*Superstitious*

14) I can shoot gorgeous HD with a $4 tape...for an hour.

15) Did I mention killer resolution?


The only things I feel I'm missing out on with the HVX are the SELECTABLE (NOT VARIABLE!!) frame rates and 60p. I like the lucid look of 60p, but I think the H1 can be interpolated to this resolution and temporal quality fairly easily. Still, it would be nice to have my "reality" looking video to be progressive.

I also think HVX owners are going to overuse their creative options (under-overcrank) Some of these looks will quickly become cliche'. A lot like people went nuts with multiple fonts in documents. Remember, this is a democratized technology, and with that freedom amateursim can quickly follow.



Mr. Blonde said:
You also say that looks matter, I don't think the Canon looks anymore professional than the HVX does. Pop a matte box and some barns and a Marshall on top and you've got a "professional" and impressive looking cam.
Click to expand...

Pop the same stuff on the H1 and it still looks better. Look, I know it's a shallow thing, but to the average unsophisticated client, they know what a handycam looks like, and they know the H1 doesn't look like a glorified handycam. It's something else.
 
Personally, I see the Canon footage so far as being too sharp and I hate to say it but, video looking. Actually I take that back, it has a very hybrid video/film look to it. Not something I'd like to see in an idie film, then again that is my opinion but many do share my feelings on the topic. And so far, I can say that a much larger number of people are interested in the HVX vs the H1 so it's fair to say that it's an opinion with a majority of people behind it.

To me, the only advantage the H1 has over the HVX is its detatchable lens, allowing for a mini35 with a relay lens, meaning less light loss. But after seeing Nick's footage, especially considering the fact that it was shot with an uber nice lens, I could care less for that feature. I'm still thinking the factor that's hindering the H1/mini35 combo is hdv.

Your comment on the H1 looking better than the HVX with accesories is once again an opinion. Personally, I think the H1 isn't a great looking camera. And if you're getting customers who think that the quality of the image will be based on the look of the camera well, those would most likely be some non high paying clients if they made their decision based on that alone.

You seem to really be banking on the res factor of the H1. The XL2 was higher res than the DVX, but many prefered the DVX to the newer native 16x9 XL2 even with its higher "killer" res.
 
You know, it's a circular argument here. Less filling/tastes great...whatever. We're just voicing a refined taste, and that's cool.

I think the truth is they're both hybrid looking...and I will even say that the HVX is probably more filmic right out of the gate, but I just see the long term potential of the H1, even for indie films. Film seems to be the RDF word when discussing these cameras. I like the trade off of more detail, the jackpack, lenses, and even HDV (I'm not interested in P2 until it gets to at least 32GB) You like the instant film look, and all the frame rates. You don't like the H1's look--I do. No biggie. Again, I know looks are a stupid thing when it comes to the 1/3" chip cameras. Of course that has nothing to do with performance, but there are plenty of good paying clients that are completely ignorant of current camera technology. Size does matter sometimes.

Like a lot of folks here, I share a passion for DIY digital filmmaking. The HVX is aimed like a laser at them. The H1 is aiming to be a good entry level HD television camera too. It has flexibility for filmmaking, but it has other markets it's targeting.

Like I've said before, I think the HVX is THE fun filmmaking camera, but at the cost to make it truly useful for me, there are other considerations when laying out that much money.

I'm sure Sundance (which I'm attending this year) will be swamped with films from both cameras in a year or two.

From my perspective, these cameras are an embarrassment of riches. There are no more DV/NTSC fuzzy excuses. Now, you've REALLY gotta bring it as a filmmaker!
 
Well put Elton.

I was torn betwwen the HVX200,H1, and HD100.
They all are great tools.
I'm going with the HVX since it has many formats.

Steve
 
I'm shooting the HVX with two of the biggest ad agencies in the country this weekend, BBDO and DGWB. We'll see if they comment on the look of the camera or the footage.
 
evinsky said:
I'm shooting the HVX with two of the biggest ad agencies in the country this weekend, BBDO and DGWB. We'll see if they comment on the look of the camera or the footage.
Click to expand...

Very cool, Evinsky. I hope the shoot goes well.

Understand, I never said MOST every client would question the HVX. I only said there are a lot of ignorant producers that might wonder about the professionalism of the camera because of the form factor. I'm talking people used to Beta SP, DVCAM, etc...not necessarily nationally known ad agencys.

I take it they are expecting a dead-on film look, right? I'm sure the HVX in the right hands can pull that off easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top