HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with a lot of what's being said, but the assumption still seems to be that everyone would choose the HVX over the A1 if it were not for the restrictive workflow of P2... but because of P2, those who can stomach the workflow will go hvx and those who can't stomach the workflow will have to settle for the inferior tape solution.

I don't agree with this line of thought ... I'm not an owner of either cam, but from the samples in this article I vastly prefer the image produced by the A1. The images produced by defaults may favour the over-saturated HVX, but the A1 is startlingly more detailed, and the far better choice when it comes to grade. Who doesn't grade their footage anyway? If anything, I would think this "pleasing and saturated in-cam but fundamentally lower res" would appeal to the LESS experienced shooters ... the precise ones who would never touch P2.

Kris
www.thehold.co.uk
 
Iam hoping by this time next year this whole debate regarding tape vs P2 issue will have died away and we will have a "portable" method of capturing
uncompressed data and being able to compress it with a Sensible priced compression software "Cineform are you listening lol"

FAO Barry G

Darkeyes wrote "But was it not scottbillups who said that a canon xlh1 camera hooked up via sdi was indistingishble from a sony f900 when diplayed on the bigscreen?"

Barry G wrote "I don't know of any such quote by Scott Billups"

Your right Barry Thats not exactly what Scott billups said but i did manage to dig up the post that i was refering to.

Scott billups wrote "Test#2 Canon XL H1 with supplied 20X zoom lens & Sony F900 with 16X Canon lens. While not intended as a "shoot-out", this test, when projected took everyone in the theatre by surprise. The Canon XL H1 > SDI > Wafian compared to the F900 > HDCAM > SDI > Wafian was superior, not only to my eye, but to everyone present."

Here is the Link. http://www.cinematography.net/hdcamtests/pixelmonger.htm

Picture of XlH1 vs Viper http://www.cinematography.net/hdcamtests/pixelmonger/_CAR_1.jpg

test chart for f900 http://www.cinematography.net/hdcamtests/pixelmonger/F900_SDI_CineForm.jpg

test chart for XLH1 http://www.cinematography.net/hdcamtests/pixelmonger/XLH1_SDI_CineForm.jpg

Test Chart for Viper http://www.cinematography.net/hdcamtests/pixelmonger/Viper_SDI_D2D.jpg

So what are we saying here?
Bearing in mind that the a1 and the g1 uses the same ccd as its bigger brother, When it comes to the future. and everyone is moving towards Tapeless recording there are big advantages to be had. Granted I can not comment on how the images from a HVX 200 will look if you recorded uncompressed, because that information is not availble. however does it matter if you have P2?
As for the canon in combination with cineform Acording to scottbillups provies a better picture than an f900 recording to hdcam.

Do we need that kind of quality? For most of us no!
But for sum of us doing mabey more comercial projects where we need that kinda latitude it could be helpfull.

As for comparing a viper to a xlh1 ver cool, My monitor sucks so any one who can see those test charts clearly, how did the canon do against the viper?
 
There really isn't a world of difference between the viper and xh-h1 in that shot. The Viper is notably less noisy, which you'd expect, but the significance of this for a lot of uses is debatable. Viper demonstrates slightly more latitude (check shadows). Highlight handling is subtly better on the Viper .... also of course the viper will be putting down 10bits of data, which you'd only get the benefit of by comparing both images in a grading environment. Plus low-light would very quickly show up the H1's 1/3in limitations.

In this specific comparison, it's all just minor wins for the Viper (and it's lens), nothing to write home about ..... If anything, the victory is for independent film-makers who can quite clearly get 95%+ of the way there for an awful lot less money... It would have been interesting to see the H1's HDV shown side-by-side too.

Anyway, the differences are far smaller than an audience would ever notice (very high latitude scenes and specific DOF effects notwithstanding),. Post production latitude will be a factor, but far from insurmountable if it's shot and lit well.
 
Last edited:
I agree 100% with Epicdium. The average movie goer won't notice. Because there are so many HD cameras out there these days, and in the next decade there will be heaps of indie films shot on HD (HDV, HVX, etc) the hair spliting differences will not be noticed by most people. Especially as most of these films won't be four walled, but show at best on a 50" plasma TV. The HD indie look will be everywhere, and accepted by the masses. It's going to come down to skill and talent, as it should. Make a good movie with a good story and characters, and shoot it well, and you're in.
 
The Canon A1 is good as it is, we spend 23 pages on it.
BTW: I can make repeatable focus with it, 100%.

We will see Indie film and docs made with it, lets say if its high res and sharp, it is an A1...
 
Barry I'm sorry if I missed it but did you ever disclose the processing steps you used to capture the clips and make the stills? The reason I ask is it looks like the HVX200 stills have chroma smoothing but the XHA1 stills do not, possibly because of the decoders used?
 
snowleopard,

I also think that the 'excuses' are falling by the wayside ... ;) it is pretty clear that the biggest difference between how a low-budget film looks vs. a high budget film is down to the light and the grade... (notwithstanding art direction of course)... There are plenty of examples of skilled lighting and grading making DV/HD/HDV look "just like a hollywood film" (particularly in the eyes of the general audiences).. From the Viper vs. XH-H1 comparison it's clear that a H1 in the right hands would be perfectly capable of getting a world class result .. so for owners of these prosumer HD cams (H1/HVX/A1s), what's your excuse? ; ) The reasons why the H1/etc isn't used for med/high budget features are rather mundane- these people can afford better.. 10x the price for a bit better latitude, a bit better colour sampling, a bit lower noise, etc. is worth it, it is a small price to pay in the context of the overall budget (crew, talent, location, post) and ensuring a top quality result. Plus the dop will have preferences and standards. Good dops wages aren't falling as quickly as the price tag of cameras, so talented beginners will keep stepping up to the plate. Distribution channels are opening up, technology is better and cheaper than ever ,, indies failing to grasp these new opportunities will have nothing to blame but their own lack of drive and/or abilities :) Word processors are now on every PC, doesn't mean everyone has a great idea for a novel, nor the will to see one through completion... and writing doesn't have nearly the dependence on money or other people as film does!

Kris
www.thehold.co.uk
 
mvb said:
Barry I'm sorry if I missed it but did you ever disclose the processing steps you used to capture the clips and make the stills? The reason I ask is it looks like the HVX200 stills have chroma smoothing but the XHA1 stills do not, possibly because of the decoders used?
Click to expand...

Vegas 6.0, using Raylight for the HVX files. Imported the files directly into the timeline, set on best/full, exported as a still from the timeline. Brought into PhotoShop and resized to 1920x1080.
 
Greetings All,
The Newbie here would now like to break it down to the biggest question - "How much is this gonna cost me?"

I shoot and edit a lot of corporate/industrial video and a lot of commercials. Besides a few 48 hour film festival challenges, I've yet to really shoot anything but shorts - but hey, we all have that story to tell one day.

If I go HVX, I can get in for a little over 5k, then there's P2 card cost (and/or Firestore) adding another 3K (yes I'm aware of the free 8 gig p2 card 'til the end of March) with maybe even the portable p2 card drive (under 2k) to unload to a hard drive. The Good News - No other ingest machine needed! Everything stays 1s and 0s the whole time, and the Avid Xpress Pro HD just picks the DVCPRO HD right up - no digitizing. I've got darn-near uncompressed HD.

Now, the A1 - I was told this morning I could walk away with one today for $3658. My salesman SWEARS it blows the HVX away (he sells both - I actually bought my 100A from him) and wants me to come see for myself the footage they shot with both cameras. Tapes for under $5. Deck (cause I really don't want to put that much time on the camera playback heads) $1800. Avid Xpress Pro HD can handle it - but still digitizes real time, and takes longer to render.

As for chroma-key, is the general consensus with the A1 you'll need HD out of the camera straight to a HD-ready laptop to get a good key? (provided lighting is optimum)

Great article Barry, I appreciate EVERYONE'S discussion here. Thanks for the help, I hope to move on an HD camera this year.
 
Are there any real world side-by-side tests of the HVX vs the H1/A1 for chroma-keying? Has the 4:2:2 from a lower-res sensor vs 4:2:0 from a higher-res sensor really been tested in practise?
 
"My salesman SWEARS it blows the HVX away" - Uh, I'd love to see these tests, as I stand by my statement that the differnces between these cameras is very minimal and an issue of choices in features, workflow, camera ergonomics, and taste. Actually, Barry pointed that out in his review - that he often couldn't tell the differnce between them (that didn't stop people from ripping him though). My guess is that the salesman thinks he can sell you an A1, but won't get the extra cash out of you for an HVX perhaps? None the less, I'd like to see his footage, and know their settings and workflow if they say the A1 "blows away" the HVX.

"Deck ...$1800" If you don't have that much $, I'm pretty sure the Canon HV10 will play back tapes from the A1 just fine. it's about $600, and would give you a handy cam that shoots 60i HDV. Of course, the deck will last longer than the HV10.
 
I again agree completely with Kris post regarding the future of indie filmmaking and how HD is affecting it. I think Adobe Photoshop (or CS Suite) may be a better comparison than word processing. Amazing graphics tools available to everyone doesn't make just anyone a skilled designer. Same thing applies to filmmaking/cinematography. Having a great camera doesn't make one John Toll (as I noted before). Even if they have the full grip truck too. :smile:
 
snowleopard said:
My guess is that the salesman thinks he can sell you an A1, but won't get the extra cash out of you for an HVX perhaps? None the less, I'd like to see his footage, and know their settings and workflow if they say the A1 "blows away" the HVX.
Click to expand...


I started the conversation about how impressed I was with the HVX. I tried to tell him about everything I've read about colorspace 4:2:2 comparisons for keying, solid state media - and all the opinions I've read - he keeps saying "You have to come see it yourself." Now, I have no idea what his settings were, but I will find out soon - probably next week. :thumbup:
 
Heavyjoe said:
Greetings All,
The Newbie here would now like to break it down to the biggest question - "How much is this gonna cost me?"
Click to expand...

The price of the A1 has now fallen to $3500 across the board (even B&H), much to the chagrin of those of us who purchased early:(. Get the camera and some tape and you'll be good to go (don't even need an extra battery, the one include lasted nearly six hours!). But I would highly recommend getting a decent external monitor because the LCD on the A1 is so bad that most of the time you'll be guessing what you shoot.
 
Because I'm a writer, I have to tease out a few funny items in this article. This is a highly engaging piece of writing and Barry, you're both eloquent and slippery. :)

While both camcorders feature extensive image control, the XHA1 has more controls to choose from. Individual control over R,G, and B Gain and matrices, as well as finer levels of adjustment, give the XHA1 more settings to “paint” the picture. With that said, I was never able to get the XHA1 to match the lush, rich picture that the HVX delivers. The XHA1 always looked a bit more electronic to me, with flatter “blah” colors – look at the Battleship photos, for example.
Click to expand...

What does this mean? I thought the tests were done under "default" conditions, pointing and shooting in a basic mode. Is this sloppily written or editorialized rhetoric? It reads like a lapse in logic to me.

"Camera X has extensive image controls, but its images still don't look as good as camera Z."

If they were shot without manipulation of these "extensive image controls," then what use are the battleship photos to make the point?

If you want a video camera that will also simulate a still camera, the XHA1 offers that. If you want a video camera that will also simulate a movie camera, the HVX is the hands-down choice.
Click to expand...

I think these sorts of quotes do such an otherwise compelling article very little justice. It kinda turns a sober hands-on analysis into fanboy talk, don't it? I love fanboy talk but not when it masquerades as technical literature. More useful analysis and less rhetorical flourish would have suited this writeup. It's still very good and I'm glad I got a chance to read it.

Next time, don't even bother with the pretense of appeasing Canon fans with quaint praise. Go for the throat from start to finish and then nobody will bother complaining. I think, with a touch of provocation, you're now ready to write the DVX vs. XHA1 article where the DVX is Rocky Balboa to the XHA1's Apollo Creed. ;)

-------

Concerning low light:

Whereas the word processor / typewriter bit sounded like something Panasonic asked you to write, I wanted to point out that I liked the fat guys in speedos analogy, but I don't think that sort of footage is ugly. I realize this is highly subjective; nonetheless, I thought Mann's use of gained F-900 in Miami Vice was, well, awesome. Bad film, but it looked great.

{Note: this post is intended as a bit of a benevolent wind-up, Mr. Green. You're an excellent source of information and I generally enjoy your writing and contributions to this community.}
 
Last edited:
Mirezzi said:
What does this mean? I thought the tests were done under "default" conditions, pointing and shooting in a basic mode. Is this sloppily written or editorialized rhetoric? It reads like a lapse in logic to me.
Click to expand...
Life would be so much easier with these things if someone would just try to extend the benefit of the doubt, instead of trying to play "gotcha".

What does it mean? It means I used the controls, I tried to dial it in, I couldn't, so I said "okay, forget it, I'll just use the defaults." But, for those who wanted to see, I showed them as close as I could get them in-camera in two different photos (the max-color-courthouse and max-color trees). So your assertion of "slippery" is offensive. I tried to give the reader as many data points as I could come up with. I wrestled with how to handle this; tweaked against untweaked is unfair (yet it's the only way the Canon could come close to the HVX's color); tweaked against tweaked would lead to shrieks of "but you wrote the book on the HVX and you only had the Canon for a week, so that's unfair!" So leaving them at their defaults is the only way to try to get out of it alive, presuming that the defaults were in any way comparable (such as for exposure bias and for edge enhancement, which they are).

"Camera X has extensive image controls, but its images still don't look as good as camera Z."
Click to expand...
Correct. You can tweak all sorts of settings, but you'll never get it to look like the HVX does even at the HVX's default, and the HVX can be tweaked from there. If you want logic behind that, you'll have to ask Canon; I didn't design the product, I just used it.

If they were shot without manipulation of these "extensive image controls," then what use are the battleship photos to make the point?
Click to expand...
The only "point" was -- color's the only significant difference between them. Resolution and dynamic range are comparable. If you want to see a difference, the battleship shows the difference. All the pictures do, really. In all cases, the Canon is flatter and more blah. Even when tweaked to the max, if you accordingly tweaked the HVX to the max, the Canon still looks flatter and blah (as shown in the max-color-courthouse and trees pix). But I showed those max color photos too, so you can certainly form your own opinion. The only empirical thing that can be decided from this is: the Canon has more control over a more limited palette; the HVX has a much wider palette, but not as much control within that palette.

I think these sorts of quotes do such an otherwise compelling article very little justice. It kinda turns a sober hands-on analysis into fanboy talk, don't it? I love fanboy talk but not when it masquerades as technical literature. More useful analysis and less rhetorical flourish would have suited this writeup. It's still very good and I'm glad I got a chance to read it.
Click to expand...
The purpose of the article wasn't to be sober technical literature. It was to see how the new kid on the block compares to the existing "gold standard." And yes, flair and fluorish is part and parcel of how I like to write. If you want dry emotionless blather, you'll have to look elsewhere. I like what I like, and don't like what I don't like, and I say it.

And, the point remains -- the HVX emulates a movie camera. It emulates the 180-degree shutter. It emulates the frame rates. It provides the actual cine-like gamma curves. The Canon doesn't do any of those things.

The Canon emulates a still camera. It shoots still photos. It shoots 'em to card too. It can synchronize with a SpeedLite flash through a hot shoe. The Panasonic doesn't have any of those capabilities.

The statement is exactly accurate, based on the features that each possesses.

Next time, don't even bother with the pretense of appeasing Canon fans with quaint praise. Go for the throat from start to finish and then nobody will bother complaining.
Click to expand...
Why would I want to go for the throat? I think the XHA1 is the best HDV camcorder on the market. I've made no secret that I don't care for HDV, and I have never liked Canon's lens controls. I despised the XL1, and the XL2, and couldn't stand using the XLH1. Everyone knows that. The fact that the XHA1 nearly overcomes both is hardly "a pretense" of "quaint praise," it's how I felt.

I have "gone for the throat" before when people make ridiculous and stupid assertions; witness my JVC HD100 vs. HVX thread. If people want that kind of thing, I'm glad to give it to 'em, but it will have to be on a subject that I sincerely believe in. I'm not about to go trashing the XHA1, I think it's a breakthrough and with just a few changes (true manual zoom control and recording to AVC-HD instead of HDV) it would be the screaming steal of the year. But with that said, it ain't no HVX.

Whereas the word processor / typewriter bit sounded like something Panasonic asked you to write
Click to expand...
Good golly freakin' mother-lovin' ... grr... Panasonic has never, under any circumstances "asked" (or "told" or "paid") me to write or say anything, ever. Those who saw me in NZ or Aus or India can attest to that, they bring me in to talk about the way I use the product sometimes, and when they do I call it the way I see it and sometimes Panasonic people just have to cringe and wait out the tirade. Especially the division that sells the DVCPRO-HD tape deck; I imagine they're no fans of mine. I speak about these products as I know and use them, from a perspective of being a multi-award-winning professional producer/shooter as well as a moderator of the largest community of users, which gives me a good idea of the "pulse" of what people want to know and how they use these things. That word processor/typewriter bit is my own because that's how I feel about 'em. Any allegations to the contrary are, let me assure you, most incredibly not appreciated.

Now, on the other hand, I finally understand what the car magazines editors must feel like. Every letter-to-the-editor usually goes something like "how could you possibly pick x over y, you must be paid off by your advertisers." It gets old, but I guess it goes with the territory.

{Note: this post is intended as a bit of a benevolent wind-up, Mr. Green. You're an excellent source of information and I generally enjoy your writing and contributions to this community.}
Click to expand...
Just got to this part, so maybe I should calm down a bit then. But for the sake of the board let's not start flame wars regardless of the sincerity or levity behind it; people will pick up this stuff and run with it. I very nearly didn't even bother to write this article at all, because I really *don't* need the aggravation that goes with it. But I'd already called Abel and told them I wanted to buy an XHA1; it was they who said "well, how about we loan it to you first." And after a half a dozen calls from various people on the board, I figured a comparison is what everyone wanted, so fine, I did another one. And the results are, of course, more accusations of whatever it is I'm being accused of.

Adam Wilt warned me about this stuff; he said that whenever you do a comparison you'll inevitably end up goring someone's sacred cow. But I'm not about to just go saying "oh, they're all lovely, it really doesn't matter what you choose, just join the happy family and drink the kool-aid and everyone will hold hands and sing Kumbaya." Lots of people make their living with video, and lots more wish they did. These are the tools they're going to be using. There are differences between these products. I'll point those out, and I'll point out why I think they're important, and let the reader choose what they agree with, and I'll put the raw images up so the reader can judge for themselves. And still, people will be mad. Can't help that, so I'm not really gonna try.
 
Last edited:
"I thought Mann's use of gained video in Miami Vice was, well, awesome. Bad film, but it looked great."

Talk about taste. I thought while the cinematography was great, the grain bothered me. But I liked the film!
 
Barry please dont get to upset, It seems people like your good self and Shannon Rawls always at the a gun pointed at your heads. I must say i do like both cameras but for different reasons. Now i know you sided with the HVX200
And Shannon with the Canon. So What. In terms of what cameras you guys use day to day. Now i have herd both sides of the story from you and shannon over pros and cons but one thing i do know is both cameras will are great cameras. Its like one guy likes BMW and the Other likes Mercedes.
So if i want info on the hvx 200 ill come to you.
And iam shure that like most of the people on this board have lot of respect for you and Shannon, Both of you guys are helpfull and always take the time to help people out with the problems and questions they may have.
I actually thought you gave a good review on the canon A1 vs HVX200.
Considering you had the A1 for a short time. Its not an easy job but some ones gotta do it lol.
 
ncje said:
I would suggest it goes way beyond that. I think to the pro documentary shooter in the wilds of the amazon or anywhere generally isolated p2 = evil. Not that it cant be done, but these arent the places to be dragging off load systems. Then theres the arguement that they could take enough storage and offload back at base camp daily (assuming they have one), system failure - screwed.
Click to expand...

Oh cmon you guys, do i have to list every single posibility of configuration that it would be more benficial... use your imagiations when i make an arbitrary blankey statement.... that why its blankey statement ;)
 
Whoa just realised this thread is headed for locksvillle. Lets all take a chill pill everyone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top