HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand why the HVX have an echo on edges in the pictures of your review and CANON don't have...

Are you sure Barry that you don't have inverse the picture ? I say that because the DVCPRO HD is in 4.2.2 (like betanum) I have never see an echo on 4.2.2 !
But I have always see an echo on DV and HDV...
 
Slow mo footage can be achieved in post, but I absolutely love the HVX for its overcranking ability. I just shot this on a run and gun style fun shoot before filming a wedding and it turned out beautifully. i think it shows HVX sharpness and nice slo mo footage. Each camera definitely has their advantages but the variable frame rates are a selling point for me. I use them a lot.
http://www.eagleasda.com/Test_Scene_Oakland.wmv
 
I could see the A1 being my choice to supplement my HVX with, for events and such. I heard it mentioned that the A1 will record uncompressed HD to a hard drive set up or similar, but the discussion above would seem to disagree. But if this were in fact the case then it could work pretty well as a B camera to compliment the HVX in a studio situation as well. It's really too bad about the zoom.
 
Any of these cameras can record uncompressed HD to a RAID hard drive setup, there's nothing about the Canon that makes it particularly suited to do that; a little $1000 HV10 or Sony HC3 can do it too. I don't think there's an HD or HDV camcorder on the market that doesn't output uncompressed HD on its analog component, HD-SDI or HDMI outputs (as the case may be).
 
Which leads me to wonder what the footage (or stills from said footage) looks like. From the cameras under discussion, but also from anything else with those outputs.
 
Barlow Elton posted a clip from the XHA1 that was shot in both HDV and also captured through the analog ports. It definitely looks a bit better, but the question is if it looks enough better to justify the hassle, and I think the universal consensus is "eh, not worth it, unless doing chroma keys or something like that."
 
Barry_Green said:
Barlow Elton posted a clip from the XHA1 that was shot in both HDV and also captured through the analog ports. It definitely looks a bit better, but the question is if it looks enough better to justify the hassle, and I think the universal consensus is "eh, not worth it, unless doing chroma keys or something like that."
Click to expand...

If it helps with grading it'd be worth it for me - but it'd be interesting to see how much better the HD-SDI output is (on a camera with an SDI output) compared to the analogue output. If it's through S-video it should look pretty good I suppose...

Great review very much appreciated by the way Mr Green!
 
You can think of the analog output as 95-99% the same as the SDI output in terms of quality. The D/A conversion of the A1 is quite good, and if you have a Kona or Decklink, their A/D's are also excellent so the end result is virtually the same.

Yes, uncompressed is better for grading, but most who've really put the time into properly grading their 24F HDV footage have found it to be surprisingly flexible.
 
Last edited:
funny I find this article 2 days after I bought the HVX. I was long thinking about that A1. Why? Because it is cheaper and it would work straight away in my workflow.
I am shooting lots of sportsevents that can take a while and need lots of "runs" covered, so a $ 5 tape would be sweet. But I went for the HVX mainly bvecause I want variable framerates. Sure I did Field-extraction in Digital Fusion and After Effects and slomotion looked spectacular already from the VX1000, but it will never look like slomo from the HVX. No chance. And no rendering needed either.
And now after one chapter I knew I did the right thing. You can´t zoom and focus? You can´t peak and zebra? You can´t split the interview-audio? This sounds about as silly as the SONY idea of offering a 8 second highspeed mode in 640x480. It really sounds like a typewriter.

And I don´t even want to touch the colours and noise issues. Canon has a history of these greyish looking skies. Sure you can get the color better and in post a lot can be done. But why do stuff in post when you can be having dinner with your wife at the same time?

Thanks for the read. I understand A1 owners are not happy about it as we were not happy about the resolution charts from the Texas shootout. But it all comes down to subjectively liking the picture. I like Panasonic colors (just like I love Minolta still-camera-glass). And Canon once again seems not to be able to give them to us.
 
alpi69 said:
<snip>
And I don´t even want to touch the colours and noise issues. Canon has a history of these greyish looking skies. Sure you can get the color better and in post a lot can be done. But why do stuff in post when you can be having dinner with your wife at the same time?
Click to expand...

This is why I did a bit of complaining about the color setups of Barry's cameras in the first page of this discussion. Barry is a super dude and I certainly appreciate the effort he put into writing it, but while trying to set the cameras to "neutral", what he ended up doing is setting the XH A1 to the flattest look possible with the cine settings. And now here's an HVX guy that apparently looked at the pictures and is talking about having dinner with the wife while us poor Canon owners must apparently pick through our footage in post and CC everything.

alpi69 said:
<snip>I understand A1 owners are not happy about it as we were not happy about the resolution charts from the Texas shootout. But it all comes down to subjectively liking the picture. I like Panasonic colors (just like I love Minolta still-camera-glass). And Canon once again seems not to be able to give them to us.
Click to expand...

I think I can safely speak for XH owners when I say that Barry's article and drab screenshots create no unhapiness about the camera at all - because that's not representative of its performance in the least. And its fine to prefer the Panasonic's color (hey, its awesome) and picking between these cameras can be subjective indeed (I like the Pana better, my wallet liked the XH). But Canon has given us incredible, incredible color with the XH series. You want that Matrix green hue without post? Got it. Desaturated and contrasty Minority Report look? Check. Hyper real colors that litterally make people's mouths drop when they watch on a 42" screen? Its there.

I'll probably get shot for this, but I think in the long haul those screen shots are going to create FUD for Canon. No disrespect intended towards alpi69, but that post is an example of FUD in action. Here's at least one HVX guy that's now going to tell people he works with how grey the colors are on the XH A1. And if he's in professional circles, that might eventually trickle down to some poor sap with an XH A1 that doesn't get a gig because the producer heard how grey and poor the colors on the XH are.


----------Update-----------------------------------------------
Here are some quick screen shots I grabbed:
http://www.philipwilliams.com/XHA1.aspx -> click on "In-Camera color and sharpness comparisons"

Its not mega-scientific, just an example of how much difference some quick in-camera colors can make.

That was the first day I went out with the cam, so I really had no clue what I was doing. On the flat images I had the sharpness down, probably to -9 or thereabouts. The more colored images probably were at around 0ish. For the color settings, the flat images probably had knee and black to the flattest settings, not sure where the cine matrix and gamma was at. The richer images had black compressed a bit and colors were not cranked up much (if at all). Actually, I think I'd turned the reds down a bit.
Also, Premiere was nice enough to lay a vertical "grid" over the whole frame when resizing to 1920x1080 (should have just exported 1440x1080 and used Photoshop).
Here's a RAR file with uncompressed bitmaps: http://www.philipwilliams.com/canon.rar

Please be kind, my site is sitting on my home server connected to the net via my cable modem :)
 
Last edited:
Great comparison article.

I'm all for the HVX (I own one) and for me, I prefer the P2 workflow, 60p, etc, however it was apparent to me from the first frame grab that the A1 looks noticeably sharper. I'd know the Canon cameras come default with the sharpness up, but take a look at the greenscreen shot and try reading the text on the bottle from both cameras. It looks like more resolution to me. Actually it looks like alot more, at least by that grab.

But overall I still prefer the HVX images and features- I'm not selling my HVX anytime soon.
 
Barry_Green said:
Barlow Elton posted a clip from the XHA1 that was shot in both HDV and also captured through the analog ports. It definitely looks a bit better, but the question is if it looks enough better to justify the hassle, and I think the universal consensus is "eh, not worth it, unless doing chroma keys or something like that."
Click to expand...

Exactly the point I have been making.
 
philnerd said:
I'll probably get shot for this, but I think in the long haul those screen shots are going to create FUD for Canon. No disrespect intended towards alpi69, but that post is an example of FUD in action. Here's at least one HVX guy that's now going to tell people he works with how grey the colors are on the XH A1. And if he's in professional circles, that might eventually trickle down to some poor sap with an XH A1 that doesn't get a gig because the producer heard how grey and poor the colors on the XH are.
Click to expand...

I doubt you get shot on this forum ;-)
You know what: In fact I take back my "grey-colour" comment. It looks typical Canon-defaultish to me and I am certain an operator who knows the camera can tweak it to a good image. I have seen great interlaced images from the XH1 and XL2 and have never played with the A1. so judging it by this article is more than unfair. I also never saw that 25f on a real HD-screen.
I am also certain that if the production calls for it you can use the A1 in its own workfield also as a professional tool. After all there are VX2100 shots floating in BBC productions and nobody complains. If you know what you do and accept the limitations of the A1 in handling, codec and audio then hell yeah go and make a musicvideo for MTV with it. Put in on DigiBeta (which they demand) and they will be happy.

But for me who earns his living as a cameraman and producer it is not 2.500 euros cheaper (included already 16GB of P2), but it would be 3.500 wasted Euros. FOR ME! I want snapzooms, I want variable framerates, I want DVCProHD (or any other intraframe format), I have to have full audiocontrol on both channels (but I think I could live with the compressed audio). When a client calls I want to say YES, I HAVE what you need. If I was in a big filmcity like Munich or London and could rent stuff I might get away with an A1, but here I have to have the gear myself. Now I can agree to snapzooms (which is often requested these days: watch "24", watch "The Sentinel", watch even a SOAP like "Boston Legal"), to 32fps sports-slomotions, to immediate roughcut-delivery, to replays on set without breaking timecodes etc etc.
I started with the VX1000 almost a decade ago and we produced for MTV, BBC, Eurosport, ESPN etc and it was an awesome camera. So one can make great stuff with the A1 nowadays in HD. But it is positioned into the up-and-coming consumer market just like Barry ( or Jarred, who wrote this article?) said. The A1 makes images that probably match and have maybe even higher rez in still frame extractions. But it has limitations that one can live with and others can´t. I actually could live with them if there was no HVX. If there was only the DVX....I´d get it. But the HVX is here, it is proven, its workflow is figured out by many brave early adopters. the HVX not only makes images but it makes working "easier". The only complaint I have is the viewfinder and the LCD. Those are lame and actually make working "not so easy" again. But apparently all cams in this priceclass have this problem (but JVC might be better here).

philnerd I am sure you will make great shots with the A1. It has such an awsome lens picturewise it is ridiculous for that price. So go and have fun with it! Whoever you show it to will never ask if it was a HVX or an A1. They will only say WOW! in any case.
 
I can understand your points, now you finally chosen for the HVX. So you repeat the strong points the HVX certainly has. Now silently repeat the strong points the A1 gives you in your head again... Believe me or not, but the reality in practice is more positive weight for the A1 and less for the HVX than this review shows you.

My opinion is that in the real world (not studio) the HVX is not making images "easier" than an 1 hour = $5 tape system.
 
Last edited:
You have two independent audio channels with full control. Only if you want to share one mic with two audiochannels with different levels, you need to split the audiocable with a small splitter. And you can not use one channel for line and one for mic. It's both mic or line, not so nice. You do have phantom power and two independent audiochannels.

For any serious work you need a mixer like you need for any cam. Many buy a portable audiorecorder too (zoom H4, 300E) to make extra 24-bit/96 kHz audio recordings.
 
xray said:
<snip>
My opinion is that in the real world (not studio) the HVX is not making images "easier" than an 1 hour = $5 tape system.
Click to expand...

Well, I think these cams are fundamentally so different that its hard to make a blanket statement like that. If I had 10 grand to spend and wanted to do independent films I'd be on the HVX like white on rice.

I personally chose the XH A1 because I need to be able to grab the occasional gig (wedding or whatever) where I need the 1 hour record times, I still want the ability to do nice narrative work (24F) and I had a hard time coughing up $3500, never mind $7000 for an HVX with Firestore.
 
philnerd said:
Well, I think these cams are fundamentally so different that its hard to make a blanket statement like that. If I had 10 grand to spend and wanted to do independent films I'd be on the HVX like white on rice.

I personally chose the XH A1 because I need to be able to grab the occasional gig (wedding or whatever) where I need the 1 hour record times, I still want the ability to do nice narrative work (24F) and I had a hard time coughing up $3500, never mind $7000 for an HVX with Firestore.
Click to expand...

Exactly the points I was trying to make.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top