HVX vs. the Canon XHA1

[TimurCivan]

As much as I love the A1, I wouldn't go that far. Once you've had the pleasure of using the 16x manual lens (which doesn't ramp exposure through the zoom range and looks good in HD) or the 6x WA lens, you understand its potential.

Want a snap zoom? You got it. Want a truly nice wide with little to no barrel distortion or CA? The 6x delivers. Want a sharp lens with lots of telephoto and amazing OIS.? The 20x is a good choice. Want more overall manual control at your fingertips instead of digging though menus to change modes? The H1 is your camera.

When you factor in the affordability of interchangeable lenses (compared to JVC) and added audio control, the H1 isn't so irrelevant.

I'm sure the guys making The Signal appreciated the fact that they didn't have to add glass on top of the Zeiss/Mini35 setup. It makes a difference.

I think the G1 is also phenomenal value when you consider the potential of HD SDI acquisition--but most say "meh, HDV's good enough".

There's an affordable HD camera out there that's mostly right for just about anyone, but not necessarily perfect for every situation.

yea but i have a feeling alot of people using the H1 arent pushing its potential by using the 16X, they are probably using the stock lens, thats that i meant by the 99%. Infact, i have never even seen a H1 used anywhere by anyone. I see Dozens of Z1's, FX1's, HVX's, DVX's, XL1 (oddly enough)..... but ive never seen a H1 in the field. its sad cause its SSOOOOO Good. i love that camera.

But i feel like in the next few months, EVERYONE will be using an A1, and i mean EVERYONE. Its gonna be the next PD-150 IMO.

 

[xray]

You all need to search and make colors and images you like yourself, the HVX-A1 color samples are made for a special purpose. The HVX is imitating the looks and gamma and colorfeeling from saturated '1985' film and the A1 needs to imitate the HVX? And the next cam needs to imitate the A1, that is imitating the HVX, that is imitating the film?

We keep busy that way, but no, lets make images with the A1 that are pleasing. That have the 'A1 look.'

 

[disjecta]

The HVX is imitating the looks and gamma and colorfeeling from saturated '1985' film and the A1 needs to imitate the HVX? And the next cam needs to imitate the A1, that is imitating the HVX, that is imitating the film?

LMAO! That was a good laugh, thanks

 

[Noel Evans]

yea but i have a feeling alot of people using the H1 arent pushing its potential by using the 16X, they are probably using the stock lens, thats that i meant by the 99%. Infact, i have never even seen a H1 used anywhere by anyone. I see Dozens of Z1's, FX1's, HVX's, DVX's, XL1 (oddly enough)..... but ive never seen a H1 in the field. its sad cause its SSOOOOO Good. i love that camera.

But i feel like in the next few months, EVERYONE will be using an A1, and i mean EVERYONE. Its gonna be the next PD-150 IMO.

Here in Japan at this end of the scale anyway, Canon is widely accepted. There are many XLh1's out there, see them often. And the Canon acceptance is one reason I opted for the A1, people like to see it. In Japan, a country that arguably consumes the most pro end still cameras and more specifically high end digital cameras in the world, Canon is seen at the top of the heap. What this transfers to is many people who arent pros know Canon and when you turn up with that red ring on the lense, they immediately think PRO through brand awareness.

But thats Japan. Panasonic in Japan also known here as Matsushita - from consumer eyes anyway is mostly known for high quality TV or the like. We all know thats not the case, but you have to ease the clients minds.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

It depends on where you're coming from. If you're coming from the XL2, an iris ring is heaven-sent. If you're coming from an HVX, the iris ring is not so much of a big deal. It's not a night and day improvement over a good iris wheel, but it is a night and day (and summer and winter!) improvement over the steppy clicky iris switch on the XL2.

Coming from the DVX... and its tiny iris wheel isn't that great either.

It's not at all an advantage in my opinion. The iris ring on the A1 feels way too "loose" and at times downright unresponsive for on the fly adjustment. In fact it's too easy to mistake it for the zoom (obviously experienced users will not have this problem) and accidentally change exposure while recording. It's also pretty easy to bump it and change the setting.

That's what I'm inclined to think.

The blooming in the way-oversaturated flag is horrible .. that detail is gone and it's not coming back! There has been some beautiful stuff shot on DVX/HVX cams, but there's been beautiful stuff shot on FX1s too. To my eyes, the hvx looks blurry; an awful lot like upscaled footage. like someone has taken the shots into photoshop and scaled them up by 25%. In contrast, the A1 looks neutral ... sharp, pristine, ready to grade. I can see the attraction to the HVX for those easily wowed by saturated images, or (I must say) the genuine benefits of variable frame rates... but beyond that, the A1's sharp neutral footage is definitely what I'd prefer to see when it comes to grade.

Blooming? Why is that a bad thing? I'd rather have a saturated image that desaturates to an image with some nice defining contrast. I'd like to see one of these grabs color-corrected though...

Want more overall manual control at your fingertips instead of digging though menus to change modes?

Yes. A dial would be pretty awesome. As long as I'm fantasizing, I'd like the ability to use that dial while recording also.

EDIT: A framerate dial. A FRAMERATE dial...sorry. Totally missed that.

 

[giacomino]

If you want to use a camera for HD news, the HD110 would be my last choice. It only shoots 30p, news is almost exclusively shot in 60i or HD 60p. For standard-def it's fine. For HD ENG, if you really want a JVC shoulder-mount camera, skip the 110 and go for the 200 or 250, those at least offer 60p. But they're much much more expensive.

Nobody talks about the G1 because it has little to no appeal to the mass market. It's a special-purpose tool, the $3,000 premium buys you some connectors that would be useful in a tethered studio situation and rarely elsewhere (although the TC IN/OUT would be nice for multi-camera EFP and ENG). On the DVInfo poll of "which would you buy", it ended up 90% A1, 10% G1. My conclusion in the article is that the A1 is appealing because of the price; it's at a very attractive price point that's within reach for a lot of users. The G1 is nearly twice as expensive, so nowhere near as appealing to that same group.

Regarding fast zooms, you will never get an ultrafast zoom on an A1. It simply can't do it. It's limited by its servo motor. You can get ultrafast zooms on the HVX or the HD110/200/250 because their lenses offers physical manual control; you can go from minimum to maximum zoom in 1/10 of a second if you want. I don't remember the fastest speed on the A1, it's probably somewhere around two or three seconds to go from min to max.

Barry - Thanks again for your insight. I was leaning towards the JVC's 110 because 1) the shoulder mount; 2) iris adjustment on the lens (very much needed in ENG) and 3) you can mount a frezzi light. 4) My friend just got back from Sundance and there was a big rave re the 110 camera.

Jimmy

 

[xray]

I don't remember the fastest speed on the A1, it's probably somewhere around two or three seconds to go from min to max.

It is actually just 1.5 seconds in highspeed mode. That is zooming through the 20x range 4.5~90mm. It's that fast.

 

[Justyn]

yea but i have a feeling alot of people using the H1 arent pushing its potential by using the 16X, they are probably using the stock lens, thats that i meant by the 99%. Infact, i have never even seen a H1 used anywhere by anyone. I see Dozens of Z1's, FX1's, HVX's, DVX's, XL1 (oddly enough)..... but ive never seen a H1 in the field. its sad cause its SSOOOOO Good. i love that camera.

But i feel like in the next few months, EVERYONE will be using an A1, and i mean EVERYONE. Its gonna be the next PD-150 IMO.

I definitely agree with you on the first part. I've never seen anyone with an H1 and probably won't. I disagree with you on everyone using the A1. I think the true budget conscious and the wedding videographers.. and smaller production facilities will gravitate to that... BUT EVERYONE who's working on higher end productions is already using the HVX. It's the new cam on the mid to high budget productions.. and I doubt if the A1 will knock it off it's perch anytime to come. Shooting tape is just a drag once you've gone tapeless. All you need to do is look at the fact that the tape manufacturerers are all closing down or limiting production.... even the super low-budget consumers are opting for true digital cams.... I also think that Panny and Sony will have an answer very soon

 

[TimurCivan]

Ehhh, i dunno if i agree. we the people who use the mid to high end production equiptment, are a small percentage. The general populus, who do things like skate videos, local commercials, videogrpahy, nature recoding, high end hobbyists ..... these are the peple to whom tape is a good thing. Its familiar, relaible, and for the most part dont understand nor care what HDV artiifacting is, and why you want ot avoid it. To me tape = evil. to the guyshooting a 4 hour wedding/Famly vacation to the Grand canyon, P2=Evil. But there are alot more wedding/event videographers than there are DP's and high end video producers.

This is what i mean when i say, everyone will be using the A1. thegeneral public whos into prosumer video.

 

[xray]

It's time to make a hard landing on the floor. Highend productions are -mostly- made with the $60.000,- cams and extra $18.000 lenses. To get on the ground again, the differences for the prosumer $3.500 -$5.000 1/3" cams like HVX-XHA1-Z1 are small. It's a price you normaly pay for a monitor or another crash cam.

 

[xray]

Is it time to make a hard landing on the floor? Highend productions are -mostly- made with the $60.000,- cams and extra $18.000 lenses. To get on the ground again, the differences for the prosumer $3.500 - $5.000 1/3 " cams like HVX/ XH-A1/ Z1 are small. Its a price you normaly pay for a monitor or another crash cam.

 

[TimurCivan]

should have said Mid range.

 

[xray]

It is shifting, that's for sure. Sometimes with surprisingly good results, sometimes you see productions working with 1/3" cams, 35mm adapters, fighting for light and noisefree images, spending hours to get it right, and you think: was an 2/3" cam in this situation maybe a better and -in the end- cheaper solution?

 

[TimurCivan]

I got Really good results on KAtrina with the HVX and SGpro, noiseless, easy to light, the brightest light was a 650 in the bar scene and the Hotel room scene, it was a DREAM. A Varicam probably wouldnt have looked vastly better. Maybe just a bit sharper.

 

[xray]

Off T//
Noticed that, and the Chinese Ball story... But I've seen other productions that did not entered that endresult. Remember the shoot with the kitchen in the castle and the 'Dutch painters' light approach? The Varicam would do much better.
On T//

 

[TimurCivan]

oh i remeber that one. But they were diffusing a whole large set. Thats a whole new ball of wax.

Back on Track. :beer:

 

[Nathyn]

Its familiar, relaible, and for the most part dont understand nor care what HDV artiifacting is, and why you want ot avoid it. To me tape = evil. to the guyshooting a 4 hour wedding/Famly vacation to the Grand canyon, P2=Evil. But there are alot more wedding/event videographers than there are DP's and high end video producers.

This is what i mean when i say, everyone will be using the A1. thegeneral public whos into prosumer video.

Yes this is pretty much true. I talk about this all the time. The general consumer isn't dumb as much as simply not educated about certain things. I have digital cable now. Sometimes when watching a film I notice artifacting (especially with older films they probably used VHS tape to make a digital print from).

It's not often but honestly before I starting doing video I wouldn't have even noticed. I think internal HD is a better option than P2 for many and when this or direct to disc prosumer HDV/AHDV camera's come out you'll see a big move to tapeless. P2 is keeping me and others from the HVX. It's simply too expensive to own right now versus the A1 which many can use right out the box.

-Nate

 

[KyleProhaska]

Idk if ide agree with those comments because that makes it seem like the A1 is only for consumers that dont know about such things. Thats not the case at all for alot of buyers I think. Show me a normal consumer who will spend 3500 or more on any camera or even over 2000 for that matter and ill be impressed. Most who buy a camcorder for over 3000 sure as hell know what they're buying and if not they are very foolish. For me its the price but I haven't bought anything yet so who knows.

- Kyle

 

[Noel Evans]

To me tape = evil. to the guyshooting a 4 hour wedding/Famly vacation to the Grand canyon, P2=Evil.

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.

Then there is storage to consider. I am shooting enough on a weekly basis to be a real issue if I had to archive everything to HDD. Then theres Blueray, but your paying a bit per mb.

Then there is another process, low resolution logging. You can capture all your footage at a lower res, edit, cc the works, and for your final output recapture the logs (original footage), but only whats included in the edit, it keeps your workflow fast, it stops you from outputting second or third gen renders. Now this could be done with p2 as long as you have the storage to keep all those gbs of footage. Working on a doco with hours and hours of clips, a feature with hours of out takes this could be hard.

even the super low-budget consumers are opting for true digital cams....

Shooting to tape is as digital as shooting to disk, its all 1's and 0's.

But seriously back to the topic, the A1 DOES perform as well in lowlight as the HVX, per Barry Green. The A1 doesnt have variable frame rates in cam like the HVX. The A1 does have a longer, wider lense. The A1 doesnt have a 'true manual' focus ring. The A1 does have a different formfactor than the HVX. The A1 does record to tape, record direct to disk (fs) and has uncompressed footage in a tethered setup easily set up for greenscreen. Canon has done something vastly better with the HDV output that other companies werent able to achieve. The A1 does and is performing well with 35mm adapters. The A1 does have (an arguably better) OIS than the HVX. The A1 doesnt have true repeatable focus.

Maybe I left something out but these are the things people I think people should consider, not what I am saying they must. Hell some people say Oh p2 Ill get that and consider nothing else. Some people say oh Panasonic or Canon and nothing else. Just my 2c. Then again if you have both cams, your in a world of love and harmony with all these things

 

[snowleopard]

"Then again if you have both cams, your in a world of love and harmony with all these things"

What, no room for the new Sony V1u? :cheesy: