HVX200 and XL-H1

S

sodotoguwangus

Well-known member
All right, listen up:

Yesterday I went down the a camera shop to see the Canon and Panasonic side by side. The were hooked up to a high-def LCD. Panasonic by component. Canon by SDI. I had no res charts, I just had my eye. Both of them. And this is what I saw:

First impression... the canon's picture looked exactly like a high-def version of the XL2. Very sharp. Very videolike. Very sharp. Very, very sharp. etc.

The panasonic's picture looked just like a high-def version of the DVX100. Softer. But wayyyy nicer colors out of the box. Overall it looked more filmic.

Now, bear in mind, all this is subjective.

I found it interesting how the salesman disagreed with me on the above. He felt that the Panasonic's image was sharper than the canon's. So I hit the switcher on the TV and flipped between the images produced by each camera. To my eye, the canon was the clear resolution winner. But the salesman insisted that the panasonic was sharper becasuse it was DVCproHD and the canon was only HDV.

All this goes to show how subjective image quality can be.

On the topic of canon's 24f mode, it looked identical to what the panasonic produced with true 24p... Same motion, same cadence, same properties.
Bottom line: I have no problem with 24f, and would be happy to use it.

Viewfinder. I like a big, magnified viewfinder. And, in this regard, the canon's viewfinder was much bigger than panasonics. The panasonic looked like a 1"X1" square. The canon's was really magnified. It looked like a 4"X4" square.

Conclusion. Here's what I would suggest for those who cant decide on which camera to purchase.

For documentaries, weddings, sports, reality TV, etc -- GET CANON, hands down. It is sharp. It records to tape (for long record times), and it has the best reality look.

For anything narrative, creative, music video, or film related, GET PANASONIC. Hands down. It's softer. It records to P2 for creative versatility(instantly delete bad takes), and it has the best film look.
 
Good report,
but I'd still get the HVX200 for sports.
Can you say 720/60P with variable frame rates.
The basketball footage from the HVX200 looks awesome.

Yes, the canon is very, very sharp.
From what I've seen of low light from the canon, I don't like the grainy
images.
 
Well...if it was so easy to have the right decision on the table, I will hire you as my personal consultant to this investment...

...but thanks anyway for your comment. :)
 
Emanuel said:
Well...if it was so easy to have the right decision on the table, I will hire you as my personal consultant to this investment...

...but thanks anyway for your comment. :)
Click to expand...


I would be happy to consult you. My price is $100 an hour, plus lunches.

Serioulsy....

I'm still having a hard time deciding myself.
 
sodotoguwangus said:
I would be happy to consult you. My price is $100 an hour, plus lunches.
Click to expand...
Good humor...well, I appreciate your mood, too.

Serioulsy....

I'm still having a hard time deciding myself.
Click to expand...
Also me. If you follow my posts you can easily to see my thoughts...that are including JVC's HD100 plus Z1U...

Well, regarding XL-H1 sharpness, see those stills: http://indrehus.net/produkter/studio/hd/page20/page20.html

Or this footage: http://indrehus.net/produkter/studio/hd/footage/footage.html
 
Thats good news. I want to use the HVX200 for indie films. So with the lower resolution, does it still look HD? Does it still have that nice pop and depth? Some people have stated that with the low resolution, why not just shoot in DVCPro 50. I hope that it looks better than maxed out sd? Does it? How was the noise from both cameras (sorry about bringing that up again -- I just want to hear about it from someone who has seen both cameras side by side). I'm sure people will say that your test is flawed because you are not seeing the recorded image played back, but I don't think that's very important (HDV is good -- not as bad as everyone has been bashing it).
 
Wish people would stop telling others what to get either camera for.

Its retarded. "More Filmic".

Their BOTH video cameras, not film cameras. Neither is going to be.. "FILMIC".. no matter how many excuses you make.

You see two cameras, in a store, hooked up to a screen and you can automatically tell people which one is for what case.

These are the kinds of threads that don't need to be started here.

And look at me, adding to them.

PFT
 
I dont think one is more film like. The XLH has better cine settings than the XL2 and with tweaking can come close to the HVX (I am working on some settings to help match the cameras). The motion is identical in both but because the Canon is sharper, shots with a large DOF without much motion CAN look less like film to some people.


ash =o)
 
AshG said:
I dont think one is more film like. The XLH has better cine settings than the XL2 and with tweaking can come close to the HVX (I am working on some settings to help match the cameras). The motion is identical in both but because the Canon is sharper, shots with a large DOF without much motion CAN look less like film to some people.


ash =o)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that makes more sense. But the guy/gal whom started the thread... whatever.

Ash, being that you're using BOTH cameras, can you say that there's a way to reduce the CAnon's resolution/sharpness to the point where those specific scenes look more... "Film like"?
 
Weird... what kind of salesman is that? He should at least know that HDV IS sharper than DVCPROHD (it just has more pixels to it 1280*720 vs. 960*720 and 1440*1080 vs. 1280*1080). He might think it looks like crap compared to DVCPROHD (than could be his take on the results), but it CANNOT be less sharp.
 
mezelf27 said:
Weird... what kind of salesman is that? He should at least know that HDV IS sharper than DVCPROHD (it just has more pixels to it 1280*720 vs. 960*720 and 1440*1080 vs. 1280*1080). He might think it looks like crap compared to DVCPROHD (than could be his take on the results), but it CANNOT be less sharp.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but both the cameras were hooked up to HD monitors for viewing and not recording to tape or P2. If this is the case, their respective codecs would never come into play. That being said, there are still too many variables involved in how the cameras were connected to the monitors, camera settings, etc. to make any sort of an accurate judgement. I think the salesperson was just repeating what he has been told without really knowing what's what.
 
mezelf27 said:
Weird... what kind of salesman is that? He should at least know that HDV IS sharper than DVCPROHD (it just has more pixels to it 1280*720 vs. 960*720 and 1440*1080 vs. 1280*1080). He might think it looks like crap compared to DVCPROHD (than could be his take on the results), but it CANNOT be less sharp.
Click to expand...
HDV isn't "sharper" it's the XL H1's ccd specs (1440x1080) and glass that make it sharper.

When you say "it has more pixels" you should be refering to ccd size not HDV or DVCPRO. Those are only recording formats and have nothing to do with sharpness.

For instance, you can capture XL H1 footage as DVCPRO HD and in the end, vs. capturing it in HDV, it would be somewhat sharper in the DVCPRO format than it would in HDV.
 
Kholi said:
Its retarded. "More Filmic".

These are the kinds of threads that don't need to be started here.

PFT
Click to expand...

Kholi -- what's your problem, man? "These are the kind of threads that don't need to be started here" -- BAH! Of course the panasonic and canon are not film. That much is obvious. I was simply stating that the panasonic, in my opinion, looked more like film out of the box. That's all. People (like you) who always say video can't equal film... if you want film, shoot on film... film and video are not the same, etc, are just plain ignorant. Of course film and video are not the same. Tell me something I don't know.

thefilmaddict
-- In response to your question, yes. The HVX's resolution is most certanly HD quality. It was much sharper than say a DVX100, just not as sharp as the XL-H1.
 
No, you weren't simply stating that. If you simply stated it, that would've been ALL you said.

Instead, you went on to type and suggest circumstances for either camera to be used. And what's funnier, is that neither have even been used to enough to even say that More people use this camera for this circumstance.

You outright condemned BOTH cameras to a certain job specification when you don't even have one your damned self.

That's why I said your thread was pointless. Not because you have an opinion about how one of these cameras looks out of the box.

Your opinion is your opinion, state it clearly.

It should've read..

"I would use the XLH1 only for documentaries and the HVX for narrataive production, personally."

People come here looking for info all of the time. Believe it or not, some people don't actually use free-will to make their decisions; they go on what other people say.

That said: use either camera for what you want. Let everyone else decide based on finished product... not a display comparison.

pft.
 
Kholi and Ash are right.

I'm tired of hearing how "filmic" X or Y camera looks out of the box. What kind of person spends 9k on a camera without diving into the menus and playing with the settings.

Like the XL2, the XLH1 ships flat. It's up to the user to tweak the settings to find the desired look. According to Adam's article, the XLH1 is unsurpassed for a 1/3" camera in terms of settings/tweakability.

Enough already with this "out of the box" film look guff.
 
sodotoguwangus,

I did not read into your post that you were stating a FACT that one camera should be used for one type of production and the other for another. I got that you were just stating your opinion based on your brief encounter with both of the cameras side by side in a store. I appreciated that you gave an opinion (even if it was not technical -- just an opinion based on what your eyes saw).

Thanks for answerring my question.

Kholli,
You need to be more sensitive with your posts. Using the word retarded seems a bit harsh. Why are you so angry (just kidding)?

I also don't think that saying a camera has a filmic look is a bad thing or wrong. I think that with the introduction of HD and 24p, many of these cameras do look more like film. What's wrong with that statement?

Keep on posting guys. It gives me something to do until I get a camera! Thanks for the knowledge and drama!

WTF!
 
If anger bleeds into my responses, that's simply because I let these posts get to me. I may not be an expert on these cameras, but common sense and intelligence comes standard in any debate.

To go to a camera store and say "this camera is for this, this camera is for that", and then to come back to tell everyone that you SUGGEST they do this or that with these cameras is totally absurd. He didn't see any kind of final product and the only full-on production I've ever seen with these cameras has been from the HVX200, the short-film contest footage on this site.

So, why jump to conclusions based on what was seen on a fifty inch plasma screen? It's the FINAL picture that people are concerned with, right? That's what the real issue is-- not what the camera's showing in someone's video store.

Maybe I used the wrong terms myself, and maybe I need to leap off these boards for a day or two.

To Lacuna--

That's the same thing I wonder. Why in the hell would you buy a six-thousand dollar camera, as well, and not dive into settings? Who really cares about out-of-the-box "film-like" appearance but the amateur filmmaker?

With attitudes like these, those people complaining about how "hollywood" is a flop are going to produce garbage ten times worse than what we're seeing on big screens around the world.

"Filmic". Fine, use the term as much as you want. My biggest gripe is that you're already condemning two pieces of mangificent technology as if you're the most experienced operator for both.

That's unfair and it should be addressed.

Whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top