HVX200 vs Canon Film Look

thefilmaddict

thefilmaddict

Veteran
I've been able to download a bunch of clips from the HVX-200 and the Canon XLH1. I am an indie filmmaker and I am trying to decide which one to buy. I use Final Cut Pro HD, so I had to convert the Canon .M2T files to quicktime, then import them into FCPRO HD in a 1080i HDV sequence. I've been able to watch the HVX files just by importing them directly into FCP using the P2 import option. Image resolution and film look are both very important to me. I think that the Canon images are sharper than the HVX200 clips, but the Panasonic clips move and look a lot more like film (the Canon clips have a video look). Perhaps this is because I have not been able to view any XLH1 24p (or whatever Canon calls it) clips. Can you guys point me in the right direction to view XLH1 24p clips, so I can come closer to making a decision (a Final Cut Pro friendly file would be great). And, for those of you that have seen 24p footage from both of these cameras, what do you think? I think that many of us wish that the 2 cameras would make love and produce a bastard child that would have the best traits of each camera (lol). Thanks!
 
Filmaddict, when considering the Canon, would you be shooting HDV?
Remember, to get the best quality out of a Canon XLH1 you have to use the HD-SDI output (ultimately a LOT more expensive and less portable, but hey, if you can afford it, might be a way to go). Shooting HDV of has serious limitations due to artifacting on movement (which is why all of Canon's company demos are landscapes & shots without much movement), plus HDV's 4:2:0 color ensures you won't be able to pull a greenscreen key to save your life. Aside from the DVCPRO HD's 4:2:2 color, the clincher for me is the HVX's variable frame rates--something you can only get on the $65,000 Varicam... beautiful film-like slo-mo, plus time lapse!:thumbup:
 
JVC has some things going for it, avoid the Z1/FX1, no real 24P/F.
HVX is more versitile, and more film like. Canon is sharper, but more video, even in 24F. Pany has highlight rendering down, Canon needs to work on it.

Also, there is still no way to import 24F Canon footage short of HD-SDI playback from the camera or the cineform conversion codec.
 
The XLH1 I played with had some weird ghosting going on, whether it was the low-res viewfinder or not, the footage was still a little funny looking to me. 24F was good but a DVX's 24p moves better and seems more film-like and since an HVX200 is basically an HD DVX, I'd say go for the HVX200 for filmmaking and save the XLH1 for everything else.
 
R Gale said:
Shooting HDV of has serious limitations due to artifacting on movement (which is why all of Canon's company demos are landscapes & shots without much movement), plus HDV's 4:2:0 color ensures you won't be able to pull a greenscreen key to save your life. Aside from the DVCPRO HD's 4:2:2 color, the clincher for me is the HVX's variable frame rates--something you can only get on the $65,000 Varicam... beautiful film-like slo-mo, plus time lapse!:thumbup:
Click to expand...

A lot of FUD here. Filmaddict, you need to see demuxed 24F. You've probably been watching it in VLC and it doesn't remove the pulldown, so watching it on a progressive computer monitor makes the cadence obvious. MPEG Streamclip can convert it and the motion looks right. What a lot of people talk about is the out-of-the-box look of the H1 being videoish. That's true because Canon is shipping a camera meant for actual live broadcast production, with filmmaking options too. It's supposed to look "broadcast flat" because that's what engineers like. That doesn't mean you can't dial-in a very nice cine-look, it just takes a little work, rather than just switching to "cine-like" D or some such, and voila! Instant movie! The HDV (actually HDV2) from the Canon is very clean and can be graded extensively in post, so you should mostly consider how 24F motion looks to you. It's probably the only stuff that really looks like 1080p of all these "affordable" hd cameras. The highlight issues is also resolvable. I don't think many have played around with the knee circuit much. It helps a lot.

I have also seen very good HDV keys too, and motion artifacting is more of a rumor than a reality. Yes, it's possible to break up the MPEG slightly with something nearly unwatchable, but mostly it has a very clean rendition of even high-frequency motion.
And this is all just HDV. I know that an SDI portable recorder is being developed for one, and if you absolutely have to have the best quality, you can drag a computer to the set and not even need an external RAID. I have SDI to DVCPROHD captures from my Kona card, and they are cleaner than anything I've ever seen from the HVX. I'm certainly not saying it's convenient, but the H1 can deliver in Panny's codec in spades. Again, it all depends on convenience and tradeoffs.

I know that FCP 24F compatibility is coming soon, but in the meantime Vegas and Premiere can work with 24F. The deck issue is still there, but you can also add a Firestore and not even roll tape ever...although I certainly would as a backup.

People talk about the H1 being expensive, but buying enough P2 for your HVX (I still think even 2 8GB isn't really enough) is an expensive proposition too. I would wait for the Cineporter unless you're ok with the card swapping thing. Of course, card swapping has it's nostalgic value. It's a lot like changing mags. That said, you really have to trust the person downloading your cards. I think P2 is an awesome technology, but it's a little premature for anything but short-take narrative filmmaking.

Either way, I don't think you can go wrong. Both cameras see the world differently, and they each have their virtues. What I don't get around here is the old crap about HDV. It's amazingly efficient, particularly with the H1's DIGIC processing. It's very clean on the H1, and if it's not good enough for you, you can get PRISTINE hd out the SDI.

So, essentially, it's ALL GOOD. You just have to make decisions about what matters most to you, and where you can deal with some inconveniences.
 
I am not a fan of HDV, mainly because of the lack of decks, different standards, etc. I had some issues shooting a concert with crazy lights and smoke as well. That being said, about 90% of what you hear about HDV is crap from people who dont use it.

I think the Canon 24f looks great. Just like the XL2, the flat settings on the camera are not optimized and require tweaking to better handle highlights, colors, etc. Not sure why they do that, I suppose it is set from the factory to get the most rez and detail.

As far as HD-SDI, there are a couple companies promising HD-SDI portable HDDs in the coming year. Remember, there is NO sound though.

Best advice, play with them, rent them...consider the WORKFLOW you like best and choose accordingly. There is no BEST camera...




ash =o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top