HVX200 vs. XL-H1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Homersapien

Homersapien

Well-known member
Are there any good comparison threads/sites.

And why would you advise one or the other? Regardless of price (for the sake of discussion) which do you believe is better please?

I recognise this is the HVX200 forum so I understand that many people here would be more inclined to choose the HVX200, I'm just wondering what makes one better!
 
This has been discussed MANY times. Run a search and you shoudl find lots of good advice.

But the key question is what do you want to shoot? what do you want in a camera? You have to know this before you can go out and choose a camera to use.

- Mikko
 
I guess what I was really looking for was a comparitive review rather than discussions. Either a good website or a good thread. I've done a couple of searches but found nothing which seems definitive.

I'd prefer something that is more filmic or modified using 35mm adapters to be more filmic and from what I understand both can be made to be but the HVX200 seems better for it. Like I say though I was just wondering if there were reviews or comparitive footage of the same thing using the same adapters or something like that.

I thought that maybe someone knew of something like this rather than doing the search and reading for a few hours to find it.

nvm tho
 
Not sure if there is a "better".

The biggest consideration might be your choice of work flow.

If you know what you are doing and spend time on production value you'll get superb results from both.

Check out XLcinema.com and see what is being done with the Letus. Obviously plenty of examples of great HVX footage with 35mm adapters on this site.

Which cam are you leaning towards and why?
 
I'm leaning towards the HVX200. Partly because I like this particular community and the obvious pride that people have towards their cameras and what they are capable of.

Also the HVX is slightly cheaper but this isn't a major issue. If i liked the XL-H1 more then I'd go for that, but nevertheless its a bonus.

I'm also keen to take part in the fests here on dvx. It seems a good way to get into film making and maybe enter other comps etc afterwards.

From what i have read up about both of them the HVX seems to have a more film like colour and feel to it which as someone buying the camera in order to begin a cinematography hobby come career seems more akin to what I want to do.
 
A closer comparison would be to the HVX to the XH-A1 when it's available. Each cam has its strengths. I might be jumping the gun by saying this, but I would say the canon hdv cams more like sony f900 hvx is more like varicam.
 
Quick Run Down:

HVX200 Pros

-Most filmic gamma curve (opinion)
-Most filmic colors (opinion)
-DVCPro codec with 4:2:2 color sampling (twice the color resolution of HDV)
-Varible frame rates (for true slow motion)
-Better audio capabilities.
-Better low light cabalities.
-Higher lattitude (ranges of darks to lights the camera can record)
-P2 workflow with no digitizing, moving parts to break down, instant clip access, ect.

Cons

-No removible lenses (thus 35mm mounts cut the light and soften the image since they have to be put on top of the standard lense)
-Lower rez CCDs
-1080i and 480i don't support the variable frame rates.
-P2 expensive with no tape alterative (for HD footage)

XLH1 Pros

-Sharper CCDs
-Ability to put out uncompressed from an SDI out.
-Removible lenses

Cons

-Extra Lenses cost more than the camera.
-SDI out, while a nice option, adds several thousand more to a camera that already costs 9k (as opposed to 6k).
-Without SDI out you're stuck with HDV.
-4:2:0 colors space, half the color resolution of DVCPro (HDV)
-Interframe encoding which means frames are generated for compression and this can lead to motion artifacts and requires more processing power to edit (HDV).
-No true 24p. Canon instead uses a technique called 24f that de-interlaces the footage causing a drop in resolution.
-24f not supported by NLEs currently.
-24f not supported by other cameras or decks so one much use the XLH1 to capture with and thus risking breaking down the head.
 
Last edited:
DavidBeier said:
Quick Run Down:

Cons

...
-4:1:0 colors space, half the color resolution of DVCPro (HDV)
-Interframe encoding which means frames are generated for compression and this can lead to motion artifacts and requires more processing power to edit (HDV).
-No true 24p. Canon instead uses a technique called 24f that de-interlaces the footage causing a drop in resolution.
-24f not supported by NLEs currently.
-24f not supported by other cameras or decks so one much use the XLH1 to capture with and thus risking breaking down the head.
Click to expand...

This is not technically correct. I only agree with 2 of the 5 points. I'm not favoring one soluition on over another only wish people would get their facts straight.

-- 4:1:0 it is not, it is 4:2:0 which means it has a chroma resolution of 720x540. Technically DVCPRO-HD can have a chroma resolution of 640x1080 (which is not twice to chroma res), but as the CCDs are only 960x540, the practical chroma res can't exceed 640x540*, which means in 1080i/p/f the Canon has more chroma and more luma resolution.

* pixel shifting can only help resolve more luminance not chrominance.

-- Interframe encoding, can also be considered a postive feature, fitting high quality is lower bandwidth. Canon's MPEG encoder is one of the best, obvious motion artifacts are not common.

-- 24f is support by several NLEs, including CineForm enhanced products (Vegas and Premiere.) Plus 24f is looks pretty nice.
 
Last edited:
Yes, very well said, Mr. Newman. I assume the XH-G1 has the same workflow using the cineform codec in 24f, right? I think analog from XH-A1 to cineform versus HD-sdi out thru the XH-G1 to cineform would be a good comparison.
 
David Newman said:
This is not technically correct. I only agree with 2 of the 5 points. I'm not favoring one soluition on over another only wish people would get their facts straight.

-- 4:1:0 it is not, it is 4:2:0 which means it has a chroma resolution of 720x540. Technically DVCPRO-HD can have a chroma resolution of 640x1080 (which is not twice to chroma res), but as the CCDs are only 960x540, the practical chroma res can't exceed 640x540*, which means in 1080i/p/f the Canon has more chroma and more luma resolution.
Click to expand...

"4:1:0" was a typo. I meant 4:2:0 and has since been corrected. As for the debate with pixel shifting in mind, I haven't read much on that so I'll take your word for it.

-- Interframe encoding, can also be considered a postive feature, fitting high quality is lower bandwidth. Canon's MPEG encoder is one of the best, obvious motion artifacts are not common.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree here. Tapes are cheaper to be sure and that can be considered a postive (I already listed the P2 cost as a negative) but intraframe encoding can't really be seen postive in any other way. Canon's may be better than JVCs or Sony's (I understand they have the most I frames) but it's still compressing the motion. It's still going require more processing power that DVCPro in order to edit on the generated frames and there's still going to be motion artifacts. Just because it's not as bad as others doesn't mean it's not a potential issue. For the record though I agree that Canon has the best HDV codec not just as far as motion but also seems to handle colors better.

-- 24f is support by several NLEs, including CineForm enhanced products (Vegas and Premiere.) Plus 24f is looks pretty nice.
Click to expand...

Wasn't aware that Vegas or Premiere supported it. When did this happen? I tend to only pay attention to Avid and FCP though. As far as "looks nice," yes it does. There still is going to be a loss in resolution. I havn't seen tests that indicate quite how much but it's simply going to be something that happens when one de-interlaces the footage.
 
DavidBeier said:
Cons

-Extra Lenses cost more than the camera.
.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with this point. The 3x SD wide angle lens can be had for not very much at all, and can give you pictures like this...

http://img154.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=63641_23rd_Letter_575lo.jpg

Click on the pic to see it at full 1920x1080.

This is from Starway Pictures "The 23rd Letter", shot on the H1. You can find the clip this grab is from here and on xlcinema.

The 6x HD wide is coming soon, and I believe is listed at $3k. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Hmmm...I hadn't heard there was one that cheap. Most of the Canon people I've asked tend to say the lenses are quite pricey. Even at 3k though, give the camera starts at 9k, you've not payed twice what the HVX200 would cost.
 
Absurd as it sounds, I tend to believe HVX200(PANASONIC) users are MAC, whereas XL-HD (CANON) users are more inclined to be PC users...
Wonder if it is worth to organize a poll to find out?!?
 
Yeah, it's this whole thing about choosing the workflow that's best for you and the equipment you own or can afford.....................
 
DavidBeier said:
Quick Run Down:

HVX200 Pros
-Better low light cabalities.
Click to expand...




You ever touched an XLH? If you think the HVX is better in low light then I question all of your facts and opinions! This is a very slanted and uninformed comparison.

As far as 35mm adapters. The sharpest combo I have found is the new Letus35XL Flip v2 on the XLH. When I need to shoot mini35 that is what I use, I find the M2/HVX combo unusably soft on anything wide. I do not shoot much mini35, as I usually push for a Varicam for such projects so... take that for what it is worth.

Most editors have the 24F figured out and Canon's new $1500 camera can be used as a deck!




ash =o) <---- HVX owner BTW
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top