I'm confused, and i need you help

S

someday

Well-known member
Hi great forum experts.
I'm totally confused.
I don't want to make the decision based on the tech specs. They are both good.

I live in the Swiss mountains and to make a hands on test is dramatic. Nobody sells those cameras here ;)

So my decision depends much from the online footage, but til now i didn't find some RAW samples from both cameras, in a similar situation to compare especially the noise, which is a key factor for my productions.
I tried to slightly cc some raw EX1 footage found in slashcam.de and the noise went up dramatically. But who knows, maybe i was a noisy camera setting.

The other important factor is the colorimetry "look"

Pinelake films proved that a filmic look is possible with the A1. This is the look i want. But i'm afraid of noise. Wmv files are too compressed to evaluate noise.
Instead all the EX1 footage is to me too "newsy" or "Saturday night sowhy", too electronic.

Im undecided ... EX1 or A1 ?

It would be great fo make a shootout, with both camera set to -3dB gain, and similar settings.


Thanks for your precious help
 
someday said:
Hi great forum experts.
I'm totally confused.
I don't want to make the decision based on the tech specs. They are both good.

I live in the Swiss mountains and to make a hands on test is dramatic. Nobody sells those cameras here ;)

So my decision depends much from the online footage, but til now i didn't find some RAW samples from both cameras, in a similar situation to compare especially the noise, which is a key factor for my productions.
I tried to slightly cc some raw EX1 footage found in slashcam.de and the noise went up dramatically. But who knows, maybe i was a noisy camera setting.

The other important factor is the colorimetry "look"

Pinelake films proved that a filmic look is possible with the A1. This is the look i want. But i'm afraid of noise. Wmv files are too compressed to evaluate noise.
Instead all the EX1 footage is to me too "newsy" or "Saturday night sowhy", too electronic.

Im undecided ... EX1 or A1 ?

It would be great fo make a shootout, with both camera set to -3dB gain, and similar settings.


Thanks for your precious help
Click to expand...

What are you using this cam for?

Are you shooting web videos or shooting for the big screen or????

Please describe your use and application a bit.

The Who, What, When, Where, and Whys so to speak.
 
Last edited:
Ok, projects will be mostly TV advertising (Pal anamorphic and HD), and a indie movie to be shot at film Festival Locarno, with a digital projector (no film transfer needed)
 
Last edited:
Someday, your question is not easy and one that I am thinking about myself. But without arguements from many, the XH-A1 and the EX1 are the two lowest-noise HD cameras under $10k. The EX1 being a little better than the XH-A1.

The XH-A1 has excellent noise reduction functions in cases where noise gets too high. The only concern with their implimentation of noise reduction is ghosting, or getting image trails when you turn it up too high. But at low levels, it is very useable, just don't do high action scenes in darkness and you will be good.

With the EX1, I have seen no image trails in the footage. I will say that as you turn up the gain, their noise reduction is very effective, but results in a little less resolution. If you have to turn the gain WAY up, you have to ask yourself if you would rather have ghosting on the XH-A1, or an image that looks more like 720 footage than 1080 footage on the EX1.

I don't think noise is going to be your biggest enemy with either of these cameras unless you really push it too far and don't light correctly. But as mentioned earlier, the type of shooting you want to do is the important factor. If you are shooting documentaries, talking heads, landscapes, kids playing baseball, event videography then the EX1 would work great for you and would give you much more flexibility(better codec, variable frame-rates, solid state recording, etc.). If you need to do a lot of motion tracking, car races, model runway shoots where there is a lot of camera flash, strobing lights at a concert, then the rolling shutter on the EX1 is going to give you grief. Unfortunately, right now, there are certain situations where CMOS cameras are not going to shoot acceptable footage for people.

My plan is to buy the EX1, and to rent a CCD camera if I find myself in one of those compromising situations where I have to shoot high action or concerts like the HVX200. I don't know how well they would cut together, but I have considered buying a used XH-A1 for a B cam to fill that need.

If you want an HD camera under $10K USD, and noise is your biggest concern, the XH-A1 and EX1 are your best bets, EX1 first, then the XH-A1. The next step is to detemine if you can tolerate the limits that a CMOS will impose upon you. If you can, I would get the EX1, if you can't, the XH-A1. If you can wait 3 months, you can see what new cameras will be offered at NAB. Or if you can afford it, buy the EX1, and a used XH-A1 like I am going to do. The only concern with high action on the XH-A1 is breaking the codec like in a boat chase on water, or camera mounted to a car shotting things flying by.

In the end, you have to choose what will work best for your business needs. Hope this helps.
 
Thanks to all, thank the Musician.
I will never use gain, i have plenty of lights, and i think that i will always shot at -3dB.
No sport, no superspeed action, just plain comedy style, architecture, interiors, heads, face close ups, glamour, fashion, large panoramas.
I could afford the EX1 + Letus Extreme, but what makes me confused is that i see no much difference in noise between RAW A1 and EX1 footage.
I found tons of raw A1 footage, even at very low light it seems to mach quite the EX1 footage.

So theoretically i prefere the A1, but then it's quite an old product. Maybe you are right. I should wait 3 months and see the EX1 answers from the other brands.
 
Last edited:
Gents
There is no comparison between a 1/3" sensor, 25MB/s CBR HDV 1440 machine against a 1/2" sensor 35MB/s VBR 1920 machine.
None.
The EX1 costs at least twice as much as an A1. For a reason.
That's like comparing a PD150 to an HVX. Or even a DVX to an HVX.
Sorry.
 
someday said:
Ok, projects will be mostly TV advertising (Pal anamorphic and HD), and a indie movie to be shot at film Festival Locarno, with a digital projector (no film transfer needed)
Click to expand...

If the budget works for you the EX1 based on the fact you won't be doing whip pans and you are working in mostly controlled lighting.

If there are problems that come up with fast jarring motion or vibrations you can use another cam and intercut (subject to the other cam's limitations of course.)


A side benefit or plus is if you decide to change cams again later you will have a higher probability of a greater resale value due the EX1 being in an earlier stage of it's product life cycle.
 
emotepix said:
Gents
There is no comparison between a 1/3" sensor, 25MB/s CBR HDV 1440 machine against a 1/2" sensor 35MB/s VBR 1920 machine.
None.
The EX1 costs at least twice as much as an A1. For a reason.
That's like comparing a PD150 to an HVX. Or even a DVX to an HVX.
Sorry.
Click to expand...

That's not the whole story. Ever planning on shooting scenes with a lot of flash? Try that with a CMOS sensor, 1/2'' or not.

The right camera for the right situation.
 
emotepix said:
Gents
There is no comparison between a 1/3" sensor, 25MB/s CBR HDV 1440 machine against a 1/2" sensor 35MB/s VBR 1920 machine.
None.
The EX1 costs at least twice as much as an A1. For a reason.
That's like comparing a PD150 to an HVX. Or even a DVX to an HVX.
Sorry.
Click to expand...


This is pure theory.
Even the HVX' DVCPROHD was supposed to give a better image, but where do the macroblocks, huge mosquito noise and macro banding come from??? From the 100Mb/s & 4:2:2 & 14bit processor ? :Drogar-Shock(DBG):
 
Last edited:
Emotepix is right about there being big advantages to the EX1 over the XH-A1, and admittedly some disadvantages because of the rolling shutter, but do the advantages matter to you is what is important. It has a shallower depth of field due to the 1/2 sensor, but that likely would not matter to you because you use a 35mm adapter. Problem solved. Of the 1/3 inch HDV cameras, the XH-A1 is the current champ with regards to low-light abilities and noise reduction.

For what I do, I would currently pick the EX1, the question is, what is right for you?

I don't have any uncompressed footage for you to play with, but if you want to see finished work, there are two great resources here. For the XH-A1, do a search on this site for Disjecta, he has done some stunning work with the A1. For the EX1, check out the footage by Phil Bloom on his EX1 blog, and some of his shorts on his homepage. On his homepage, you can click on Picadilly Furs for instance, and then if you scroll down the screen a little, he has a link to download a 720p version - very helpful. Here are the two links for Phil:

http://www.philipbloom.co.uk/Philip_Bloom/Blog.html
http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Blooms_Blog/Blooms_Blog/Blooms_Blog.html
 
Last edited:
You have just said....

someday said:
This is pure theory.
Even the HVX' DVCPROHD was supposed to give a better image, but where do the macroblocks, huge mosquito noise and macro banding come from??? From the 100Mb/s & 4:4:2 & 14bit processor ? :Drogar-Shock(DBG):
Click to expand...

So, the HVX is no good? A week ago you said the HVX was the only camera with 'great' colors:

someday said:
I choosed the HVX200 because it was the only camera to offer all that (workflow has no meaning for me, picture aesthetics is the only thing that matters to me (and budget..!!) ) and to have GREAT COLORS AND COLORIMETRY.

All other video cameras produce so.... poor, cheap, videoish, UGLY colors (even the Genesis).
Click to expand...

If you had a $5000 camera with better colors than every other camera made, why did you sell it?

someday said:
And let's talk about Cinealta.
I HATE cinealta. All Hollywood movies done with cinealta are so UGLY.
Click to expand...

If you hate the way every movie shot on Cinealta looks, and you hate the way the Genesis looks why do you think you are going to be happy with a $3000 camera?
 
someday
I don't know you personally but I share in your pain.
There are sites that offer raw EX1 files to play with.
The Sony site offers the EX drivers to read files on both Mac and PC machines, and the viewer/importer for both platforms.
If you have FCP 6.0.2 then you can use the Sony importing program and start editing those EX1 clips on your machine.
Even if you just load up an HDV clip in Quicktime and then load up another in true HD (not HDV) you can see the difference in the image size. Actually, if you have a monitor smaller than 24" (1920x1080) then you won't even be able to view the entire HD screen natively.
I do this every day. I have two Emmy certificates hanging on my wall that say I know what I'm doing. I just finished two P2 projects, one Varicam and HVX, and one F900 origination. And I just attended a hands-on demo of the EX1 (mine's not here yet) and worked through a bunch of questions. The head of the SOC was present.
There is no comparison.
Believe me.

Now, you're right. That is technically speaking.
Technically this thing represents what it should represent - a product of 2007.
Next year will come better products, as we'd all expect.

The viewers of the shows we make... don't care. Really.
If your story is good and interesting, you can shoot in Super 8. They don't care.
If your film is terrible, they still don't care. They won't be sitting around going "woah, bad 720p image there, check out that macroblocking!" -- they won't be sitting around at all. They'll be watching something else.

What matters is if you feel that the images on your screen represent what you saw in your mind.

It doesn't even matter if your images make other people happy, or not.

But it does matter if you put in a bunch of time and money and effort and sweat and heart and soul -- and the image on your screen suciks.

This is why most professionals use more than one camera. They're usually in service to another person's vision, that that person is usually different, every job.
So they have to have the latest, the best, the most economical, the most expensive, the oldest, the newest, whatever they can to get the fullest range of images available for their pallet.

So image quality is important. They care.
Rental houses too. And manufacturers. And broadcast network quality control people.

The EX1 will probably never be an A camera on a commercial set simply because you cannot pay a DP, a crew, and a production thousands of euros an hour and then bring this little camera on set and say "hi, this is it".

However, you will see three of them strapped to a car hood instead of a process truck, or two of them on the end of a 60 ft crane instead of a helicopter shot.

So you can't go by the professionals, they have their own needs.

And, of course, you will see it as an A camera in the hands of indie film makers. That's its target market, after all.

What are your visual needs? What are the needs of the film you're making?

Yes, you're right. You should approach every film as if it were to be your last. It might be, who knows.

It should look and feel like you want it too. And if that's film, then sell everything you have, buy the stock, rent the crew and shoot film.

Maybe you should really use something like a Canon Scoopic? They're going really cheap these days, and the film and lab people are falling all over each other trying to get any business at all to save from having to shut down. I was even able to get 30% off my professional discount rate at a very reputable Hollywood telecine house last month, it being holiday season and all.

My point is this - only hobbyists and production companies own expensive cameras these days. Purchase a $20,000 setup or rent it at $200 a day?

What will your end product do? If you're just going to watch it amongst yourselves, and not sell it, then you're going to have to buy a camera because this is your hobby and you want to continue doing it. If you want to make more than one film, that is, and if you want to get better at it.

Next up, if you want someone to pay you to shoot the odd something, then you'd better have a great, big camera. (Or at least a matte box, on board monitors, a follow focus with a light-up knob, and a big tripod....:-) (just kidding)

Moving on up, the cameras become way too expensive to own, unless you're pulling down more than a grand a day for a feature film shoot. It's better to rent, in this bracket, maybe buy a little camera for tests, etc., or just to fool around with - as a hobby. No shame in that.

And at the top? The people with the Oscars and the Emmys, and the Golden Globes and the Palmes D'Or? I think you'll find that the cameras, film or tape, all of that, come in a very distant second place to story, character, performance, music, rhythm, esthetics, taste, relations, contacts, business.
 
Last edited:
All
There's such a thing as post production.
Some people even do it seriously for a living.
This includes stuff like making up for CMOS rolling shutters, inserting white flashes to enhance press scenes, heck, even VFX.
Also, it includes de-interlacing, frame rate conversion, standards conversion, fast and slow motion, and most importantly, it includes color balancing, picture brightness and color saturation, and filtration and mood.
All in post.

The camera is just the instrument for collecting images for post.

Unless you plan to edit in camera, and shoot live music and mix your dialog on set, then you will do post.

Every other thing we do is derivative from its ancestor. Photography. Acting. Music. Voice. Sets. Props.

But only editing, only post has its roots in film making.

This is what we do. You take away a camera and you can draw on film. Take away the soundtrack and you can have a silent film.

So. Why am I saying this?

Because you have to understand that the modern professional camera is set up to get maximum latitude and picture information so that the editor, not the cameraman, can have the widest option in post.

This means the the raw image looks, frankly, terrible. If you don't process it first.
Put a LUT on it and it will look like a hundred different kinds of film stocks, video cameras, whatever.

That's the idea behind a professionally captured video image.

Now, you can obviously tweak it to exactly how you like it in camera.
But you had better be right, because you'll have a lot less room to make changes later on.

Which is fine if you're an indie, or you're the producer.

But what if you're the DP? Or an operator who won't even be around for post?

What if you're just sending footage in?

Would you really go for the all-out saturated sepia look?

Or would you leave it for post?
 
"This is pure theory.
Even the HVX' DVCPROHD was supposed to give a better image, but where do the macroblocks, huge mosquito noise and macro banding come from??? From the 100Mb/s & 4:4:2 & 14bit processor ? :Drogar-Shock(DBG):"
Click to expand...

Excuse me someday a lot of hvxusers believe it does give a better image and thats just the kind of comment that has folk refuting it - leading to petty squabbles.

Honestly you've been in a total contradictory spin about what your looking for making numerous 'tell me what to buy' topic posts. Do you think you can do that without making blatant misinformed critiques ;)

If you have the money and a nice comp and can deal with the workflow get the EX, if not get the A1. Do not sympathise with someday emotepix, you'll only encourage him!!! Wev'e had topics glorifying then criticising the hvx, ex, a1 from someday in a clumsy accidental flame inducing attempt to get the 'perfect answer' that leads to him getting the 'perfect cam' that will never happen anyway!

My problem is that you've been given loads of info on the forum topics already started, and you make loose statements criticising cams you were just glorifying in topics before. - bad form old boy!
 
I am not sure what Someday is looking for here.

These posts are getting silly and going in circles.

User reviews and comments are helpful, but you really need to see the cameras in person to decide what works for you.
 
This guy has been trolling for quite a while now. This is not the only forum he's been playing games. He gives the impression his expectations are for Hollywood production out of a sub $10K USD camera!

Everything's noisy, too electronic, to many macroblocking, banding, mosiquito noise....... Well, put away the magnifying glass and get to work.

All of this stuff is making me sick.. Everyone of these cameras.... HVX200, A1, EX1, Z1, H1 (add your camera here).... make some good looking video! The HVX200 was the largest leap in this technology.
 
TheMusician:
Thank you.
Yes i watched those clips many times... ;). But my question remains: Without comparing the 2 cameras at similar settings, nobody can tell which one has better noise specs, especially after cc.



Oynk:
Yes, the HVX has great colors. And huge noise, banding.


lawriejaffa & thefilmaddict & stevet:
What's the problem? You can't live with the idea that somebody wants to examine more before buying?
As i already told: The real trolling is all those threads telling that this is better than that, (specs wars). Often image quality has not much to do with specs.
The only thing i need is a pair of raw samples with both cameras set at -3dB, in low and high light situations.


Emotepix
i couldn't agree more. But my job is not directing, not selling and not acting. My job is deliver the best image possible for the buck. So my priority is image quality.




ESTEBEVERDE said:
A side benefit or plus is if you decide to change cams again later you will have a higher probability of a greater resale value due the EX1 being in an earlier stage of it's product life cycle.
Click to expand...

Yes this is important too. The A1 is marketing wise at the end of the product life.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top