XH-A1 filmmaking
- Thread starter niceguy15
- Start date
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
The Canon simply cannot do the high frame rate progressive like the Panasonic can do. 30F is not high frame rate progressive but rather 60P. 60P comes in handy for overcranking for some awesome slow motion playback in 24P. 60P also gives you that live theatre look. 60P is also the best format if you are shooting action movies because it is full progressive and handles fast motion much better than 24P. Also 60P is the best high definition for the fast action sports.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
The problem with the Canon is that it uses interlace chips to record progressive and it outputs its footage in an interlace stream. There is no way the Canon can resolve 1080 lines of resolution. To reduce interlace flicker softening filters are used that reduce the resolution to only 800 lines. And this is only possible if there are no temporal displacements between the fields. This is because Canon uses an adaptive weave deinterlace to blend the 2 fields into one progressive frame. But once fast motion is introduced weave deinterlacing is impossible without producing horrible cog artifacts. Thus Canons deinterlace switches to line doubling mode during fast action which only nets 400 lines of vertical resolution.
Uh, no. 24F outputs as 24 frames progressive without a pulldown and is not in anyway an "interlaced stream."androbot2084 said:
Neither can the HVX with its native progressive chip. In fact, neither the HVX or the A1 can even reach up to 800 lines! None of the camera in this price range can. Even the CineAlta will only give you full horizontal res and not vertical res with its 1440 x 1080 chip size.androbot2084 said:
Sounds like you've never used an A1 before and are simply making assumptions. 24F is NOT simple frame blending which would cost you half the vertical rez. Various tests from Adam Wilts and others have demonstrated that the A1 output more than 600 lines of vertical res in 60i mode and approximately 540 lines in 24F mode for a 10-15% reduction in resolution. 540 lines still approximate what the HVX is capable of producting since the Canon starts out with higher res.androbot2084 said:
And 30F by the way is NOT 60p. It's 30p. Most HVX users don't even shoot 60p unless it's for slow motion, they shoot 24p.
ecking
Veteran
androbot2084 said:
Please show me a Blu-ray or HD-DVD disk that plays at 1080p60 or 720p.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't fit within the spec for the disk, and I know for a fact most current TVs can't handle this.
Also by the time an HD broadcast reaches your tv you are essentially looking at a signal akin to HDV.
Also 24p is the best format for indie films whether or not you go to film out. Unless you live in Japan, no one likes the look of 60i, or 60p "super real" content. It looks unprofessional to everyones eyes. Maybe before 24p digital cameras existed people put up with it because they had to but now a days everything and I mean everything is given a film look even reality shows. 60p's primary use is to capture slow motion, not be way in which things are shot.
Any indie movie on blu-ray or hd-dvd would be crazy not to shoot 24p if they had the option.
Barry_Green
Moderator
To tape that's true, but out the analog ports it is an interlaced stream, so when watching on an HDTV it's interlaced with 2:3 pulldown. (which is not a problem, everybody has to add interlacing to make it compatible with the HDTV broadcast standard of 1080/60i; I'm just pointing out that you said "not in anyway", when in fact it actually is when using the HD-SDI or analog component ports; anyone planning on capturing from those ports will have to deal with interlace/pulldown.jade8472 said:
Barry_Green
Moderator
I think you're missing androbot's key argument -- he's talking about 720/60p, which is indeed far and away superior to 1080/60i for anything dealing with motion. The Super Bowl, American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, or any live HD show on Fox, ABC, or ESPN: they're all broadcast 720/60p.jade8472 said:
Our major sports networks all went 720/60p for numerous reasons, but mainly because of just how much better sports coverage works in 720/60p. It drove me batty to watch the interlace flicker during the NCAA basketball tournament (CBS is a 1080i network); it looks sooooo much cleaner in progressive (watch ESPN HD to see how different it is).
Many HVX users are (quite obviously) addicted to 24P, and their use of 60P is for overcranking as you suggest. But for those wanting to shoot "live" footage, 720/60P is the best option and it looks absolutely fantastic.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Only to the analog outputs or to the HD-SDI port. On tape it's recorded as 24 discrete progressive frames.androbot2084 said:
As Jade said, neither does any other cam anywhere near this price class.
All cams do this.
Where do you get this idea? There's no deinterlacing going on at all in the Canon, as far as I can tell. Canon uses a green pixel spatial offset technique to deliver its 24F footage as far as I know. If it was deinterlacing, it would be doing so on the raw unprocessed field, not on some softened deflickered frame, and that would give it much more than 400 lines.
Sure the Canon drops res during fast motion, but that's due to HDV, not to any processing inside the camera. If you capture that fast motion through HD-SDI or analog or HDMI, you shouldn't see any drop whatsoever.
androbot2084
Carbonite Member
So what you are saying is that if television shows like American Idol and Dancing with Stars were shot at 24p rather than 60p it would be more professional because it would achieve that film look? And Somehow 60p is an unprofessional format to shoot in for television shows because it screams video. What everyone seems to forget is 60p is a progressive format as is 24p and 60p captures the image more like the human eye sees it. 60p may not be the film look as we know it but 60p can indeed be considered a theatre look albeit a live performance look. When someone sees a live performance such as an opera or a broadway play or a ballet dance in real life does anyone complain that it looks like a soap opera because it was not filmed first at 24p?
If anyone has seen American Idol or Dancing with stars shot at 720p60 I would think that they would at least be impressed with the image quality even if they did prefer 24p and they would come to the conclusion that 720p60 is actually higher resolution than 1080i60. So in this respect the Panasonic Varicam blows the Canon XH-A1 out of the water. So the only question that remains is how close does the HVX-200 come to achieving the quality of the Varicam?
If anyone has seen American Idol or Dancing with stars shot at 720p60 I would think that they would at least be impressed with the image quality even if they did prefer 24p and they would come to the conclusion that 720p60 is actually higher resolution than 1080i60. So in this respect the Panasonic Varicam blows the Canon XH-A1 out of the water. So the only question that remains is how close does the HVX-200 come to achieving the quality of the Varicam?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Why wouldn't the Varicam blow an XHA1 out of the water? You're talking about a $75,000 package (including lens) vs. a $3250 camera... it darn sure better blow it away! 
For reality events, 720/60p is the best thing out there. But if you're trying to shoot a movie or dramatic narrative, 720/60p would be a lousy choice (unless you *wanted* to make it look like "video"). That's (I believe) what ecking was talking about -- dramatic/narrative/movie stuff.
For live events, 24p makes for a lousy choice. It excels at drama/movie stuff, and it is weakest in recording live events that are supposed to look "live".
For reality events, 720/60p is the best thing out there. But if you're trying to shoot a movie or dramatic narrative, 720/60p would be a lousy choice (unless you *wanted* to make it look like "video"). That's (I believe) what ecking was talking about -- dramatic/narrative/movie stuff.
For live events, 24p makes for a lousy choice. It excels at drama/movie stuff, and it is weakest in recording live events that are supposed to look "live".
androbot2084 said:
99% of the viewers won't notice or care.
androbot2084 said:
Who says 60p is unprofessional? It's simply not a big factor in a user's decision to purchase an HVX (except, as I've already stated, for undercranking). Again, most people watching a live show doesn't know or care about framerate. It's a very subliminal effect.
It's an interesting thought to consider though. What if there was a camera capable of recording video EXACTLY as the human eyes see it, down to the framerate, colors, latitude etc. Would it be closer to a "video" or "movie" look? I don't think what I see look like film at all.
themagickite
Well-known member
the sensor would have to really huge!
when you consider how much more field of view we get than full wide on any camera, and how that same camera would have to be closer to the middle of it's range to reflect our depth perception.
i wonder if you could have 2 x 4:3 sensors whoose images are stitched together to create a somewhat 3D 16:9 (or other wide aspect ratio) image that reflects the way we see things (2 images becoming one is some weird way)
when you consider how much more field of view we get than full wide on any camera, and how that same camera would have to be closer to the middle of it's range to reflect our depth perception.
i wonder if you could have 2 x 4:3 sensors whoose images are stitched together to create a somewhat 3D 16:9 (or other wide aspect ratio) image that reflects the way we see things (2 images becoming one is some weird way)
Actually our FOV isn't that wide at all. If you consider that 50mm is the standard for what we see, the A1 at full wide is 4.5mm or 33mm in 35mm equivalent. It would be difficult I think to get the same sort of dynamic range as our eyes are capable of resolving details in light and dark areas much better.
themagickite
Well-known member
what i mean is that at the shortest focal length a camera will make objects appear much further away then they are (and at tele they appear closer together) in 35mm still photography 50mm will yeild the same kind of picture that the human eye sees, but with a much norrower angle of view
because of the smaller sensor size of the A1 (and other such cameras) then you get an even smaller field of view for an image that will have the same object-distance relationship as the human eye
i think, maybe i'm wrong but this is how understand it, if i am wrong then i would thoroughly appreciate correction, i assume that if this is not correct then the opposite is true, anyway
someone else?
edit: is 50mm the way we see things just in 35mm still photography, or all sensor size images
because of the smaller sensor size of the A1 (and other such cameras) then you get an even smaller field of view for an image that will have the same object-distance relationship as the human eye
i think, maybe i'm wrong but this is how understand it, if i am wrong then i would thoroughly appreciate correction, i assume that if this is not correct then the opposite is true, anyway
someone else?
edit: is 50mm the way we see things just in 35mm still photography, or all sensor size images
Last edited:
FOV is dependent on sensor size, and 50mm is merely 35mm standard. 50mm is considered to be how wide we actually see things.
The A1 has a smaller sensor size meaning that at full wide the FOV is less wide than the full wide of say, a 2/3'' chip camera. But if you zoom in so that the focal length is 50mm in 35mm equivalent (6.9mm on the A1) then you'll have the same FOV as what the human eyes see and the same object-distance relationship.
The A1 has a smaller sensor size meaning that at full wide the FOV is less wide than the full wide of say, a 2/3'' chip camera. But if you zoom in so that the focal length is 50mm in 35mm equivalent (6.9mm on the A1) then you'll have the same FOV as what the human eyes see and the same object-distance relationship.
themagickite
Well-known member
oh ok
doesn't really make sense to me, i found that only the fish eye lenses around 14mm (in 35mm photography) approched the FOV that we see, but i guess that 50mm standard doesn't take peripheral vision into account, yes?
doesn't really make sense to me, i found that only the fish eye lenses around 14mm (in 35mm photography) approched the FOV that we see, but i guess that 50mm standard doesn't take peripheral vision into account, yes?
all i know is its a nice camera.
moviemaker999
Well-known member
Sure, the canon xh a1 is a really nice camera and most people who are looking into the a1 are probobly people who could never afford an hvx200 alone(standar definition). Forget about p2 cards. If run and gun isn't your style of shooting and you already own a dvx look into the andromeda system. I'm sure most people have already heard of it, but the images from their users and on their website www.reel-stream.com seem to rival and (dare i say) surpass images i have seen come out of the hvx200. However, the hvx200 is an amazing tool that has its place and it depends solely upon what your doing. Overall I think the canon xh a1 is an awesome camera that at its price point brings up questions to many buyers that are borderline brook to buy an hvx when the canon seems to do everything it can do besides variable frame rates and if you weren't seeing the same image compared next to eachother most people would not tell the difference. It all comes down to how much your willing to spend and that brings thought of how you validate buying an hvx (5,295 + 2 8gb p2= nearly 7,000 and thats only for 16 minutes+ p2 store = another price range near canon xlh1) over xha a1 (3200 + 1 hour $10 hdv tape = 3210).
here is some information about how the hvx200 uses the dvcpro hd codeq.
DVCPROHD 100Mbps encodes 60 frames, no matter what. So if you are using 24fps, you are wasting the bandwidth for 36 of the 60 frames. This yields 1.66Mbps per frame.
However, note that there are either 2 times the pixels(960x720) or 4.5 times the pixels(1440x1080) than there are for DV. This means that at 720P on DVCPROHD, you are getting the exact same bandwidth per pixel as you do with DV, only there is more information(4:2:2 versus 4:1:1), so the compression is higher.
At 1080P, you get LESS bandwidth per pixel than with standard DV.
I agree with everything you said. I'm just pointing out stuff that other people have noticed as well, and it's not like Panasonic is going to stop selling a camera because a person chose to buy our product. In fact, i'm hoping that those seeking the advantages our product offers will purhcase a DVX, as opposed to some of the non-Panasonic HDV cams out there that offer inferior dynamic range, color precision, compression artifacts, etc.
I love the approach Panasonic is having to products, and I think we have something in common in that we attempt to have a closer pulse on what the end users are requesting by having contact with them. These are just two different tools, that can work great in different situations. Somebody on the run or with need for slow motion for example, will find the HVX to be an invaluable tool. Somebody shooting greenscreen footage in a studio however, would proably benefit greatly from the footage our system offers.
Either way Panasonic sells a camera.
I think that the xha1 is completely capable compared to any other camera under 10k. IN the end it all depends about your story and keeping your audience's attention.
here is some information about how the hvx200 uses the dvcpro hd codeq.
DVCPROHD 100Mbps encodes 60 frames, no matter what. So if you are using 24fps, you are wasting the bandwidth for 36 of the 60 frames. This yields 1.66Mbps per frame.
However, note that there are either 2 times the pixels(960x720) or 4.5 times the pixels(1440x1080) than there are for DV. This means that at 720P on DVCPROHD, you are getting the exact same bandwidth per pixel as you do with DV, only there is more information(4:2:2 versus 4:1:1), so the compression is higher.
At 1080P, you get LESS bandwidth per pixel than with standard DV.
I agree with everything you said. I'm just pointing out stuff that other people have noticed as well, and it's not like Panasonic is going to stop selling a camera because a person chose to buy our product. In fact, i'm hoping that those seeking the advantages our product offers will purhcase a DVX, as opposed to some of the non-Panasonic HDV cams out there that offer inferior dynamic range, color precision, compression artifacts, etc.
I love the approach Panasonic is having to products, and I think we have something in common in that we attempt to have a closer pulse on what the end users are requesting by having contact with them. These are just two different tools, that can work great in different situations. Somebody on the run or with need for slow motion for example, will find the HVX to be an invaluable tool. Somebody shooting greenscreen footage in a studio however, would proably benefit greatly from the footage our system offers.
Either way Panasonic sells a camera.
I think that the xha1 is completely capable compared to any other camera under 10k. IN the end it all depends about your story and keeping your audience's attention.
moviemaker999 said:
True. But the 24p in the HVX can be shot at 24pn, which realocates all that bandwidth only to neccesary frames. ALSO, the DVCPROHD codec is about 1:6.7 compression. (dv is like 1:5) HDV is Something like 1:20 or 1:25 compression. I dont care "how good HDV" looks. That throwing away LOTS of information, and when it comes time to do serious CC or compositing, the Macro blocking is KILLER and can present major problems.
You get what you pay for.