Canon XH A1/G1 vs. JVC GY-HD110U

[Chris Korrow]

As what was said earlier, it depends on what you shoot. I do a lot of Doc work & couldn't live without the auto-focus & image stabilizer. The over-crank under crank of the new JVC is tempting though. I'm also used to the canons (XL1s), so I'm partial, plus I have batteries etc. and the thought of having everything that I need from the HD1 for $4000 is a no brainer for me.
Chris

[Joseph Olesh]

there is one more thing i am a bit curious, that i don't think has been touched on yet.

i have enjoyed working with canon over the past few years because of the durability i have found in ther products. of the companies discussed, any feelings on durability, customer service, product resources...

[Chris Korrow]

Just what I can say about the canon (XL1s)
I've had it for 4+ years without any problems, running it in all kinds of weather. Chris

[Adam Letch]

Been using the JVC now for about 2 months, its solid, and Andrew Young is it who shot with one for the Madagascar doc even dropped it in the drink, dried it out and continued on.

But in that regard, the only concern I have is the evf, its not the most solid looking item, and would be something I hope is looked at for the HD200 or HD250.

[Robert Sanders]

I just put our XLH1 through a hellacious shoot, daylight, night, warm weather, humid weather, dust, smoke and artificial rain.

And then XLH1 said, "is that all you got bitch!"

[Barlow Elton]

In my first week of ownership I subjected my XL-H1 to hours an hours of extremely cold weather in Park City, UT during the Sundance FF.

I had the same sassy response from my cam too, Robert. :-)

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Aaron Frick

If you plan to use a stock lens I am quite sure that the Canon is much better glass. On the other hand I prefer a true manual focus lens like the one of the JVC.

The biggest problems I have with the JVC stock lens is the heavy breathing and signifigant CA it seems to show all over the place. To be fair, the XL-H1's glass isn't perfect either and will show some CA too, but it's edge-to-edge sharp and doesn't breathe. And I really love using the "SD" 16x Canon XL manual lens with the H1. It has a different, slightly more contrasty look and in certain apertures and focal lengths performs quite well in HD. And of course, it's got that "pro feel" too.

I love the ergonomics of the JVC (especially love the focus assist) but it really needs a better lens IMHO, even if it has that "pro manual feel".

The other thing to consider is that the HD100 is 24 and 30p HDV only. (I don't consider "motion smoothing" to be a reasonable facsimile of standard 60i/p video) There's also something to be said for 1080i, in that it produces a super crisp hyper-real look, which has its place for television/documentary production.

[Sergio Perez]

I'm a happy owner of the Panasonic HVX, and am quite happy with it. The main advantage with it is the dvcprohd codec. Also, the variable frame rates and the possibility of shooting 720p60 at 4:2:2 is something no other camera in the price range offers. Resolution is not everything. I've seen my footage in a 50" plasma screen and I was stunned with the quality.

But you're right, every camera has its advantages and disadvantages. The HVX was the camera for me, and I'm quite happy with it. The A1 seems like a good proposition. I wouldn't use HDV for editing, tough- I would suggest getting a AJA or Decklink card for capturing trough the component outs and working with the DVCPROHD codec.

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Aaron Frick

I would suggest that a drop from 1440x1080 to 800x540 in Frame Mode is a lot.

Hey Aaron, as Pete touched on, these numbers are mixed up.

The 1440x1080 you're refering to is not the resolution of the camera per se, but what is laid to tape in the 1080i flavour of HDV. It doesn't matter whether you shoot standard interlaced or frame mode, it will be laid to tape at 1440x1080, and then stretched by your NLE/monitor to 16:9 frame for post production/viewing (exactly the same as the Sonys, even though the image is softer).

In the case of your JVC, the data is laid to tape at 1280x720, but again, this is not the resolution of the camera (which is a function of the camera head, lens, DSP and so on), but merely the HDV 720p codec.

The 800x540 you mention from Adam's tests is the resolution he measured coming from the camera itself (I believe this was HDV independent because he used the SDI outputs). These are TV lines of res, or lines per picture height, so you can effectively times the vertical number by 1.77 to fill the 16:9 frame, meaning the XLH1 can resolve something like 1420x540 total pixels in frame mode, as opposed to 1420x800 in interlaced mode (both laid to tape, as mentioned, within the 1440x1080 HDV scheme).

With the JVC, it will be something like 1240x700, close to the limits of the codec. And as Pete said, those numbers may be a little generous for the JVC, and a little lean on the Canon side. If anything the Canon, even in frame mode, has the edge in sharpness.

In any case, resolution is not a real point of difference between the Canon cams and the HD100.

If you want to see 24F in action, take a look here:http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=126

Steven Dempsey - among others - has put up some really beautiful XL-H1 24f shots recently.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Sergio Perez

The A1 seems like a good proposition. I wouldn't use HDV for editing, tough- I would suggest getting a AJA or Decklink card for capturing trough the component outs and working with the DVCPROHD codec.

But converting HDV to DVCProHD involves losing some horizontal resolution, so it's arguably better to use one of the intermediate codecs like Cineform or Canopus HQ. And that doesn't require a special capture card, just the software to do the codec conversion.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Josh Dahlberg

as Pete touched on, these numbers are mixed up.

The inadvertant misinformation that resulted above from confusing pixels with TV lines of resolution is an excellent example of how important it is not to get hung up on numbers and technical specifications, and to focus instead on how the image actually looks.

[Thomas Smet]

If it is one thing that the shoot out has shown us it is that at the end of the day there are only small details between all of the HDV cameras that are different. In fact the resolution should be the least of your concerns. I would much rather have a clean less detailed image than a bad image with more detail. I do not even care anymore how much resolution a HD camera has. I just want the image to be clean and natural and offer a decent workflow. Take the Panasonic camera for example. The chips are only 960x540. They do use pixel shift to gain more detail however and the images look very clean. It one of the lowest detailed cameras of these HD cameras but yet it has very clean images. The 540 vertical chip from the HVX200 isn't all that much different than the single 540 field from the H1. Both use some level of pixel shifting interpolation to gain more detail. I do not know exactly what 24F is doing but it is something to do with pixel shifting of some type. That means some scenes may have more detail then others depending on the colors in that scene.

To me wanting a camera because it has 5% more detail is like wanting to pay $1,000 more for a cpu for a new editing system to render your projects 5% faster. It may be faster but who cares.

I used to question 24F at first as well but I for the life of me cannot find anything to complain about it and I hate interlaced video with a passion.

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Thomas Smet

Take the Panasonic camera for example. The chips are only 960x540. They do use pixel shift to gain more detail however and the images look very clean. It one of the lowest detailed cameras of these HD cameras but yet it has very clean images.

But I've heard at least one person say the HVX200 yields a lot of artifacts in dim lighting compared to the Canon XLH1, so there again it's not a clear-cut comparison. The HVX200 certainly seems to deliver a different "look" than HDV cameras.

By the way, the difference in detail between a camera with a 960x540 sensor and one with a 1440x1080 sensor can be non-trivial, and if the point of HD is to deliver clearer images then that's something worth thinking about. As Chris says numbers aren't everything, but they can serve as a useful reference point.

[Barlow Elton]

Originally Posted by Sergio Perez

The main advantage with it is the dvcprohd codec. Also, the variable frame rates and the possibility of shooting 720p60 at 4:2:2 is something no other camera in the price range offers.

Ok, I know the HVX has great color, but I think it has more to do with its DSP than the mere codec. I get a little tired of "4:2:2" bandied about like it's the full-raster real deal. http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hd...ch_720p24_pt3/

A quote from a friend: "color space ratios are badly misused, and it is less ambiguous to quote absolute horizontal resolution numbers. 4:2:0 does not mean that there is no V or Cr information stored at all, it means that in each line, only one color difference channel is stored with half the horizontal resolution. The channel which is stored flips each line, so the ratio is 4:2:0 for one line, 4:0:2 in the next, then 4:2:0 again, and so on. DVCProHD is 4:2:2 but at a ratio of 1280 luma samples by 540 cb and 540 cr. Not really as much chroma bandwidth as one would think at first."

It's sub-sampled raster 4:2:2 and a fairly heavy pass of compression on the image too. DVCPRO HD has trouble with saturated reds and excessive detail. I know this from having captured raw SDI from the XL-H1 many times to the codec. (bypassing HDV compression)

The HVX is a great camera for how it handles images, especially for the lower res CCD, but let's not call it "true 4:2:2".

True HD 4:2:2 is sampling an image with half the chrominance of the luma in a given HD frame size, i.e. 1920x1080 or 1280x720, in which case the only camera that does this in the category currently is the XL-H1 (live camera head signal) to a full raster 4:2:2 codec (Sheer, CineForm, PhotoJPEG, Uncompressed) via SDI.

[David Ziegelheim]

Barlow...great post and great link! Now I understand why the resolution differences have less affect in HDV and DVCProHD recording.

It also beings to answer some questions I've been asking. In your last paragraph you state:

True HD 4:2:2 is sampling an image with half the chrominance of the luma in a given HD frame size, i.e. 1920x1080 or 1280x720, in which case the only camera that does this in the category currently is the XL-H1 (live camera head signal) to a full raster 4:2:2 codec (Sheer, CineForm, PhotoJPEG, Uncompressed) via SDI.

Is that only from SDI, or is it also from HD component output? All of the camera's have HD component output. When doing this, would the different resolutions of the the Canon's interlaced CCD vs the JVC progressive CCD be more apparent (since the chroma information would be captured)?

Thomas and Kevin, it is my experience that a change is only noticible if it was a bottleneck. If it wasn't...you don't see the change. A 500hp M5 BMW is no faster than a 225hp 525 on Manhattan's 3rd Avenue in the evening rush hour.

Even then, in general use, a 33-50% change is generally needed for the change to be generally noticable. However, a 10-20% change may 'feel' better in some circumstances. The difference in power between a 525 and 530 BMW.

And what you are saying is that these cameras are all with in 10-20% of each other. And with different strengths and weaknesses, it all averages out.

Chris, is there a place people can post their configurations and post processing when posting footage? As Josh said, there is some outstanding footage posted. However, without knowing what setting acheived that affect it may be hard to produce. Maybe a standard way of posting settings.

Thanks to everyone,

David