My apologies if it's not the right place to ask, but how do the picture from these two sony cams compare to HDV? I understand that HDV is 1440 x1080 only, but other than the size of the image, is there anything else?
Is it really worth to dump a Canon XH-A1 for one of those sonys?
Thanks
Larry

Actually there's no difference in image size. 1440 anamorphic is exactly the same size as 1920 square.

My apologies if it's not the right place to ask, but how do the picture from these two sony cams compare to HDV? I understand that HDV is 1440 x1080 only, but other than the size of the image, is there anything else?
Is it really worth to dump a Canon XH-A1 for one of those sonys?
Thanks
Larry

Hey Larry,
In my honest opinion my answer would be no. I would not dump my XH-A1 for the AX2000/NX-Z5. You have a very capable camera still in the XHA1. I would wait till NAB to see Canons new camcorder. Also I'd wait to see what other camcorders will be presented from other companies. If you need solid state AVCHD now then you have the panasonic and the sonys. In that case I would purchase the Sony NX5. If you can wait till NAB you'll have more peace of mind with the next purchase. Take Care

Monday

Are you saying that actually HDV 1440x1080 is the same size as 1920x1080?
Sure, good, I didn't know that.

Thanks Monday!

Are you saying that actually HDV 1440x1080 is the same size as 1920x1080?
Sure, good, I didn't know that.

HDV records 1080 line images at a resolution of 1440x1080, while AVCHD can record full raster images (1920x1080).

I know, so what do you answer to Chris Hurd wen he says : Actually there's no difference in image size. 1440 anamorphic is exactly the same size as 1920 square."

Am I missing something?

By image size I'm assuming he means that both yield a 16:9 frame - width is 16 units, height is 9 units - the actual image size will obviously depend on the overall size of the display!

With a 1920x1080 recording codec, each pixel is square - 1920x1080 is 120 times 16x9 - whilst with such as HDV pixels represent an oblong shape. What can be said is that whilst both represent a 16x9 shape frame, 1920x1080 recording is capable of higher resolution horizontally.

Note the words "is capable of" very carefully. If the front end of the camera isn't capable of that resolution, you won't see it, end of story. A camera is only as strong as it's weakest link. And in the case of all HDV and AVC-HD current cameras (AFAIK), none of the front ends are capable of 1920x1080 resolution - the best max out at around 1440x810. In such cases it's actually better to have a lower res codec - it makes for easier compression and a better result overall.

As regards your original question, the image quality is more influenced by actual camera than codec. If you're looking to trade up from a Canon XH-A1, I'd be looking more at an EX1 than any of the new Sony NXCAMs. Yes, it's a bit more expensive, but the step up is very big in many ways. It does give full 1920x1080 resolution, but other advantages include a proper manual lens rather than servo driven, and a host of other factors.

And XDCAM is easier to edit than AVC-HD as well.

My apologies if it's not the right place to ask, but how do the picture from these two sony cams compare to HDV? I understand that HDV is 1440 x1080 only, but other than the size of the image, is there anything else?
Is it really worth to dump a Canon XH-A1 for one of those sonys?
Thanks
Larry

1440x1080 anamorphic displays the same as full raster 1920x1080, but here are considerable differences, aside from recording full raster images as opposed to recording anamorphic images.

AVCHD compression image quality can be considerably better than HDV. Barry Green directly tested Panasonic's flavor of AVCHD (AVCCAM) vs XDCAM-EX with an EX1, and found them quite comparable (with AVCCAM doing perhaps a bit better when highly stressed - whip pans and that sort of thing). XDXAM-EX uses MPEG-2 compression at 35Mbps as opposed to HDV at 25Mbps, and yields notably better image fidelity.

I own an HMC40. The HMC40 is Panasonic's three 1/4" full raster imaging chip AVCCAM (Panasonic's badge for professional AVCHD) camcorder. It can record images that are absolutely stunning, and with adequate lighting, best the A1 (and any HDV cam that I know of) for recording image detail. I absolutely love shooting with the HMC40 and I'm very interested in the NX5U (since it apparently can record roughly the same image detail as the HMC40 - even though the NX5U doesn't quite use full raster imaging chips), and went so far as to register the domain names hmc40.com (nothing there yet - soon will have raw MTS files from the HMC40) and nx5u.com, where there are some raw MTS files from the NX5U available for download now (for folks that want to closely examine images recorded by the camera, rather than versions that are downsized and re-compressed for streaming). If anyone wants to shoot (good) comparisons, of the NX5U with the XH-A1, Z5U, etc., you can drop me a line. I've got plenty of storage and bandwidth to make it possible for downloading un-recompressed raw footage from the cameras, so folks can really compare the footage properly rather than comparing footage that has been severely stepped on.

Aside from using a better (in terms of image quality) codec, the NX5U can also record continuously, essentially forever, since it has two memory card slots and the camera is capable of spanning recordings across cards. (I think there's some sort of arbitrary one week continuous limit, or something like that, but I'd have to double check that to be sure. Also, that optional 128GB memory module can record for almost 12 hours straight at the highest quality setting.)

I don't have an NX5U yet, but one thing I noticed with the HMC40 is that the gain seems a whale of a lot cleaner than with the XH-A1. Even 12dB of gain usually looks pretty clean (as opposed to starting to look a bit radio-active like with the A1). From what I've seen thus far, it doesn't appear that gain on the NX5U is as clean as with the HMC40, but it does seem to be a bit cleaner than with the XH-A1.

I was really hoping that Canon would come out with an AVCHD cam (and use full raster imaging chips). I'm sure their new cam will be an excellent one, and their MPEG-2 4:2:2 compression, at 50Mbps, will almost assuredly at least edge out AVCHD encoding, image fidelity wise. That said, what I've seen from the HMC40 tells me that AVCHD image quality can be excellent (especially compared to HDV) and quite adequate for my purposes. The better quality of the 50Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2 encoding would be really nice, but I much prefer having the far smaller file sizes with AVCHD (less than 1/2 as big), as far as long term storage of original footage though.

I was really hoping that Canon would come out with an AVCHD cam (and use full raster imaging chips).They have, in the form of the HF S series. I know you meant a pro-level camera, while the HF S series is only consumer -- however, it has enough "pro" features (LANC, etc.) to use by some folks in some capacities. Just wanted to point that out,

The images out of the HF-S series cams look pretty darn sweet too. From what I've seen, the image quality is about the same as the image quality from the HMC40. I wish Canon would put 720p60 capability in an HF-S cam. That would be absolutely great to be able to shoot 720p60, that high in image quality, with a little fist size cam.

To clarify the issue about 1440x1080 equaling 1920x1080 -

HDV use rectangular pixels with a Pixel Aspect Ratio of 1.333

1440x1.333 = 1920! So, when you play back HDV out of the camera to an HD display, it fills the same 1920x1080 screen as actual 1920x1080 footage.

Just to further muddy the issue, I'll mention that DVCPRO HD is 1280x1080 with a PAR of 1.5, and 1280x1.5 = 1920.

Jeff Pulera

Thanks for all your answer.
Yes, I'll will have a look at those XDCAM-EX
Larry

>Is it really worth to dump a Canon XH-A1 for one of those sonys?

It is if you want to move away from a tape-based workflow! But if the main reason you are considering the change is to improve image quality, then probably not. I would expect the Sony image to be better than the A1, but not dramatically.

It really depends on what you are doing. If final destination is SD DVD, then there isn't likely to be a nickel's worth of difference in image quality for viewing, shooting with the NX5U or XH-A1. If you are shooting 1080 line video for delivery on Blu-Ray, to be played back on big (1080 line resolution) wide-screen HDTVs, then the difference could be quite noticeable for viewing.

I think Adam Wilt puts the effective vertical resolution of the NX5U at around 800 lines (what you get after the effects of the lens, imager, and codec are all lumped together in the final product file). That's about the same as the XH-A1. I have been thinking about selling my A1 and getting one of these new Sony cameras.

The Sony's have much better image stabilization and much better LCD and viewfinder displays. These alone would be reasons for me to "trade up". The AVCHD codec also seems to handle scenes with motion much better than HDV. I compared a raw file from the new Sony CX550 to a file from the XH-A1 (somewhat similar motion and scenery) and the CX550 (which probably uses the same implementation of AVCHD as the NX5U and AX2000) seemed to do a better job of maintaining detail with similar motion.

Pat

If you look at the rez charts in Adam Wilt's articles, the HMC40 and NX5U look pretty close, as far as resolving image detail, and those rez charts are images after compression. I've got an A1 and an HMC40. I'm going to put them side by side someday pretty soon, and do some careful comparisons of both recorded detail and practical low light performance, but at a glance, it's pretty obvious the 40 records a sharper image. I don't think there's any way that the A1 could shoot those same charts, and record that much detail. I'm not so sure I believe the HMC40 is really three full stops behind the A1 either, for practical purposes. Gain is quite a bit cleaner with the 40, and that makes a real-world difference.

Picked up my NX5U yesterday afternoon so haven't had a lot of time to do any real detailed comparisons. Just did some quick shots through the window of the snow falling with the NX5U and the XR500 both in full auto.
Played back on my Sony 240hz LCD they look almost identical !!! Both looking just like the view out the window.
Looking at the data code gives some insight.
The XR500 varied the shutter speed between 60 and 250 to maintain F3.4 all at 0db.
The NX5U had shutter at 60 all the time, wanted ND2 ( which I did ) and varied F stop between F3.4 and F 6.8 with gain all the time at -3db.

Compared to the FX1 the NX5 seems a little bulkier and heavier though I am sure there is not much difference. LCD on the XR500 is much bigger than the NX5U and is more useful as such.

The NX5U came with a full copy of Vegas Pro 9 ( glad I didn't upgrade now !!!) and a mail in rebate for the FMU.

Ron Evans

The NX5U came with Vegas Pro? Was that through a special deal at your retailer? I didn't see Vegas 9 in the box.

Quite often you don't see the rebate deals being offered in Canada or, if so, not as publicized compared to the States Did you buy it in Ontario?

Bought in Ottawa,Canada. Vegas Pro 9 disc was in the box and label on the box. It is full version of Vegas Pro 9 not including DVD Architect but there is 30 day version of DVD Architect 5.0 on the disc to try. I have DVD Architect 5.0 anyway and didn't upgrade to Pro9 so everything is working out well!!! Rebate on the FMU is less than the rebate in the US will know when I get it but I think its $400.

Ron Evans

Does the NX5 have a touchscreen (some specs seem to imply it does)? If so how do you NX5 owners like it? Does it allow touch to focus or anything usefull, or is it just another way to navigate the menu's?

The AX does not have a touchscreen.

No. No touchscreen on the NX5U. I have read a few similar accounts. I haven't actually touched the lcd yet though :-)
Maybe I'll try that tomorrow. Lol

Yes it is a touch screen. But it is only for menu button selection. I too wish it was like the XR500 with touch spot focus/exposure etc, but that is not the case. You still have to press the menu buttons get the menu to display but then you can use the touch screen for selection. The XR500 consumer family is a lot more useful!!!!!! ( And is a bigger screen). The selection is a little confusing as some things need real buttons and others don't !!!!

Ron Evans

Some corrections. I was convinced the LCD was smaller on the NX5U than the XR500 but have now measured and its exactly the same !!! Real illusion. There are more possible indicators on the NX5U so the screen can get really cluttered and appear smaller if they are all displayed. The display button has 3 position, All indicators, simple or none. It would be nice to select what is shown but that is not the case ( or at least I can not figure out how to change!!!)

Ron Evans

Ive been sitting here smudging up my lcd for the past 5 minutes. No touch on the menu side of things. JUST the MODE part . Not even that useful. I guess if you are used to it. But it reminds me of one of Sonys handycams

Touch screen only works for playback and editing. Push visual index button and then the clips will appear and can be played by touching. Press MODE button and the edit buttons will appear to go back to camera, play, edit, dub/copy or manage media. All touch sensitive.

As I have noted before its not as useful as the XR500 by a long way.

Ron Evans

Hi guys

the touch screen works for lots of things for me, not just playback and editing.

Also, I have yet to find something that I actually NEED the touchscreen to do -- I can navigate options using the four-way buttons around the EXEC button on the front top array, or use the SEL/PUSH EXEC roller and buttons on the lower left.

I think the system works well -- you have the touchscreen option if you want it, but you don't really have to use it.

I do wish that the flip-out screen was the same size as the EX1's though -- it's the same as the Z5's, which makes it very sharp but a touch smaller than the EX1. I also think it's a way better screen than the larger one on the Panasonic HMC150-series (I don't think that screen is high-res enough to judge focus on, but I think the NX5's is OK).

Cheers

Adam

What else does it work for Adam as I can't get anything else other then visual index and mode to work.

Ron