All this talk of what the CCD res. is and people hanging their pocket books in limbo waiting to see if the HVX beats out the H1's ccd res makes me laugh. As we all remember, the XL2 had a sharper and higher res image, but that still didn't give it a better looking and more film like image than the DVX's.

The XL2 was overly sharp and had that "video" look even with its higher ccd res and better glass. That is why you keep hearing, "the ccd res doesn't matter, it's all in the images the HVX produces." I still believe in this outlook, and i'm sure it will hold true in this H1 vs. HVX battle.

From what I've seen so from the H1, the canon continues to sit on its throne boasting the sharpest image. But that's something that I along with a majority of indie film makers hated about the XL serious from the start. It lacks the cinne-gamma and softness that panny has perfected.

The HVX has a solid state recording format with P2 which enables us to forget about rendering and drag it directly onto the timeline. Variable frame rates, cmon now who doesn't love that Reservoir Dogs slow mo shot of all the guys strolling up suited to kill.

The DVCPRO HD codec which in the least is as good as the HDV format and to many, it's better. A form factor that doesn't look like it's from star trek or some odd sci fi film. And you can trust that it will have the same cine gamma that we all loved with the DVX.

Some would argue that the HVX should have detachable lens. I honestly don't see why, it's not like you're going to get much of an increase in the DOF department with the additional lens that canon offers. In that respect it's all about the 35mm adapters, forget the detachable lens issue.

The one thing I will give the Canon is its image flip function, which would be an important feature when considering a 35 adapter, but then again, this problem can be fixed with a larger external lcd which is a necessity anyways when shooting with a 35 adapter.

All in all I think people need to relax on this ridiculous issue of ccd res and remember what's truly important, THE FOOTAGE!

Alexander,
Thanks.
I completely agree,
though I am a concerned with some noise/gain issues. The majority of the footage I see (given the way I work) is quite workable...for 6 or 7 grand

that being said I am still waiting to see more as it is revealed

Alex,

Having a sharper higher resolution image and being able to tone it down and make it soft is better then having a soft image and your stuck with it. it's like owning a Lamborghini, but only ever driving the speed limit....it's nice to know you can step on the gas at will! nawmean?

Look at it like this.... the Sony F900 is even sharper and has a higher resolution image then the Canon XL-H1. (for argument sake) Let's say the XL-H1 is even sharper and has a higher resolution image then the HVX-200.....
Say I told you that money is no object! pick your weapon of choice.
Are you telling me....you would rather shoot the HVX-200 then the F900 because it's LESS sharp then the F900 and the F900 would be your LAST choice because it's TOO clean?

EXACLY my man, and that's all we're talking about.

The cine-gamma selections on the XL-H1 are extensive to say the least. I am confident that a good DP can dial in any image look, be it sharp or be it soft, that he/she wants. The cinema settings on the XL-H1 is sufficient enough to get the job done and emmulate a filmlook as good as the DVX has always been able to do. And that's why it's better to have MORE then less, because you can always dial down if you need to. If you ever do a project where you need to step on the gas and burn some rubber.....it's nice to know you got the horsepower to do so.

Feel me?

- ShannonRawls.com

The XL2 was overly sharp and had that "video" look even with its higher ccd res and better glass. That is why you keep hearing, "the ccd res doesn't matter, it's all in the images the HVX produces." I still believe in this outlook, and i'm sure it will hold true in this H1 vs. HVX battle.

I agree with everything you wrote - great post. With one exception... I really don't think the stock lens that shipped with the XL2 was "better glass" than what was on the DVX. The purple fringe alone was reason to buy the body only and go for the manual lens or some other option. :)

And you're right about the 35mm adapters. The results people are getting with these truly boggles the mind. I'm definitely planning to buy the G35 (if/when) it's available or some other 35mm solution for my HVX.

As for the XLH1, it's a fine camera -- far better than the XL2. I would have already bought one if not for the promises of the HVX200. I played with an H1 on demo at the local shop for a few hours today while working with some more NLE stuff. Rather impressive overall... But still I wait for the HVX -- those frame rate options and the allure of the tapeless workflow still have me fixated.

Shannon, the XL series has never had gamma that was adequate to the DVX's, that is what all the praise for the DVX has been about, its great cine gamma settings. The XLs have always been a bit cold versus the DVX's warmer and arguably more film like footage. As for the sharpness, I think that the best option is not to have an extermely sharp look to begin with. Any effect is preferably done in camera versus an NLE, this gives an overall better image.

Some would argue that the HVX should have detachable lens. I honestly don't see why, it's not like you're going to get much of an increase in the DOF department with the additional lens that canon offers. In that respect it's all about the 35mm adapters, forget the detachable lens issue.

The one thing I will give the Canon is its image flip function, which would be an important feature when considering a 35 adapter, but then again, this problem can be fixed with a larger external lcd which is a necessity anyways when shooting with a 35 adapter.

The Canon's detachable lens may give you up to some 2 F-stop advantage with 35 mm adapter. P+S 35 mm adapter needs Z1 to be set at the telephoto setting, where the lens loses nearly two F-stops. If the lens was detachable, fast relay lens could be used.

The Canon's detachable lens may give you up to some 2 F-stop advantage with 35 mm adapter. P+S 35 mm adapter needs Z1 to be set at the telephoto setting, where the lens loses nearly two F-stops. If the lens was detachable, fast relay lens could be used.
Petr, in order to use the 35 adapter, you need the lens attatched. =)

Also Shannon, the great thing about the F900 is not its sharpness, many people are actually bothered by its sharpness, ex. Star Wars. The F900 has great color, latitude, and a shallow dof. So yes, i'd take the F900 anyday over either the HVX or XL H1, but not for sharpness, that's one of its weak points.

Petr, in order to use the 35 adapter, you need the lens attatched. =)

No you don't Alex. You remove the XL lens completely and use a relay lens thats built into the Mini35 adapter. This is why it is 2 stops faster then using a camera with a fixed lens.

- ShannonRawls.com

Ah I'm not familiar with the mini35, only the redrock micro and the like.

Ah I'm not familiar with the mini35, only the redrock micro and the like.

Oh, I see. I've never shot with the M1, only the Mini35.

Also, i've never heard anyone complain about the F900's over-sharpness. The dial goes from -99 to +99, so that's odd to hear people had a problem with it. If you dial it down too low, it almost gets too blurry & soft! it sure wasn't overly sharp in COLLATERAL and damn sure not BAAdASSSSS! or SEX AND LUCIA. But, i guess it's all opinion, so this is pointless.

You're right: great color, latitude, and a shallow dof is what counts. I hope both HVX-200 & XL-H1 score high in those areas together. Cine gamma of the XL-H1 is damn sure fine to me. And that's coming from a DVX100a owner. I never owned an XL2 (although I have shot with one)

Also Shannon, the great thing about the F900 is not its sharpness, many people are actually bothered by its sharpness, ex. Star Wars. The F900 has great color, latitude, and a shallow dof. So yes, i'd take the F900 anyday over either the HVX or XL H1, but not for sharpness, that's one of its weak points.

OMG!! I can't believe all this nonsense. If you're making a MOVIE or something where the filmish look is of utmost importance, why on earth would you strictly rely on the in camera settings? Don't any of you prefer to render in Magic Bullet or do extensive color correction? Yes, render times suck, but there are a 1,001 options in post, and it can only get better so long as the source video is good. Thomson's Viper gives you a weird image from it's filmstream mode, which you are SUPPOSED to color correct, with infinite possibilities in uncompressed RGB. I would NEVER do extensive color correction in HDV. You get a high capacity RAID and finish your material in uncompressed 10bit, if possible, or Cineform. THEN re-encode for distribution such as h.264 and WMV. Also, I'm sure your film-out house would prefer an uncompressed or lightly compressed master, and would also prefer the option of re-correcting for film-out, particularly from an uncompressed source.

This is why SDI is so appealing to me. I think there will be many indie films that take advantage of this option.

Someone will do a low-budget Sin City type production, but will probably get better results from an H1 than HVX.

Correct Barlow....As a famous DP Mr. David Mullen puts it, Sort of the entire point of HIGH DEFINITION is to NOT color-correct the image in-camera -- the idea is to send out an uncompressed, unprocessed signal -- "raw" more or less -- to your recorder, to capture as much information as possible. You can color-correct the monitor output if you want to see something on the set that isn't really flat-looking. It's sort of like shooting color negative in terms of not adding the color-correction until post.

- ShannonRawls.com

Correct Barlow....As a famous DP Mr. David Mullen puts it, Sort of the entire point of HIGH DEFINITION is to NOT color-correct the image in-camera -- the idea is to send out an uncompressed, unprocessed signal -- "raw" more or less -- to your recorder, to capture as much information as possible. You can color-correct the monitor output if you want to see something on the set that isn't really flat-looking. It's sort of like shooting color negative in terms of not adding the color-correction until post.

- ShannonRawls.com

That would be true in a 10-bit system and both HDCAM and Varicam can record 10 bit into Sony CineAlta SR or Panasonic D5 recorders, but the 8 bit pro HD systems are quite compressed so you need to color correct in the field as much as possible.

I feel you on that Petr as well. I was discussing the F900 though. I guess I got caught up in the mix.

Last week I was over here trying to create various looks with my XL-H1 to emmulate some of my favorite movies and save the to scene files for later usage. So I understand what you are talking about as well.

Eitherway....Do what's neccessary for that job. Some call for camera tweaks when recording which make that look PERMANENT. Other times shoot raw and create LOTSA different looks in post.

- ShannonRawls.com

Lol, all I meant by saying you'd want to do everything in-camera is that you would want to obtain an image as clean as possible during shooting. Sure color correcting is a must, but still you'd want that image to be originated as clean and true as possible in most cases. Sharpening via an NLE or un-sharpening is not a good idea, that is an in-camera job.

That would be true in a 10-bit system and both HDCAM and Varicam can record 10 bit into Sony CineAlta SR or Panasonic D5 recorders, but the 8 bit pro HD systems are quite compressed so you need to color correct in the field as much as possible.

Not true. And there is a fair amount of room to CC even from H1 HDV files, provided you transcode to another format. First of all, if I were making a low budget film (what else would they be?) with the H1, and was trying to maximize quality and minimize cost, I would record SDI 10bit into a Wafian, or build a little Shuttle PC with a Decklink card and record into Cineform 10bit, while also recording HDV. This would make a nice DI from the H1. All kinds of flexibility from there, with higher precision math, and full raster too. I love my G5/FCP combo, but this format would be very tempting when considering all that if offers. You could essentially be working with your online files all the way through.

It is not always about resolution but sometimes it is.... even though people prefer the look of a Varicam, most choose the F900 for film out... As to the XL2 looking like video? Uhhh... maybe in the hands of someone who doesnt have a clue. I shoot DVX and XL2 almost daily and while I love them both, the DVX is noisier and has less resolution... colors are more saturated and the cine settings are nice. You cannot add resolution in post, you CAN tweak colors, etc. It is also a lot harder to get noise OUT in post than to record clean.

Your ultimate point may be true, but your example is just wrong. DVX won out because it was first to the market, easy to use and priced lower. The HVX and XLH are similar and aimed at seperate markets...



ash =o)

First of all, if I were making a low budget film (what else would they be?) with the H1, and was trying to maximize quality and minimize cost, I would record SDI 10bit into a Wafian

H1 HDSDI has 8 bit accuracy

Ash,
I couldn't agree more, my goodness, when was less resolution a good thing?
If it's such a good idea why don't we all use $10 plastic lenses?
I've seen the results of a film out from the Varicam and it to me looked horrible, I think my projected native DV in the cinema next door looked better. As to even the F900, it's way, way lower quality than the real deal, the F950 is getting close but still short of what the best 35mm can offer.
We are talking about an acqusition medium good for 8K lines res, that's roughly 16K pixels. Sure you'd be lucky to hold that on a release print but remember what happens to a film neg also happens to a film out, the resolution of all of them goes downhill and the more you have to start with the better it looks on the big screen.
And what's the one thing all the labs say to NOT do if you're planning on a film out? Don't try to make it LOOK like film.

Of course if you're simply trying to make video that looks like film at SD res on a TV then that's a different story. Then again all the stuff from the USA that's shot on film looks razor sharp on my PAL TV, can't say it looks quite so good when I watch the same programs in the USA, hm, could that be because I'm watching it with 100 lines less resolution?

The argument that the 800 line H1 is a better camera for filmout than the 750 line HVX is ridiculous. You also have to take into account that the HDV codec will do harm to your overall image when comparing it to DVCPRO HD. Many have already stated as well that they notice a greater latitude with the HVX vs. the H1.

If you plan for "uncompressed" which in reality is still compressed, 8bit HD-SDI output, you're talking about spending a LARGE chunk of change to be able to capture such footage. You also have to carry with you or setup your recording unit which makes outdoor HD-SDI capture and moving shots a true pain in the...The HVX can also be captured "uncompressed" via its component outs so squash that advantage. The HD-SDI out will be somewhat cleaner I'd assume but not by much. So let's quit the 800 line superiority talk and wait for what really counts....once again I'll say it...THE FOOTAGE.

Bob, you say that you saw Varicam footage at a filmout and your DV footage looked better, what does that tell you? RESOLUTION isn't everything.

The HD-SDI out will be somewhat cleaner I'd assume but not by much. So let's quit the 800 line superiority talk and wait for what really counts....once again I'll say it...THE FOOTAGE.

Are you completely ignoring my point about the H1? The entire advantage is to have a clean SDI output and utilize it in whatever codec suits you, not just mere HDV...which unfairly gets a bad rap.

You are right though, footage talks.

H1 HDSDI has 8 bit accuracy

It is actually a SMPTE compliant 10 bit output, but supposedly the signal has been quantized to 8 bit. Still doesn't hurt to capture and edit 10bit though...particularly if you are going to process the material extensively.

2 bits in the 10 bit stream are set to zero.

Alexander, I also think you were wrong in your initial post where you said many indie moviemakers hated the XL cams from Canon because they looked all like video...

1. An XL2 can be tweaked to look like film too. And yes, you have a cleaner signal.

2. You are forgetting the XL1 and the XL1s. They were much prefered cams in their days, just because they looked more filmic then the rest...

And I don't really agree with what you said about the F-950 and such, and the Varicam.
I haven't worked with neither one, but I've seen both in theatrical prints (Korean movie named Be With Me, shot in Varicam, and Star Wars Episode III)... I think both looked very fine, but I also think extra resolution and sharpness is very welcome if you are planning to do a film blowup... I thought Star Wars III on moments looked a little bit soft, surely not overly sharp...

I agree though that resolution isn't all what matters. Color, latitude, controls,... are far more important.

We are talking about an acqusition medium good for 8K lines res, that's roughly 16K pixels.

Since when?

Given that I've heard people from IMAX claiming only a 12k pixel resolution for an IMAX frame, I have a real hard time believing anyone who says that a 35mm frame -- which is absolutely minute in comparison -- can give you anything like 16k pixels resolution... unless, maybe, you chose some uber slow, low-grain film that you'd never be able to use in the real world.

And, in any case, you'll be lucky to have 2k resolution by the time it hits your local multiplex screen.

That's correct. You will get 2K at most.

This is great.

My camera is better than your camera.
is not.
is too.
is not
is too.

Funny Stuff.

I wonder how many on one side or the other would change their opinion if they owned the other camera. Hmmmm. Something to think about.

Actually, I picture a gang fight between all of you to go something like the gang war in AnchorMan. All of you meeting in an alley with your Canon's or your HVX or your sonys or whatever and bringing the heat at each other.

If any of you want to get together for that, I could film it on my XL1-s. ( I like the retro feel of it. It's like driving a classic car!)

Bryon <><

Dont discuss about technical waste, hear my words:

1:LIGHTNING IS EVERYTHING !!!
You have to be the lightbringer, then you are god!
Set up good light and you can shoot with an old canon xl1 and people will
say: "thats great"

2: The Story, the Story!!!
Tell a great story and NO ONE will ask "is that hd or dv?"

Dont discuss about technical waste, hear my words:

1:LIGHTNING IS EVERYTHING !!!
You have to be the lightbringer, then you are god!
Set up good light and you can shoot with an old canon xl1 and people will
say: "thats great"

2: The Story, the Story!!!
Tell a great story and NO ONE will ask "is that hd or dv?"

Well said.

Rod

I agree, except I personally think its reversed:

You can have a great story without any lighting and people will listen.

You can have great lighting on grass growing and nobody will watch...(unless its on cable)

Are you completely ignoring my point .....
Don't you HATE that????? lol

I wonder how many on one side or the other would change their opinion if they owned the other camera. Hmmmm. Something to think about.
That's where guys like me come in. BUY EM ALL and sell the worst ones on eBay *smile*.

But honestly, there is no "war". These cameras are two totally differnt beasts. The P2 workflow is a dream come true and one day all cameras will follow it's footsteps. The H1 is still tape-based. The codecs are totally different as well. The "ONLY" reason these cameras are even being compared to eachother is because of the price. Nothing else. If the HVX200 cost $17,000.00 and P2 cards were $100 bucks each nobody would complain. The HVX would not even be mentioned in the same article as a XL-H1 if that were the case. I personally think thats what Panasonic should have done. Charged ALLOT for the HVX, because I think it's worth it.

- ShannonRawls.com

Barlow, you're refering to uncompressed HD-SDI (SMPTE 292M) output at 1.485 Gbps. I'm very aware of that and not "ignoring" your point at all. The reality though is that the cost of a setup capable of capturing/storing and editing that 8 bit hd-sdi signal is ridiculous, that's my point.

I guess it all depends on what you think is expensive. It certainly isn't run and gun friendly to be tethered, but, in a low-budget production capacity (I'm talking thousands spent on production, with a "video village" of sorts, not the $500 student film) it really isn't ridiculous to try the tethered SDI-to-computer approach. I know I plan to because I want to take advantage of everything the H1 has to offer. And it doesn't bother me in the least to use HDV also. I think it's that good.

DVCPRO HD would make a good SDI acquisition codec with this camera. That's what they used for the Watch maker demo at DVExpo and it looked phenomenal. Max bit rate of 14MBs is more than manageable. Could very well blow the HVX away in the same format.

Barlow is right. Besides, as far as the XL H1 goes, uncompressed HD output over SDI isn't about recording uncompressed. It's about recording whatever HD format that you have a VTR for. It's about recording DVCPRO HD or HDCAM or whatever. Very few people will actually record the uncompressed HD output. They'll record in some HD format other than HD. But why am I talking about this in the P2 forum?

As soon as I get me a rack mountable PC, I will be recording HD-SDI as well. I like the Wafian, but $10,000 bucks is streching it.

Right now (and for the last 9 movies i've made) the camera has been on a leash.
My current leash is:XLR-L send, XLR-R send, Audio Return, Video Return
All wrapped up in a single (and expensive) custom made 75' cable. I have a 75' firewire cable as well just in case I need to use 'HDV Rack' or 'Canon Console', but I rarely depoly that thing. My BNC video return will become the HD-SDI return as soon as I grab a server to put in my Media Station. Then my 'Sound Mixer' will be now called my 'Media Mixer' because he will be rolling SOUND and SERVER. *smile*

But honestly....I may never do this, because the HDV codec seems to be sufficient for the type of stuff I do. HDV has received a serious bad-rap from people who never used it in a practical project. People are just natural born haters it seems.

- ShannonRawls.com

The Wafian runs for $15,000, beta models are running for $10,500. Add that to the cost of the cam, $10,000 and an editing machine, were talking in upwards of $35,000-$40,000. Let's be reasonable now.... I doubt you'd be able to notice the difference in footage between uncompressed out to justify spending an extra $30,000 on top of an already somewhat expensive low end hd camera.

I will know the answers to most this stuff in the next 6 months... looks like I will be doing multiple projects with both the HVX and XLH... and at least one of those will include footage shot by an XLH and recorded over the HD-SDI to a 1200A DVCproHD deck... For the record, the DVCproHD codec is FAR from perfect. I have found that I have to crush the blacks or they get VERY noisy, worse than DV!



ash =o)

Don't bother with a Wafian, just build yourself (or buy) a Cineform Prospect PC and then you have HDSDi and HD component capture, plus an edit suite in one box all for less money.

Don't bother with a Wafian, just build yourself (or buy) a Cineform Prospect PC and then you have HDSDi and HD component capture, plus an edit suite in one box all for less money.

What components would such computer need? What would be the cost? Is Wafian a small factor PC, with extra dressing? Can you build such small factor PC for a fraction of the cost? I think that Aspect PC, which handles 1440x1080 pixels at 8 bits wold be enough.

Prospect is available from cineform as a turnkey system or you can build to cineforms specs yourself. Aspect is 8 bit, prospect is 10 bit, aspect can't capture direct from HDSDi, prospect can (as well as HD component). I don't know what's in a Wafien box. Prospect could be built into a regular PC case, that could be a rackmount case. The raid array will go in the PC case. Problem with Prospect is it is a PC and as such needs a monitor, keyboard and mouse, Wafien does no. However there is no reason why the PC monitor could also be an on set HD monitor.

Some people have said they think that the HD-SDI out (1920x1080 at 4:2:2) will not be noticeably better than HDV (1440x1080 at 4:2:0). For everyday shooting, I suspect that's basically true, but also suspect it probably ISN'T true for high-end work such as complex compositing intended for professional HD programming. I'm also guessing that since the H1 uses horizontal pixel shift, the detail in the HD-SDI out is higher than the 1440 that HDV can record...maybe even approaching the full 1920 pixels. Would love to have that explicitly tested by rez-chart and real-world images.

So, here's my understanding -- not entirely complete -- of the Cineform solutions at present:

If 1440x1080 HDV is enough, as it is for Petr, then a decent PPro editing box with the $500 Aspect HD software is all you need.

Neither Aspect HD nor Prospect HD Edit can ingest HD-SDI. Prospect HD Ingest into an AJA card (about $5300 for the package) processed on a fast dualie PC (not clear to me right now whether that need only be a dual-core, or must be a dual processor, dual core system) would do the job. So figure around $8-9K. That would be the cat's meow for studio work. For on-location shoots, it is up to you to make the PC setup portable enough for your needs.

According to Cineform (http://www.cineform.com/products/WafianHR1.htm), the Wafian incorporates the ingest, conversion to 10-bit Cineform Intermediate, a small LCD screen, and short-term storage in one box about the size of my home AV receiver for $15,000. Then you'd need a Prospect Edit system (PC cost plus $2K for the Prospect software), along with your editing system (PPro is favored) for editing.

Cineform is definitely out in front with their products, but undoubtedly competition will show up on the scene before too long.

I've been doing some research on this HDV capture and unfortunately, software is not the main issue. It's your hardware. HDV takes up sooooo much more space than that of regular DV. For example, (correct me if I'm wrong) but I believe for a dv project that takes up about 300G on your hard drive, if done in HD, takes up close to 5TB. To really work in HD, at a speed faster than that at which grass grows, you have to have something along the lines of a G5 quad with at least 8Gig of Ram AND a conduit connecting it all that's faster than firewire and the like. You are looking at fibre connections, and even that would be preferably dual fibre connections, all connected through a fibre switch. The cable itself is like $100.00 per run. Then once all of that is worked out, then you can get some software.

Now, of course, this is for doing a feature project. I'm sure if you are doing a commercial or something of the like, you can get by with a smaller system.

That's why Waffien is priced as it is. It's all in one unit.

Bryon, maybe you're thinking of UNCOMPRESSED HD, which requires a large multi-drive RAID array of gargantuan storage size. Computing performance for HD is going to depend on the solution chosen, including NLE, but isn't at all out of reach...

HDV files are about the same size, roughly 13GB/hour, as miniDV, and will edit ok but a bit slowly on my 3.0GHz P4 using PPro 1.5.1...can't be too specific about that because I've only done a brief checkout of that mode just to see that it works.

I recently added Cineform Aspect HD on my current system, so also can't give a completely detailed report about performance under various stresses to the system, but the timeline on that same system seems to work just as smoothly as with miniDV projects (For $500 the retail version of Aspect gives you substantial acceleration and an updated codec as compared to Cineform's technology that is licensed in PPro 1.51.). HDV footage converted to Cineform Intermediate files is only about 40-50GB/hour (depending on whether they are 8-bit Aspect, or 10-bit Prospect), which ain't bad for a codec that is touted as being "visually lossless." It is a really practical alternative to true uncompressed output and the huge storage demands it makes. Once editing is done and you're ready to archive, you can choose to export to either a larger but very pretty Cineform AVI file or an HDV file with the same storage requirements as miniDV.

HDV is not out of reach at all for anyone who already has a decent editing box.

I will know the answers to most this stuff in the next 6 months... looks like I will be doing multiple projects with both the HVX and XLH... and at least one of those will include footage shot by an XLH and recorded over the HD-SDI to a 1200A DVCproHD deck... For the record, the DVCproHD codec is FAR from perfect. I have found that I have to crush the blacks or they get VERY noisy, worse than DV!



ash =o)

I think that DVCProHD codec is pretty good for HVX or H1 cameras with their CCDs and DSP.
And I'm happy that Panasonic decided to implement this codec in HVX.
If it is not enough for some kind of work ("codec is FAR from perfect") then I think that H1 is not enough too.

Laco,
DVCProHD, HDV, and uncompressed all have very different strengths and different weakness, so it probably isn't quite right to say that if one is not right for a purpose, then another isn't either. Very exciting times when many of us are now able to choose amongst High Definition solutions!

Just for fun, I hand held shot the chart with my JVC HD10 .
It's resolution looks maybe just a little lower than the HVX !
Again, this was hand held, the chart was on an 8.5x11 printout.

HD10 at 720p http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/jvc-HD10-chart.jpg

JVC HD10 at 1920 size: http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/jvc-HD10-1920chart.jpg

and the HVX: http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelbauer/ResCharts/0088YP.png

Enjoy! ;)

-Les

I wanted to say that if somebody is not satisfied with DVCProHD compression then he has to look at better camera than HVX or H1 too.

Just for fun, I hand held shot the chart with my JVC HD10 .
It's resolution looks maybe just a little lower than the HVX !
Again, this was hand held, the chart was on an 8.5x11 printout.

HD10 at 720p http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/jvc-HD10-chart.jpg

JVC HD10 at 1920 size: http://home.earthlink.net/~lesd/hd/jvc-HD10-1920chart.jpg

and the HVX: http://home.arcor.de/martin.doppelbauer/ResCharts/0088YP.png

Enjoy! ;)

-Les

HD10 resolution on this chart is 600Hx450V.

Could you mount the camera on a tripod?