Hello,

No riots please :-)

I have been contemplating a Canon XL H1 for a while. The reviews are nothing short of spectacular. I am a little worried about the proprietary file format though.

I recently directed a commercial and the DP that we used had a AG-HVX200. He raved about the camera (he owned it so I would expect him to) and mentioned the fact that it could output uncompressed video (might have needed a 3rd party product?) and how the end result was so much better than the Canon.

I love the XDCAM, but with lens that's getting a bit expensive.

What do you guys have good knowledge of regarding a camera with a complete cost of no more than $20K-$25K not baring the $6K to $12K cameras??

How do they stack up??

Thanks in advance :-)

Well...the XL-H1 is a really good camera, but as far as value goes, the A1 is even more amazing. The HVX200...certainly versatile and makes nice pics...but any camera can record uncompressed to an external, uncompressed recording device...and the XL-H1 and A1, you can output HDSDI.

It's sort of a question of what's better, strawberry or peach?

The HVX200 is certainly as proprietary a format (P2 based DVC ProHD) as Canon's 24F is...whereas the "universal" forms of HDV at normal framerates can also be shot with the Canon, whereas the only "universal" cross-manufacturer video format the HVX200 records in is standard def DV on tape.

The Canon cameras have 1440x1080 sensors with no sample co-siting and the HVX200 has 960x540 sensors which co-site for both vertical and horizontal resolution, how much depends on what image size you choose to shoot.

The Panasonic records a 100 Megabit/second I-frame codec at 960x720 or 1440/1280x1080 (24fps/29.97fps) that is easy to edit natively...on FCP. Though it's important to note that when shooting at 24fps, DVC ProHD's useful data rate is actually only 40 Megabits/second with the rest being redundant frames unless the HVX200 is set for PN mode where the redundant frames are removed before the file is written, making the P2 card capable of holding 2.5X as much footage at 40 Mbits/s than it would had the frames been left in, creating a 100 Mbit/s file.

The Canon HDV cameras adhere to the HDV2 spec which records a 1440x1080 image at 25 Megabits/second temporally compressed MPEG2 file...which BTW records MPEG compressed audio as opposed to DVC ProHD's PCM audio.

In order for DVC ProHD to be edited on something other than FCP 5.1.xx, it needs to be fed in via a "baseband" analog component or serial digital signal and converted to something else, HDV can be edited natively on many NLEs, though editing native HDV has its issues, mostly because of the nature of temporal compression. If fed into an NLE via a general signal type (analog component or serial digital), it too can be converted to some other format to edit. Both formats are a bit restricted when it comes to color-correction on the native files as they are both limited to 8-bit.

***P2 based DVC ProHD footage can now be handled by several NLEs, sometimes with the help of plugins like CineForm or Raylight, but tape-based DVC ProHD can only be captured via FireWire from a low cost deck into FCP.

I used both and even green-screen keyed both. The temporal compression of HDV is a counter-point to its added resolution, but the sample co-siting on the HVX camera's sensors becomes painfully obvious when compositing, even being an I-frame codec and having a higher data rate.

Bottom line is what do you want to use it for? HD acquisition for an FCP edit system? HVX200. HD acquisition for CineForm?...tougher question...it might favor the Canon for the extra resolution. General application shooter-for-hire? probably favors the HVX200 somewhat as its industry acceptance is growing, but verifying that other vendors downstream understand the workflow and have the tools to deal with it is key whereas almost anyone can handle HDV in some fashion these days...

A general shooter might want to look at how they might stretch and get the XDcam if broadcast is your market.

This is a much more subtle decision than many would like us to think...

...and the XL-H1 and A1, you can output HDSDI.Sorry, not the A1. The Canon camcorders equipped with SDI output are the XL H1 and XH G1. The XH A1 is identical to the XH G1 except for the absence of SDI, Time Code and GenLock. If those connections were a requirement, personally I would choose an XH G1 and enjoy a slightly better feature set for about $2000 less than an XL H1.

The Canon cameras have 1440x1080 sensors with no sample co-siting and the HVX200 has 960x540 sensors which co-site for both vertical and horizontal resolution...If by co-siting you mean Pixel Shift, actually the Canon CCD block used in the XL H1 and both XH camcorders does in fact employ Pixel Shift in the horizontal axis on top of the native 1440x1080 sensors. And there's nothing wrong with horizontal plus vertical Pixel Shift in the HVX200; this process has been used successfully in a variety of other camcorders for years. Nobody ever complained about it in the original Canon XL1, which derived an SD image from sub-SD sensors via Pixel Shift in both axes. It wasn't an issue then and it isn't an issue now.

This is a much more subtle decision than many would like us to think...Wholeheartedly agreed, and couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks Tim,

Sorry, not the A1. The Canon camcorders equipped with SDI output are the XL H1 and XH G1...

If by co-siting you mean Pixel Shift, actually the Canon CCD block used in the XL H1 and both XH camcorders does in fact employ Pixel Shift in the horizontal axis on top of the native 1440x1080 sensors. And there's nothing wrong with horizontal plus vertical Pixel Shift in the HVX200;

Ack... I always get the A1 and G1 mixed up...

The Sony Z1 uses pixel shift to go from 960x1080 to 1440x1080, but the entire push from Canon with the XL-H1 and it's "full res" 1440x1080 sensor was to outperform such compromises.

Perhaps we are talking about different things...why would a camera with 1440x1080 sensors, creating a 1440x1080 image pixel-shift as the HVX200 (and earlier Canons did) does to create "more" perceived resolution? Oversample? I suppose for HDSDI output... But for general HDV recording, you basically have at LEAST as many sensor sites as pixels in the image, pixelshift might help with oversampling.

As far as what's wrong with it, I think for general imaging, nothing. The general aesthetic of the camera is king there...as far as compositing...having a sensor that is that far under resolution (only 75% horizontal/75% vertical for 1280x720p and 50%/<50% for 1080) using pixelshift technology is definitely a worthwhile factor for consideration.

I'm not advocating one over the other here...just trying to sort warts and also make sure that some of the more over-enthusiastic broad statements get clarified. Each camera looks better than it has a right to for the price.

If we're talking about a $25K budget, why not go with a better camera with larger chips like an HPX 500 or XDCam? You will get a wider dynamic range and better low light performance.

Hello Guys,

Thanks for the great information. It leaves me a bit bewildered though. The choices were a lot leaner just a few years ago.

I'm still torn between the Canon ans the Panasonic. I feel that the Canon actually has a better picture, but then the workflow is an issue as well.

As far as the XDCAM, I have looked at it several times and quite frankly, although I love the features, I am not impressed with the picture quality. In fact I believe the Canon XL H1 has a better picture quality from the perspective of one's eye (not considering technical measurements, which seem to be pretty good as well).

The specs of the XDCAM look like it should beat the pants off of the CAnon, but seeing is believing.

What do you think, is it going to depend on the editing system that I use most often??

Thanks Again!

What do you think, is it going to depend on the editing system that I use most often??


yes.

That is part of the problem with being a "guy with a camera for hire" these days. You used to be able to own a betacam sp camcorder and you were good to go for local, regional, national broadcast...or corporate...or whatever. No more.

Most of these cameras other than the few left that are tape-based, have an optimal post workflow...and some are more predisposed than others.

...why would a camera with 1440x1080 sensors, creating a 1440x1080 image pixel-shift as the HVX200 (and earlier Canons did) does to create "more" perceived resolution? Oversample? I suppose for HDSDI output... Yes, that is my understanding as to why they did it, as a resolution boost for SDI output. However it is not the same as the HVX200 and earlier Canons. Those camcorders use Pixel Shift in both vertical and horizontal axes. Here it's only in the horizontal axis, just as it is with Sony HDCAM camcorders.

Yes, that is my understanding as to why they did it, as a resolution boost for SDI output. However it is not the same as the HVX200 and earlier Canons. Those camcorders use Pixel Shift in both vertical and horizontal axes. Here it's only in the horizontal axis, just as it is with Sony HDCAM camcorders.

Fair enough. So we understand each other, I really am not attempting to start some sort of an argument here...the pixel shifting for HDSDI output is one thing, but the native res of the format (1440x1080) is the res of the sensor...whereas the native res of the DVC ProHD format (1280x720) cannot be reached until creating additional res by pixel-shifting the output of the 960x540 sensor.

My reason for presenting the point isn't to bash HVX200 DVC ProHD...I've been involved with quite a few HVX200 shoots and the camera looks great. I just don't think it's "...so much better than the Canon." in terms of picture quality as Anthony's colleague professed to him in the original post.

As I said, it's simply a variety of subtle differences in play here and understanding your post pipeline these days has as much to do with it as anything...

We're all friends here. I just think it's important to keep the enthusiasm and the information properly labeled.

:-)

In the price range you mention, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Sony EX - announced at NAB, and expected in a couple of months. (If you are willing to wait.)

Leaving all the finer details of specs aside, 1/2" chips at that price with true manual iris and focus must at least make it worth considering.........?

My two cents....

My first thought too after seeing your budget was the XDCAM EX coming out...

But given what's available now, owning a Sony HDR-FX1 and having used both an A1 (similiar to G1) and the HVX 200. I greatly prefer the Canon G1 and when you mentioned a concern for the format, I believe HDV has well enough established it's position in this marketplace. As for ease of editing, Cineform can, on the fly, transcode your HDV footage into a compressed .AVI with a 4:2:2 colorspace and by doing this, you should be able to acheive better chroma key performance.

My vote would be to skip the H1 and go straight to the G1 if you are going to need the HD-SDI, genlock, etc, etc. If not, the A1 is one heck of a camera.

Jon

whereas the native res of the DVC ProHD format (1280x720) cannot be reached until creating additional res by pixel-shifting the output of the 960x540 sensor.

The native res of DVCproHD 720p is 960x720, not 1280x720.

The native res of DVCproHD 720p is 960x720, not 1280x720.

Unlike HDV2 which is 1440x1080 non-square, or HDV1, 1280x720 square in the file and on playback, DVC ProHD has a playback res of 1280x720 square. The codec only stores 960, but as in the case of the Varicam, which has 1280x720 effective array sensors, the image starts as 1280, is subsampled at 960, and does an up-res step to 1280 for playout.

The only place that DVC ProHD exists as 960x720 is in the data file, which is what you are using when you FW transfer in DVC ProHD tape or transfer P2 data.

HDV doesn't up res unless you're coming out of a Canon as SDI where you need square pixels (1920)...and the JVC at 1280x720p is already square pixels.

I don't classify them as the same personally as the HDV material is played out as 1440 anamorphic whereas DVC proHD actually gets rid of the pixels on record and creates more pixels on playback.

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "native"...or at least specify whether I meant the image format or the codec.

In the price range you mention, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Sony EX - announced at NAB, and expected in a couple of months. (If you are willing to wait.)

Leaving all the finer details of specs aside, 1/2" chips at that price with true manual iris and focus must at least make it worth considering.........?

Hello,

I only have seen a glimps of the new Sony EX, and no pricing. Do you have a link to that type of info?

Thanks!

My two cents....

My first thought too after seeing your budget was the XDCAM EX coming out...

But given what's available now, owning a Sony HDR-FX1 and having used both an A1 (similiar to G1) and the HVX 200. I greatly prefer the Canon G1 and when you mentioned a concern for the format, I believe HDV has well enough established it's position in this marketplace. As for ease of editing, Cineform can, on the fly, transcode your HDV footage into a compressed .AVI with a 4:2:2 colorspace and by doing this, you should be able to acheive better chroma key performance.

My vote would be to skip the H1 and go straight to the G1 if you are going to need the HD-SDI, genlock, etc, etc. If not, the A1 is one heck of a camera.

Jon

Hello Jon,

I follow you to a point, but why skip the H1?

Thanks!

I guess I shouldn't have used the word "native"...or at least specify whether I meant the image format or the codec.

Not sure what "WORD" you should have used? Point is DVCproHD records a lot less pixels (960X720). Fair?
I would love a further explanation, as I'm not getting the logic you are going with. Please help.
Kenobi

Not sure what "WORD" you should have used? Point is DVCproHD records a lot less pixels (960X720). Fair?
I would love a further explanation, as I'm not getting the logic you are going with. Please help.
Kenobi

Oh, I absolutely agree... My original point was just to balance the pros and cons of the panasonic HVX200 vs the Canon HDV cams.

When I was talking about the sensors in the cameras, the point I was attempting to make was that the Canon is shooting a format that produces a 1440x1080 image...not a 1920x1080 image that is recorded at 1440 like HDcam, but an anamorphic 1440x1080 image...and it's sensors are 1440x1080. (Yes, it does upres to 1920 for HDSDI out as SDI requires square pixels, but that's a different concept). And in the case of the JVC flavor of HDV, we actually have a camera with a 1280x720 sensor making a 1280x720 image.

The DVC proHD format is similar to the HDcam format in that it has a recorded frame size in-file that is smaller than it's playback frame size (1920x1080 for HDcam and 1280x720 for DVC proHD).

Mac accesses DVC ProHD directly, and now many other programs can grab P2 media directly as data, and that's where we see it with a framesize of 960x720 non-square, but that is not the SMPTE 296M spec, it's a storage format. We never see HDcam footage as 1440x1080 because we don't work with HDcam footage as data. We run it in through HDSDI, which is what DVC ProHD was originally designed to do. In comparison, HDV has no storage framesize vs playback framesize (for its standard, FireWire workflow), but it is temporally compressed.

So...one way or another the HVX200 has a lot of work to do. Since the Varicam has 1280x720 sensors, one would assume that the image is 1280x720 at some point in the camera...subsampled as 960x720 to be recorded, and it's played out at 1280x720. You note that DVC ProHD's native framesize is 960x720...which might then lead someone to believe that the HVX200 only pixel-shifts vertically from 540 to 720, leaving the 960 as "native". AFAIK, the image from the 960x540 sensor is pixel-shifted to 1280x720, recorded at 960x720...and if you ingest via HDSDI (which is what most of us had to do for a handful of years as it was the only option), the image is played out at 1280x720.

Anyway, I'll stop wasting bandwidth at this point. The whole idea was to point out that all of these cameras have their drawbacks and while I have worked with an HVX200 and really like the images, it's not the all-encompassing answer to every question.

...sorry for not being clear enough. It's a struggle to stay brief but be specific.

I only have seen a glimps of the new Sony EX, and no pricing. Do you have a link to that type of info?
There is a whole section on this forum : http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=150 and specifically this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=91594

The decision is really up to you. Nobody here or anywhere or even myself can give you the perfect magical answer as to which camera is better. In fact they are all pretty equal give or take a few points here and there. I tend to think of the cameras as more like film stocks where they are all film but they all have a different look to them. While the HVX200 may be slightly softer it does have a nice overall rich clean look to it. You could have 1000 people tell you one camera is perfect while another 1000 will tell you their camera is perfect. In this price range nothing is perfect. Heck even HDCAM and the F900 has it's limitations.

Your best option is to look at footage shot with each camera and check the cameras out for yourself to make your own judgement on which one works for you. What works for me may not work for you and I would never begin to even think everybody else in the world would have the same tastes as me. Maybe you can find somebody that lives near you that has some of the cameras in question so you can check them out to see how they look and feel.

The other thing to do would be to search these forums on this subject and on the subject of each of the cameras in question. There have been hundreds of topics on what each camera brings to the table and you will get more information there then you will in your own topic here.

The decision is really up to you. In this price range nothing is perfect. Heck even HDCAM and the F900 has it's limitations.

Your best option is to look at footage shot with each camera and check the cameras out for yourself to make your own judgement on which one works for you.

...hmmm. So I suppose I just could have said this and saved myself a lot of typing...

In my own defense, when I do say it this way on most any forum I post on, I'm always challenged.

Well said.

I recently directed a commercial and the DP that we used had a AG-HVX200. He raved about the camera (he owned it so I would expect him to) and mentioned the fact that it could output uncompressed video (might have needed a 3rd party product?) and how the end result was so much better than the Canon.

Thanks in advance :-)

This is another example of people feeding useless and wrong facts just because they own a camera. Like what was said by other people at one point any HD camera including a single chip HDV consumer camera will have live uncompressed output via component cables. The reason why this statement by the DP was really stupid is because the Panasonic only has component outputs which are analog. The Canon XLH1 has HD-SDI which is digital and higher quality. The SONY V1 uses HDMI which is just as good as HD-SDI and it is also digital.

So the Panasonic would be one of the last cameras I would consider to use if I was going to capture live as uncompressed or lightly compressed. The Panasonic is a nice camera but the point the DP gave you is just plain ignorant.

I think the workflow of an HVX200 is more complicated then the Canon's.
Besides of the 24f (which is now almost supported by most big NLE's, no? or am I wrong), it's smaller data, and on regular cheap mini dv cassettes.

Panasonic has variable frame rates though.
Canon higher resolution and the A1 is one of the best 'bang for the buck' around now.

There is also the XD CAM EX, announced by Sony ,which looks VERY interesting.

ps: the reason why I think some people advice you to skip the XL H1 is, although it's a fantastic camera, besides of the interchangible lens system, audio controls and ergonomics (which could all be very important to you, you decide!), the A1 and G1 give you an equal picture on a smaller pricetag with some extra's even (more custom presets and manual iris ring).
And the G1 has also audio over it's HDSDI, which the H1 doesn't have.

If you don't need the HD-SDI: go for the Canon A1, would be my advice.


Or you could buy a RED camera with Nikon lenses ;-) Héhé

I haven't seen anyone mention actual camera performance compared. Not image, but actual latitude, etc. For instance, the HVX eats light. If your looking to do commercials (and I know this sounds shallow) but what camera will "look" the best? HVX and A1 is small whereas the XLH1 or HPX will have a definite PRO look to them. I had an XL2 and got nothing but stares from people. Clients wont know any other way to judge the equipment you have except what it looks like...and if they had to blindly pick between someone with an HPX or w/e, and an HVX....I think they'd opt for the "bigger" camera. Just something to keep in mind. Clients are dumb, even if you show them footage (if you get that far), they wont have any idea of how good your equipment is except what they see with their eye and what it looks like.

Something to chew.

BTW, if you have that kind of budget, look at the bigger cams for sure.

- Kyle

This is another example of people feeding useless and wrong facts just because they own a camera. Like what was said by other people at one point any HD camera including a single chip HDV consumer camera will have live uncompressed output via component cables. The reason why this statement by the DP was really stupid is because the Panasonic only has component outputs which are analog. The Canon XLH1 has HD-SDI which is digital and higher quality. The SONY V1 uses HDMI which is just as good as HD-SDI and it is also digital.

So the Panasonic would be one of the last cameras I would consider to use if I was going to capture live as uncompressed or lightly compressed. The Panasonic is a nice camera but the point the DP gave you is just plain ignorant.

That is what I thought, but he said that with this 3rd party magic device he could get 4:4:4 output ???

Maybe it could dust my studio as well :-)

Real Stream has a product called Hydra. It is a hardware add-on. It comes with a stiff price.
http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=663

Real Stream has a product called Hydra. It is a hardware add-on. It comes with a stiff price.
http://forum.reel-stream.com/viewtopic.php?t=663

Well, I guess he was right and my suspicions were unfounded !

I ask you this because with 25k you can buy into cameras a LOT better than those posted: The HPX 500 (20k with lens), or the "revolutionary" RED Camera (23K with Lens).

What where you getting, in this 2 cameras?

Panasonic HPX500- Variable frame rates in 720p, 2/3 ccd's, 1080p 25/24 recording, lovely Panasonic cinegamma (subjective). Camera package comes with 4 16gb P2 cards.

Positive- Already available; Proven Workflow; Broadcast ready, with both 1080 and 720p recording; 2/3 CCD's for added sensitivity and dinamic range

Cons- Pixel Shifted CCD's from lower resolution chips (don't know the exact figure), P2- positive or negative is subjective, but its a different workflow.

RED Camera- 4k recording (resolution 2.5x more than 1080!), variable frame rates up to 120fps (not definitive) in 2k, records to CF cards most of the 25/24fps modes. 35mm size sensor- Capable of using still 35mm lenses.

Pros- Camera already being used by famed filmmakers like Sodebergh, Peter Jackson, and others. This says a lot.

Cons- New boy in town; NLE support; First cameras out might have minor bugs; Not yet available (should ship this month); Waiting time- with 2 000 preorders or more, if ordered now one should see a camera...by the end of 2008.

I own and operate an HVX200, but have seen impressive stuff with the XL-H1. Don't forget, your production is not only the camera. When you buy an HVX or an XL-H1, you're also allowing yourself to have less expensive support equipment that does the same job as the heavy duty equipment for bigger cameras- dollies, cranes, steadicam's, etc. This is also important to take into consideration!

Cheers

Sérgio

Hello,

Thanks for the valued info.!

I would love a lot of the new gear out, or coming out, but you hit it on the head, these cameras mentioned are already out and can be edited using less sophisticated equipment.

I'm still leaning toward the Canon, but for some unknown reason I wish that I had a better alternative :?:

Hello,

Thanks for the valued info.!

I would love a lot of the new gear out, or coming out, but you hit it on the head, these cameras mentioned are already out and can be edited using less sophisticated equipment.

I'm still leaning toward the Canon, but for some unknown reason I wish that I had a better alternative :?:

I suggest you take a look at the Panasonic HPX500- its already available, its Pal/Ntsc compatible, and its editable with an Imac or Macbook pro. DVCPRO HD is very edit friendly. What I said is that this so called " bigger and heavier cameras" need support gear that is a lot more expensive than DV grade support gear... If I had a 25K budget, needed a camera immediately, I wouldn't hesitate on going HPX500... Mainly because I already own a G5 that's P2 ready and a tripod that can handle that camera...The only thing that would be useless for me would be my Glidecam 4000 with smooth shooter...

Also, take a look at the Silicon Imaging Mini. I forgot to mention this camera. I believe there's a forum here about that camera, take a look. Sounds promissing on paper, and its already released- I have no experience whatsoever with it, tough.

Thanks Again !

BTW I am a Premiere Pro 2 and soon PPro CS3 user. I heard that your camera is mac friendly, would the Canon be more suited to my editing workflow?

Thanks!!

AM

Thanks Again !

BTW I am a Premiere Pro 2 and soon PPro CS3 user. I heard that your camera is mac friendly, would the Canon be more suited to my editing workflow?

Thanks!!

AM

HDV will be somewhat easier than DVC ProHD P2 as far as a Premiere Pro workflow. You can convert P2 media with CineForm (my personal method) or, at one time DV Rack had a capture converter, but I'd have to go back and see if there is a transcode component in the new CS3...I can't remember.

I've worked with the SI Mini. It's a fantastic camera, but it requires a workflow mindset change entirely. It needs a laptop (my Dell M90 is a good candidate) to capture its output via Gig Ethernet, and that workflow produces CineForm RAW files. It's an exceptional workflow for image quality, but the camera is a big change for most video guys.

However, with superior exposure latitude compared to an F900 (I participated in a side-by-side comparison in San Francisco in January), it's an impressive value for anyone who does independent film work as the images are beautiful and the CineForm RAW workflow really preserves image quality.

Hey Tim, thanks for the input!

I found some information on the SI Mini, but all of it was forums and news groups. Where is the actual company located so that i can get specs and pricing?

Also, do you think that the Canon would be an easier workflow for me?

I'm still leaning toward the Canon as for the picture quality, SDI-HD Out, and the Lens.

Thanks Again!

AM


HDV will be somewhat easier than DVC ProHD P2 as far as a Premiere Pro workflow. You can convert P2 media with CineForm (my personal method) or, at one time DV Rack had a capture converter, but I'd have to go back and see if there is a transcode component in the new CS3...I can't remember.

I've worked with the SI Mini. It's a fantastic camera, but it requires a workflow mindset change entirely. It needs a laptop (my Dell M90 is a good candidate) to capture its output via Gig Ethernet, and that workflow produces CineForm RAW files. It's an exceptional workflow for image quality, but the camera is a big change for most video guys.

However, with superior exposure latitude compared to an F900 (I participated in a side-by-side comparison in San Francisco in January), it's an impressive value for anyone who does independent film work as the images are beautiful and the CineForm RAW workflow really preserves image quality.

Hey Tim, thanks for the input!

I found some information on the SI Mini, but all of it was forums and news groups. Where is the actual company located so that i can get specs and pricing?
http://www.siliconimaging.com/DigitalCinema/SI_2Kmini_key_features.html