HVX200 vs. XHA1 - some initial impressions

[Steven Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

How did you capture the footage?

Using Cineform in Premiere Pro

[Glenn Thomas]

My vote goes to the XHA1. Better colour in that shot too.

In regards to the variable frame rate of the HVX, I honestly believe that's just a gimmick to make the camera more appealling. Variable frame rates can be achieved very easily in editing providing the footage has been shot in either 60i or 50i using any HDV camera capable of 1080i. Preferably with a higher shutter speed of course. In Vegas for example it's very simple. Just make sure your project is set to progressive with deinterlacing set to interpolate. Load an interlaced clip onto the timeline, right click on the clip and adjust the playback rate. Could it be any easier than that on the HVX? A playback rate of 0.5 would be the same as shooting at 60fps on an NTSC HVX. Of course it can be adjusted too, so you're not stuck with whatever rate you filmed at.

Of course you lose a field and your vertical resolution is halved working this way. But remember the HVX's sensors are only 960x540 and the variable frame rate only works at 720P. So doing this on a camera such as the XHA1, or even the HV20, a Sony etc, you'll still end up with a higher resolution image.

[Douglas Villalba]

Hello Steven,

I edited my previous post. I didn't see your last post before.

So, you are not downloading directly from the P2?

I can't judge your last clip because I can't get wmv files to play smooth.

What I can tell from the clip is that the HVX was not optimized.

Another important questions are:

1: Shutter Speed and frame rate.
2: How did you get two different formats & frame rates on one timeline?
3: What setting did you use to compress for the web?

There are many other variables that make either camera look better. As far I can tell from the wmv, they both look terrible (24f or 24p), but again all wmv look that way to me. (G5 Quad, 4.5 GB)

Another unrelated question. Can the color in the A1 with your VIVIDRGB be raised a tad more?

Thanks

[Steven Dempsey]

Shutter speed was consistent on both cameras: 1/48
Frame rate was the same: 24fps
I converted the original MXF files from the HVX to Cineform 1280x720 files so I could read them as native 24p files.
I captured the Canon footage using Premiere and Cineform and exported the capture to Cineform 1280x720m 24p
I then opened up a 1280x720 24p project in Vegas 7. I stacked both files on the timeline, ensuring they were aligned to the same event in the frame. I scooted over the HVX file halfway across the edit window which gave me a split screen effect.
I then rendered the project out as a 1280x720, 24fps, 10mbps WMV

All the while the 24fps frame rate was preserved for both cameras.

Like I said, I'm not putting this comparison up for any other reason than to compare how both cameras do 24fps. Quality of footage or colors, etc. are irrelevant.

BTW, the footage looks and plays fine on my computer.

Regarding VIVIDRGB, the colors are already pretty saturated but if you want more, then just do it in post. Adding more color to the preset is going to start introducing noise. It's optimized to give the most amount of color without introducing noise.

[Alain Mayo]

The motion looked the same to me for both cameras, I did not notice any difference.

[Sam Ren]

it looked like the hvx had more grain and a lower quality image + the colors didnt look as rich...
but the motion did look the same (24p=24f) no diff to my eye...

-Sam~!

[Dennis Wood]

At 24 fps (native), and 1/48s shutter there cannot be any difference between motion rendition...can there? I can understand 24p, for example from the HV20 in 24p mode, looking wonky at 29.97 fps but once 3:2 pulldown is performed...it looks exactly the same as the XH-A1 24fps.

[Glenn Thomas]

I can see a difference, but it's very very subtle. If you look at the grass on the XHA1 side, it appears to move more fluidly. Where as the HVX grass appears to strobe very slightly. A similar effect to watching 15fps video. Or perhaps due to there being slightly more motion blur from the XHA1?

[Bill Pryor]

If you shoot everything at 24fps and capture properly (in FCP in the 1080p24 setting) and edit in a 24p timeline, it's the same--24 fps is 24fps if there's no pulldown involved (like with the HV20).

Last summer I saw a demo of the XDCAM HD FP350 and then later in the day a music video shot with the HVX200. They both looked great, and the HVX looked surprisingly good on the closeups. There were no long shots in the piece, and the lower resolution of the camera would show up there probably. However, I'd be happy with that camera too (except for the P2 part). I think there's way too much measurebating about cameras, formats and all. Thanks to Chris for that wonderful word--wish I had thought of it. You can shoot a decent film with any of the small HD cameras that are out there today. The quality is amazingly good from any of them. And shooting 24p is fine but not really necessary even if you're going to film. Two years ago I had a music video transferred to 35mm film that I shot with a DSR500 mostly, and closeups and slow shutter effect shots with a DSR250. It was all shot and edited at 60i. The resulting print looked exactly like the video, actually a little better. I thought the reverse pulldown would make it funky but on the big screen you really couldn't notice anything...unless you watched it half a dozen times with your measurebating glasses on.

[Philip Williams]

When Barry Green did his comparison article on the XH-A1 and HVX200 he did a nice split video comparison. Motion and blur were exactly 100% the same.

[Steven Dempsey]

Yeah, I only put my own example up there because someone was saying they thought the Canon 24fps motion was different....obviously that's not the case.

That's it.

[Salah Baker]

Steven what CineForm you using?

btw VividRGB is the first preset I got for my g-1 :D
I was like a kid in the candy store when sucking up the HD-sdi into the machine with CineForm.....lol

[Steven Dempsey]

AspectHD 4.3 for Premiere Pro 2.0

[Mark Williams]

I've looked at the two clips about 20 times on a 24" monitor. Paying attention to the grass, detail in the moving vehicles, detail in the road, sign and orange bleeding in the sign. Frankly the HXV200 footage looks just a "hair" better to me. What am I missing here since most comments are the XHA1 looks better?

Regards,

[Steven Dempsey]

Okay, I don't want to come across as being cranky but I downrezzed the Canon footage and did not grade the pictures. As I said in my original post:

Don't worry about the resolution or color grading, just concentrate on the motion. HVX is set to 24p, XHA1 is set to 24f


So please don't comment on the picture quality because it is not an apples to apples test....only the motion is accurate.