GL2 vs XH A1 for nature footage at DVinfo.net

Ken Wozniak · July 3rd, 2007, 04:13 PM

This thread is carried over from here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....3&postcount=52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Marnell

Thank you for those observations Ken. Please stay with this one more time.

I now understand what VIVIDRGB would do to the blues and greens. I can also see that 16:9 would have just about accommodated the griffon's wings (though it was really my fault that I didn't anticipate him coming close and zoom out a bit).

What I want to understand is ... exactly what change/improvement on the image quality would be achieved if I had the higher resolution of HDV? The pixel count of your machine compared to mine looks like this:

XHA1 3 x .33" ccd x 520,000 (= 1.56 MP effective pixels - movie)
GL2 3 x .25" ccd x 440,000 (= 1.32 MP effective pixels - movie)

I don't need an answer in the form of pixel measurement. I'm just wishing there was somebody out there with bird flight or horse racing or windsurfing footage on XHA1 who would kindly post 2 tiny clips that illustrated the superiority in image quality of XHA1 over GL2 or even HD over SD?

The footage from the A1 isn't output at SD footage, so you get to take advantage of all those extra pixels in your final video. In addition, the optics for the HD cameras are a step above the SD lenses.

I don't have any horse tracks around here, and I'm land-locked, so I do not have footage in those areas. The birds around here are no where near as interesting as what you have, and there are so many trees, that I can't get a good shot even if an interesting bird were to fly past. You know, my geographic location pretty much SUCKS for nature photography. :)

There are a lot of guys here doing that kind of shooting, maybe one of them will read this thread. In the meantime, I'll try to shoot some comparison footage of something for you.

Ken Wozniak · July 3rd, 2007, 08:40 PM

Here is a link to a comparison between HDV 60i and DV 60i.
http://senduit.com/2d611d
It's a large file at about 80MB.

Brendan Marnell · July 5th, 2007, 03:18 AM

Thank you for your advice Ken.

I'm failing to open that link but I'll keep trying.

I try to spend a fortnight a year at each of 2 locations for videoing vultures, one is 1200 miles from Ireland in mid-Spain, the other is in Crete, 2500 miles away, but now and again the opportunities for bird flight footage are marvellous at both cliff-top locations. It's probable that I'm trying to find fault with my gear rather than face the truth that I am unable to keep alert and rock-steady when the chances suddenly appear, from all angles. Elbows locked on my chest are useful until the bird soars above the horizontal ... then I wish I was sitting on an office chair with swivel back and seat ... there's the answer ... I'm going to invite those birds to call to my office, that's it. Now where's my office?
It's not my throne I'm thinking about, that room is a bit small for the wingspan ... as Fagin (Ron Moody) sings in "Oliver", "I think I better think it out again ... "

Ken Wozniak · July 5th, 2007, 07:27 AM

I tried to download the file, and it's telling me that it expired. Grrr!
I do not yet have the ability to post files here, nor do I have enough storage on-line from my service provider to host the files myself.

The A1 will not make your shots any steadier, in fact, it may make them worse due to the added weight. You will, however, see some dramatic improvements in picture quality with a newer camera in the same market segment regardless of brand. The only way to stay ahead of the curve is to never buy. Native 16:9 shooting would be a big benefit in your field.

In my book, the biggest advantage the A1 has over other cameras in its price range is the amount of manual control and how easy it is to access it. I shot a wedding last weekend full-manual with the camera and absolutely loved it. Nothing changed with the picture unless I wanted it to.

I wish we had some cliffs around here. In Indiana, it's all flat...but we've got corn and soybeans. And corn. I've got a poorly-produced short about all the corn here. Check it out if you get a chance. Four hours total from first shot to final edit. Spur-of-the-moment deal. No mikes, lights, bounce cards, script, ADR, etc. But we had fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_SFw-o4XZI

Alex Chamberlain · November 19th, 2007, 02:41 PM

This is my first post here, so forgive me if I'm reinventing the wheel, but I think there's some backward Math in the following assumption:

"XHA1 3 x .33" ccd x 520,000 (= 1.56 MP effective pixels - movie)
GL2 3 x .25" ccd x 440,000 (= 1.32 MP effective pixels - movie)"

The XHA1 has 3 x .33" CCD @ 1.56 Effective Megapixels EACH (not 520,000 pixels), whereas:
The GL2 has 3 x .25" CCD @ 440,000 Effective pixels each.

I'm assuming the 520,000 pixels was derived by dividing 1.56MP by 3, which makes sense, but, as I'm sure you know each CCD is only responsible for one primary color. Hence, it takes a "pixel" from all three sensors to color one pixel on your screen. Therefore, the GL2 has a total Effective pixel count of just 440,000, whereas the XHA1 has 1.56 Million. That's why the XHA1 is so much sharper. Each CCD has 1.56 MP of resolution. Nice, eh? Mine is "in the mail" until after thanksgiving, so I've been shooting on a loaner. I have to say that I have NEVER been this impressed with a camera since the Sony HDW-730, which is well out of my price bracket. Anyway, sorry to butt in, but I think this might help this thread out a bit.

Brendan Marnell · November 19th, 2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Chamberlain

This is my first post here, so forgive me if I'm reinventing the wheel, but I think there's some backward Math in the following assumption:

"XHA1 3 x .33" ccd x 520,000 (= 1.56 MP effective pixels - movie)
GL2 3 x .25" ccd x 440,000 (= 1.32 MP effective pixels - movie)"

The XHA1 has 3 x .33" CCD @ 1.56 Effective Megapixels EACH (not 520,000 pixels), whereas:
The GL2 has 3 x .25" CCD @ 440,000 Effective pixels each.

I'm assuming the 520,000 pixels was derived by dividing 1.56MP by 3, which makes sense, but, as I'm sure you know each CCD is only responsible for one primary color. Hence, it takes a "pixel" from all three sensors to color one pixel on your screen. Therefore, the GL2 has a total Effective pixel count of just 440,000, whereas the XHA1 has 1.56 Million. That's why the XHA1 is so much sharper. Each CCD has 1.56 MP of resolution. Nice, eh? Mine is "in the mail" until after thanksgiving, so I've been shooting on a loaner. I have to say that I have NEVER been this impressed with a camera since the Sony HDW-730, which is well out of my price bracket. Anyway, sorry to butt in, but I think this might help this thread out a bit.

That is a bright light cast on one of my dimmer subjects, Alex, thank you.
For that you may well feel entitled to a second post. Go on; any of my threads would probably benefit from your observations

July 3rd, 2007, 08:40 PM	#2
Ken Wozniak Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 179	Here is a link to a comparison between HDV 60i and DV 60i. http://senduit.com/2d611d It's a large file at about 80MB. __________________ Woz

July 5th, 2007, 07:27 AM	#4
Ken Wozniak Regular Crew Join Date: May 2007 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 179	I tried to download the file, and it's telling me that it expired. Grrr! I do not yet have the ability to post files here, nor do I have enough storage on-line from my service provider to host the files myself. The A1 will not make your shots any steadier, in fact, it may make them worse due to the added weight. You will, however, see some dramatic improvements in picture quality with a newer camera in the same market segment regardless of brand. The only way to stay ahead of the curve is to never buy. Native 16:9 shooting would be a big benefit in your field. In my book, the biggest advantage the A1 has over other cameras in its price range is the amount of manual control and how easy it is to access it. I shot a wedding last weekend full-manual with the camera and absolutely loved it. Nothing changed with the picture unless I wanted it to. I wish we had some cliffs around here. In Indiana, it's all flat...but we've got corn and soybeans. And corn. I've got a poorly-produced short about all the corn here. Check it out if you get a chance. Four hours total from first shot to final edit. Spur-of-the-moment deal. No mikes, lights, bounce cards, script, ADR, etc. But we had fun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_SFw-o4XZI __________________ Woz

November 19th, 2007, 02:41 PM	#5
Alex Chamberlain Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Hurricane, UT Posts: 186	Resolution This is my first post here, so forgive me if I'm reinventing the wheel, but I think there's some backward Math in the following assumption: "XHA1 3 x .33" ccd x 520,000 (= 1.56 MP effective pixels - movie) GL2 3 x .25" ccd x 440,000 (= 1.32 MP effective pixels - movie)" The XHA1 has 3 x .33" CCD @ 1.56 Effective Megapixels EACH (not 520,000 pixels), whereas: The GL2 has 3 x .25" CCD @ 440,000 Effective pixels each. I'm assuming the 520,000 pixels was derived by dividing 1.56MP by 3, which makes sense, but, as I'm sure you know each CCD is only responsible for one primary color. Hence, it takes a "pixel" from all three sensors to color one pixel on your screen. Therefore, the GL2 has a total Effective pixel count of just 440,000, whereas the XHA1 has 1.56 Million. That's why the XHA1 is so much sharper. Each CCD has 1.56 MP of resolution. Nice, eh? Mine is "in the mail" until after thanksgiving, so I've been shooting on a loaner. I have to say that I have NEVER been this impressed with a camera since the Sony HDW-730, which is well out of my price bracket. Anyway, sorry to butt in, but I think this might help this thread out a bit.

July 5th, 2007, 03:18 AM	#3
Brendan Marnell Major Player Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 938	Thank you for your advice Ken. I'm failing to open that link but I'll keep trying. I try to spend a fortnight a year at each of 2 locations for videoing vultures, one is 1200 miles from Ireland in mid-Spain, the other is in Crete, 2500 miles away, but now and again the opportunities for bird flight footage are marvellous at both cliff-top locations. It's probable that I'm trying to find fault with my gear rather than face the truth that I am unable to keep alert and rock-steady when the chances suddenly appear, from all angles. Elbows locked on my chest are useful until the bird soars above the horizontal ... then I wish I was sitting on an office chair with swivel back and seat ... there's the answer ... I'm going to invite those birds to call to my office, that's it. Now where's my office? It's not my throne I'm thinking about, that room is a bit small for the wingspan ... as Fagin (Ron Moody) sings in "Oliver", "I think I better think it out again ... "