XL-H1 vs HVX-200

Shane Ross · June 20th, 2006, 11:09 PM

OK...I had to respond for I hate those that make a statement, get slammed with good arguements then just fade away.

I must really apologize for my attitude. My statements come from a bad experience with two HDV projects that were improperly shot (one used the Cineframe mode). I personally have not shot with and HDV camera. A very talented DP shot with the JVC camera and liked the look of it (and I will admit it did look darn good) but we noted that it didn't intercut well with the Varicam.

I am glad to know that HDV works for many people in a variety of projects and is a viable low cost HD alternative. The fact that the network I deal with rejects it shouldn't mean that they are the authority. At one point I did work on shows for Discovery and Nat. Geo and they rejected that format. Times changes as talent and workflows for that footage change and improve.

I myself am still not a fan of the format, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a viable option. DV was considered for a time as crap, and has now been embraced. It all depends on the talent of the artist with the brush.

Ash Greyson · June 20th, 2006, 11:46 PM

Shane, my experience was similar. I used a Z1u when it first came out to shoot a concert and had nothing but problems. Come to find that a smoky, wildly variating light environment is the worst case scenario for HDV. At the time there were also serious timecode issues with most NLEs and HDV. I have seen used the JVC and had better results. The best of all is the Canon XLH which looks stunning and is amazingly sharp. I still prefer the DVCproHD codec but DESPISE the P2 workflow. Currently I own an HVX and frequently use the JVC and Canon although most my work is still with the XL2...

ash =o)

Shane Ross · June 21st, 2006, 02:01 PM

Although just for the record, all of those networks only use the camera for insert shots, they don't use it for an entire show.

For that matter, they only accept the HVX-200 footage for the same reason. They still want big good solid HD cameras for the main camera.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 21st, 2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shane Ross

Although just for the record, all of those networks only use the camera for insert shots, they don't use it for an entire show.

For that matter, they only accept the HVX-200 footage for the same reason. They still want big good solid HD cameras for the main camera.

For the most part, what you say is of course, correct. However, the packages we shot Monday that aired as finished stories Monday night, all were acquired in HDV vs HDCAM. Same with most of "House Arrest" where most of the footage is HDV and the HDCAM is the insert. It's nearly as much a camera controllability thing than format issue. HDV cams just don't offer the control you get with HDCAM. Featureset or physical movement options are more restrictive in all the lower cost cams.

June 20th, 2006, 11:09 PM	#31
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	OK...I had to respond for I hate those that make a statement, get slammed with good arguements then just fade away. I must really apologize for my attitude. My statements come from a bad experience with two HDV projects that were improperly shot (one used the Cineframe mode). I personally have not shot with and HDV camera. A very talented DP shot with the JVC camera and liked the look of it (and I will admit it did look darn good) but we noted that it didn't intercut well with the Varicam. I am glad to know that HDV works for many people in a variety of projects and is a viable low cost HD alternative. The fact that the network I deal with rejects it shouldn't mean that they are the authority. At one point I did work on shows for Discovery and Nat. Geo and they rejected that format. Times changes as talent and workflows for that footage change and improve. I myself am still not a fan of the format, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a viable option. DV was considered for a time as crap, and has now been embraced. It all depends on the talent of the artist with the brush.

June 20th, 2006, 11:46 PM	#32
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Shane, my experience was similar. I used a Z1u when it first came out to shoot a concert and had nothing but problems. Come to find that a smoky, wildly variating light environment is the worst case scenario for HDV. At the time there were also serious timecode issues with most NLEs and HDV. I have seen used the JVC and had better results. The best of all is the Canon XLH which looks stunning and is amazingly sharp. I still prefer the DVCproHD codec but DESPISE the P2 workflow. Currently I own an HVX and frequently use the JVC and Canon although most my work is still with the XL2... ash =o)

June 21st, 2006, 02:01 PM	#33
Shane Ross Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Los Angeles, USA Posts: 539	Although just for the record, all of those networks only use the camera for insert shots, they don't use it for an entire show. For that matter, they only accept the HVX-200 footage for the same reason. They still want big good solid HD cameras for the main camera.