XL-H1 vs HVX-200 at DVinfo.net

Oliver Waters · June 5th, 2006, 07:52 AM

Hi,

Could someone please highlight the main differences between the Panasonic HVX-200 and Canon's XL-H1?

In your opinion which is the best in terms of picture quality and use on FCP for editing?

Kind regards,
Ollie

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 5th, 2006, 08:19 AM

Canon does not offer overcrank/undercrank, Panny does. Canon is 24, 30, and 60 fps
Canon does not have built in storage, Panny does. Canon stores to tape.
Canon does not shoot 720 at all. It shoots 1080. Panny shoots 1080, but it looks like 720 upscaled to 1080.
Some folks like the form factor of Canon, others prefer the Panny.
Canon has better glass, and interchangeable glass, Panny has fixed glass.
Canon has SDI out, Panny does not. Canon's SDI does not carry audio tho.
Canon is more aimed at shoulder mount; you'll need a kit to make the Panny mount on your shoulder.
Canon has 1440 x 1080 sensors, Panny allegedly has 960 x 540.
Canon has mpg audio, Panny has PCM.

Both are good cameras, at 720p the Panny is grea, not the cream of the 720p crop, but very nice, IMO. But...it's a 1080 world.

Philip Williams · June 5th, 2006, 09:03 AM

Oliver, I'd recommend you spend some more time using the Search feature here. The differences between these two cams (AND the HD100 AND the Z1) have been examined down to the last pixel numerous times.

You can also search on DV.com for a 4 cam comparison article by Adam Wilt. Additionally, he's reviewed the XLH1 AND the HVX200 in seperate articles. Good reading (and I think he awarded both cams 4.5 out of 5 starts - impressive!).

Good luck!

www.philipwilliams.com

Oliver Waters · June 5th, 2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Canon does not offer overcrank/undercrank, Panny does. Canon is 24, 30, and 60 fps
Canon does not have built in storage, Panny does. Canon stores to tape.
Canon does not shoot 720 at all. It shoots 1080. Panny shoots 1080, but it looks like 720 upscaled to 1080.
Some folks like the form factor of Canon, others prefer the Panny.
Canon has better glass, and interchangeable glass, Panny has fixed glass.
Canon has SDI out, Panny does not. Canon's SDI does not carry audio tho.
Canon is more aimed at shoulder mount; you'll need a kit to make the Panny mount on your shoulder.
Canon has 1440 x 1080 sensors, Panny allegedly has 960 x 540.
Canon has mpg audio, Panny has PCM.

Both are good cameras, at 720p the Panny is grea, not the cream of the 720p crop, but very nice, IMO. But...it's a 1080 world.

Great stuff, cheers ;o)

Mike Schrengohst · June 6th, 2006, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Both are good cameras, at 720p the Panny is grea, not the cream of the 720p crop, but very nice, IMO. But...it's a 1080 world.

It may be a 1080 world but after you have seen the thousands of clips I have seen from every HD camera from the FX-1 upto the HVX, and they are not shooting test charts, The HVX-200 wins hands down. It holds it's own with $65,000 VariCams. The color and motion capture of the HVX exceeds anything I have seen from HDV. Want to use interchanagable lenses? M2 from redrock. The HVX is one of the first generation of P2 cameras that will only get better and be able to keep growing into the DVCPRO HD workflow. 25 & 19 Mbit tape systems are a dead end.
The real interesting development is RED which will make everything we are debating about a moot point.

Ash Greyson · June 6th, 2006, 09:08 PM

I own a DVX and XL2 and frequently use an HVX, XLH, SDX900 and a Varicam. The Vari is my personal favorite and when using it strengths the 2/3" CCD BLOWS away the 1/3" stuff, not even close in most scenarios. Obviously, if you are shooting interviews against a black backdrop, it doesnt matter as much. The XLH is actually SHARPER than the Vari but HDV is a terrible format for editing. I either shoot straight to a 1200HD deck via HD-SDI or transfer to tape and capture from them. DVCproHD is much better to work in but if you do more than one or two CC stages you really need to work uncompressed for the polish.

Bottom line the HVX is NOT the best 1/3" HD camera, it is simple one of the ones to choose from. Currently the cost of P2 and reliability of direct to HDD make the choice harder. P2 is destructive and I do no feel it is the format of the future... or course, neither is HDV...

ash =o)

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 6th, 2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Schrengohst

It may be a 1080 world but after you have seen the thousands of clips I have seen from every HD camera from the FX-1 upto the HVX, and they are not shooting test charts, The HVX-200 wins hands down. .

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. Not many others share it. The HVX has its exceptionally strong points, and its weak points. Just like any camera.
Given that we own all four budget HD cameras, I'd suppose I've got a fairly informed, if not balanced opinion.
And we don't shoot test charts. Most of our work is at least at 60mph or faster.

[edit] Ash sums it up pretty well, IMO.

Ash Greyson · June 6th, 2006, 09:34 PM

Just to support the position of DSE, I LOOOOOOVE the Varicam but it only shoots 720P and most the people in NYC and LA are 1080i only. I have friends who do ten F900 shoots for every one Vari shoot. I am not a fan of the F900, it produces super clean, super clear images but lacks the depth of the Vari...but the resolution is a BIG deal to many people, especially on the high end...

ash =o)

Zack Birlew · June 14th, 2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

Just to support the position of DSE, I LOOOOOOVE the Varicam but it only shoots 720P and most the people in NYC and LA are 1080i only. I have friends who do ten F900 shoots for every one Vari shoot. I am not a fan of the F900, it produces super clean, super clear images but lacks the depth of the Vari...but the resolution is a BIG deal to many people, especially on the high end...

ash =o)

Just adding that 4:4:4 color doesn't hurt either. ^_^

But yeah, go with what looks best to you. I personally don't like the XLH1 because the viewfinder is pretty poor and unreliable, but I do like the form factor. However, the HVX200 seems to be winning most people's hearts and I'm one of those people who could really use the variable frame rates in their projects and I don't mind P2 either.

Still, I'd stick by my first statement, just go with what looks best to you.

Ash Greyson · June 14th, 2006, 08:59 PM

The F900 is a 3:1:1 color space camera... still most in broadcast prefer it to the 720p 4:2:2 of the Vari. The XLH has a terrible viewfinder but the HVX"S screen is not very good either, the Sony is the only one that is adequate.

Variable framerates is really THE main thing that the HVX has going for it and THE thing the other cams just cant offer in this price range...

ash =o)

Mike Schrengohst · June 14th, 2006, 09:47 PM

DSE said it was a 1080 world but it's gonna be a 1080p
world not 1080i. I have to usually de-interlace 1080i footage so it works with all the other progressive footage we have in edits. At least with HD footage the resolution loss when de-interlacing is not that bad. I guess if you are doing your own show front to back then you could use all 1080i footage. We are usually providing footage as snippets for other shows and the over whelming majority of folks want progressive footage.
Especially when downconverting, no interlace nastiness to deal with.

Take a look at this spot shot with an HVX
(Footage courtesy of Jim Arthurs)

http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/o...K_sorenson.mov
(Right click save as)

Bob Grant · June 14th, 2006, 10:49 PM

American Cinematographer June 2006 pages 108 to 116 should give some good insight into this vexed question. In all fairness the XL-H1 was being used with the Wafian.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · June 14th, 2006, 11:04 PM

It *is* a 1080i world now. It *will* be someday, a 1080p world. We'll all be much balder, fatter, and wiser when that day comes to the broadcast world.

Zack Birlew · June 15th, 2006, 09:23 AM

Gah! Sorry, Ash, I was thinking of the F950 for the 4:4:4! =D My bad.

Ash Greyson · June 15th, 2006, 11:38 AM

No problem, I figured as such. The point being that the broadcasters/Hollywood DPs are more concerned with resolution than color space.

Also, while 1080P may indeed be the future, only a TINY percentage of current HDTVs already in homes support it. By the time 1080P is viable, the HVX200 will most likely have been replaced by a much better and much cheaper alternative.

ash =o)

June 5th, 2006, 07:52 AM	#1
Oliver Waters Tourist Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: UK Posts: 3	XL-H1 vs HVX-200 Hi, Could someone please highlight the main differences between the Panasonic HVX-200 and Canon's XL-H1? In your opinion which is the best in terms of picture quality and use on FCP for editing? Kind regards, Ollie

June 5th, 2006, 08:19 AM	#2
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	Canon does not offer overcrank/undercrank, Panny does. Canon is 24, 30, and 60 fps Canon does not have built in storage, Panny does. Canon stores to tape. Canon does not shoot 720 at all. It shoots 1080. Panny shoots 1080, but it looks like 720 upscaled to 1080. Some folks like the form factor of Canon, others prefer the Panny. Canon has better glass, and interchangeable glass, Panny has fixed glass. Canon has SDI out, Panny does not. Canon's SDI does not carry audio tho. Canon is more aimed at shoulder mount; you'll need a kit to make the Panny mount on your shoulder. Canon has 1440 x 1080 sensors, Panny allegedly has 960 x 540. Canon has mpg audio, Panny has PCM. Both are good cameras, at 720p the Panny is grea, not the cream of the 720p crop, but very nice, IMO. But...it's a 1080 world. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

June 14th, 2006, 09:47 PM	#11
Mike Schrengohst Major Player Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 355	DSE said it was a 1080 world but it's gonna be a 1080p world not 1080i. I have to usually de-interlace 1080i footage so it works with all the other progressive footage we have in edits. At least with HD footage the resolution loss when de-interlacing is not that bad. I guess if you are doing your own show front to back then you could use all 1080i footage. We are usually providing footage as snippets for other shows and the over whelming majority of folks want progressive footage. Especially when downconverting, no interlace nastiness to deal with. Take a look at this spot shot with an HVX (Footage courtesy of Jim Arthurs) http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/o...K_sorenson.mov (Right click save as) __________________ Mike Schrengohst dvd.pro@verizon.net

June 14th, 2006, 11:04 PM	#13
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	It is a 1080i world now. It will be someday, a 1080p world. We'll all be much balder, fatter, and wiser when that day comes to the broadcast world. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

June 15th, 2006, 09:23 AM	#14
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	Gah! Sorry, Ash, I was thinking of the F950 for the 4:4:4! =D My bad. __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

June 5th, 2006, 09:03 AM	#3
Philip Williams Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Snellville, Georgia Posts: 614	Oliver, I'd recommend you spend some more time using the Search feature here. The differences between these two cams (AND the HD100 AND the Z1) have been examined down to the last pixel numerous times. You can also search on DV.com for a 4 cam comparison article by Adam Wilt. Additionally, he's reviewed the XLH1 AND the HVX200 in seperate articles. Good reading (and I think he awarded both cams 4.5 out of 5 starts - impressive!). Good luck! www.philipwilliams.com

June 6th, 2006, 09:08 PM	#6
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	I own a DVX and XL2 and frequently use an HVX, XLH, SDX900 and a Varicam. The Vari is my personal favorite and when using it strengths the 2/3" CCD BLOWS away the 1/3" stuff, not even close in most scenarios. Obviously, if you are shooting interviews against a black backdrop, it doesnt matter as much. The XLH is actually SHARPER than the Vari but HDV is a terrible format for editing. I either shoot straight to a 1200HD deck via HD-SDI or transfer to tape and capture from them. DVCproHD is much better to work in but if you do more than one or two CC stages you really need to work uncompressed for the polish. Bottom line the HVX is NOT the best 1/3" HD camera, it is simple one of the ones to choose from. Currently the cost of P2 and reliability of direct to HDD make the choice harder. P2 is destructive and I do no feel it is the format of the future... or course, neither is HDV... ash =o)

June 6th, 2006, 09:34 PM	#8
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Just to support the position of DSE, I LOOOOOOVE the Varicam but it only shoots 720P and most the people in NYC and LA are 1080i only. I have friends who do ten F900 shoots for every one Vari shoot. I am not a fan of the F900, it produces super clean, super clear images but lacks the depth of the Vari...but the resolution is a BIG deal to many people, especially on the high end... ash =o)

June 14th, 2006, 08:59 PM	#10
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	The F900 is a 3:1:1 color space camera... still most in broadcast prefer it to the 720p 4:2:2 of the Vari. The XLH has a terrible viewfinder but the HVX"S screen is not very good either, the Sony is the only one that is adequate. Variable framerates is really THE main thing that the HVX has going for it and THE thing the other cams just cant offer in this price range... ash =o)

June 14th, 2006, 10:49 PM	#12
Bob Grant Trustee Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 1,570	American Cinematographer June 2006 pages 108 to 116 should give some good insight into this vexed question. In all fairness the XL-H1 was being used with the Wafian.

June 15th, 2006, 11:38 AM	#15
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	No problem, I figured as such. The point being that the broadcasters/Hollywood DPs are more concerned with resolution than color space. Also, while 1080P may indeed be the future, only a TINY percentage of current HDTVs already in homes support it. By the time 1080P is viable, the HVX200 will most likely have been replaced by a much better and much cheaper alternative. ash =o)