HD110U or the XH A1

Scott Jaco · September 14th, 2007, 12:45 PM

It's a shame that JVC is the only company pushing the 720p format.

The biggest difference I noticed when I made my decision was that the 1080i clips looked more "video" while the 720p clips had a film like quality. There is just something about the way the JVC processes the image that gives it a really warm look.

If you need the 60 frame look, you could still get the HD200.

In a world that is going progressive with LCD computer monitors & flat screen TV's, there is no reason to get an interlaced camera.

Furthermore, the interlacing process causes some loss of actual resolution, so don't think that 1080i is that much cleaner than 720p. Also, don't forget that many 1080i cameras use pixel shifting & long GOP.

Adam Rench · September 14th, 2007, 01:10 PM

Does the Canon pixel shift? I know that the HVX200 does, but I didn't think the Canon does.

Phil Balsdon · September 14th, 2007, 06:10 PM

I think if you use the 24f feature on the Canon you'll have to use the camera as a replay deck, because no other brand uses this format. It doesn't replay in Sony decks, although the interlaced HDV 1080i will.
This will add substantially to the wear on the camera's tape transport system.

We can argue the technical specs forever but in this class of camera they each have advantages and disadvantages over the other. You need to make the final decision based on what is most suitable for your style of shooting.

For some this will come down to price, for others auto features, and most importantly in my opinion ergonomics, I prefer a camera that fits on my shoulder for handheld and has an interchangeable lens that I can fit a wireless focus system to when it's on my steadicam, because I do a lot of that.

Technically format issues are no longer a big deal, most NLE systems can cope with all the various formats these cameras offer and if specs were more important than price we'd all be looking much higher up in the market place.

For the same reasons I love my Canon still camera kit.

Richard Hunter · September 16th, 2007, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Jaco

It's a shame that JVC is the only company pushing the 720p format.

The new Sony XDCAM EX also has 720p modes, in fact the overcranking up to 60p only works in 720p mode.

Richard

Chris Hurd · September 16th, 2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam Rench

Does the Canon pixel shift? I know that the HVX200 does, but I didn't think the Canon does.

Yes, all Canon three-chip camcorders (past and present) use the Pixel Shift process including Canon XL, XH and GL series camcorders. Currently the JVC Pro HD camcorder line is the *only* widely-marketed three-chip HD camera series that does *not* employ Pixel Shift. In keeping with the tried and true marketing method known as selling the difference, JVC makes a point of stating that Pixel Shift is not used in their Pro HD camera line.

However it should be clearly understood that Pixel Shift is a perfectly legitimate technique for boosting resolution; that the process has been around for years and years; that with only rare exceptions (JVC Pro HD being the most notable exception) most all three-chip camera systems use it, including not only Canon HDV but also Sony HDV and Sony HDCAM as well as the previously mentioned Panasonic DVCPRO HD; and finally and most importantly: there's nothing wrong with Pixel Shift. Hope this helps,

Scott Jaco · September 16th, 2007, 04:00 PM

"there's nothing wrong with Pixel Shift"

Then what are the disadvantages to pixel shifting? I thought the main reason is that while off-setting the green chip give you the added detail resolution, the color resolution is limited to the size of the actual chip, in sony's case 900x1080 and so forth.

JVC's color detail is equal to it's picture detail since all 3 chips are 1280x720

Jim Andrada · September 16th, 2007, 06:50 PM

High end (ie $30k) digital backs for large format still cameras play lots of shifting games - they in some cases actually shift the physical sensors with piezoelectrrics and shift in four 1/4 pixel increments on both axes - which means 16 physical shifts per image.

As Chris said, "There's nothing wrong with pixel shift!"

Scott Jaco · September 16th, 2007, 08:23 PM

I was hoping for a more technical answer as to what the disadvantages are to pixel shifting. It still seems like a shortcut, maybe someone could explain why it's better to not use pixel shifting.

Adam Rench · September 16th, 2007, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Jaco

I was hoping for a more technical answer as to what the disadvantages are to pixel shifting. It still seems like a shortcut, maybe someone could explain why it's better to not use pixel shifting.

Yeah, I would have to agree. I understand that there's "nothing wrong" with pixel shifting, but if JVC is boasting to not do it then there may be something worth having by not doing it. I mean is it the same thing as it was in the 20's in the USA when smoking was something you "just did" because it was normal? Could it be the same with the pixel shifting? Could it be that pixel shifting is "ok" because that's what everyone's doing? Could JVC be the weird one that is the saying "smoking is bad"??? I mean I have not done any research into this stuff so I might be way off base but what really is the benefit of not pixel shifting - if there is any? And if there is not a benefit... then why would JVC boast about it - just for the sake of saying they don't do it?

Phil Balsdon · September 17th, 2007, 05:26 PM

I'd say it's all to do with getting a balance between the amount of information and compression to achieve a reasonable image. Take a look at the results of resolution tests on the Panasonic HDX200 and it comes in way behind all the other cameras in this class, probably due to it's lower pixel count chip and the extra pixel shifting required to get full resolution. In return you get 4.2.2 compression way infront of the competitors.

September 14th, 2007, 12:45 PM	#16
Scott Jaco Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 471	It's a shame that JVC is the only company pushing the 720p format. The biggest difference I noticed when I made my decision was that the 1080i clips looked more "video" while the 720p clips had a film like quality. There is just something about the way the JVC processes the image that gives it a really warm look. If you need the 60 frame look, you could still get the HD200. In a world that is going progressive with LCD computer monitors & flat screen TV's, there is no reason to get an interlaced camera. Furthermore, the interlacing process causes some loss of actual resolution, so don't think that 1080i is that much cleaner than 720p. Also, don't forget that many 1080i cameras use pixel shifting & long GOP.

September 14th, 2007, 01:10 PM	#17
Adam Rench Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 386	Does the Canon pixel shift? I know that the HVX200 does, but I didn't think the Canon does.

September 14th, 2007, 06:10 PM	#18
Phil Balsdon Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 91	I think if you use the 24f feature on the Canon you'll have to use the camera as a replay deck, because no other brand uses this format. It doesn't replay in Sony decks, although the interlaced HDV 1080i will. This will add substantially to the wear on the camera's tape transport system. We can argue the technical specs forever but in this class of camera they each have advantages and disadvantages over the other. You need to make the final decision based on what is most suitable for your style of shooting. For some this will come down to price, for others auto features, and most importantly in my opinion ergonomics, I prefer a camera that fits on my shoulder for handheld and has an interchangeable lens that I can fit a wireless focus system to when it's on my steadicam, because I do a lot of that. Technically format issues are no longer a big deal, most NLE systems can cope with all the various formats these cameras offer and if specs were more important than price we'd all be looking much higher up in the market place. For the same reasons I love my Canon still camera kit.

September 16th, 2007, 04:00 PM	#21
Scott Jaco Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 471	"there's nothing wrong with Pixel Shift" Then what are the disadvantages to pixel shifting? I thought the main reason is that while off-setting the green chip give you the added detail resolution, the color resolution is limited to the size of the actual chip, in sony's case 900x1080 and so forth. JVC's color detail is equal to it's picture detail since all 3 chips are 1280x720

September 16th, 2007, 06:50 PM	#22
Jim Andrada Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Tucson AZ Posts: 2,211	High end (ie $30k) digital backs for large format still cameras play lots of shifting games - they in some cases actually shift the physical sensors with piezoelectrrics and shift in four 1/4 pixel increments on both axes - which means 16 physical shifts per image. As Chris said, "There's nothing wrong with pixel shift!"

September 16th, 2007, 08:23 PM	#23
Scott Jaco Major Player Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 471	I was hoping for a more technical answer as to what the disadvantages are to pixel shifting. It still seems like a shortcut, maybe someone could explain why it's better to not use pixel shifting.

September 17th, 2007, 05:26 PM	#25
Phil Balsdon Regular Crew Join Date: May 2006 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 91	I'd say it's all to do with getting a balance between the amount of information and compression to achieve a reasonable image. Take a look at the results of resolution tests on the Panasonic HDX200 and it comes in way behind all the other cameras in this class, probably due to it's lower pixel count chip and the extra pixel shifting required to get full resolution. In return you get 4.2.2 compression way infront of the competitors.