EX1 vs XH/G1 picture quality

Steven Thomas · November 19th, 2007, 09:47 PM

Here's another quick glimpse from the 720 60P BMPs posted from the link earlier.
The HVX200 is on the left, the EX1 on the right.
The 720P is a lot closer, although the EX1 has the edge in this shot for rez, noise, and laititude.

IMO, the 1080 stuff from the EX1 is in another league over the 1/3" cams.

Thomas Smet · November 20th, 2007, 01:20 AM

It's kind of funny how even the 720p from the EX1 has more natural detail then 1080p from the HVX200.

One thing these images do show us is that for 1080i shooting there seems to be very little reason to have a 1920x1080 image. The Canon 1080i image looks almost exactly the same as the EX1 1080i image in terms of detail. I'm pretty impressed with what Canon did with those cameras. Of course there is nothing wrong with having 1920 but in a way it almost seems like a waste for interlaced shooting. The encoder ends up having to work a lot harder for something that pretty much looking the same as if it were 1440.

I do agree that for 1080p shooting 1920x1080 does have an advantage mostly due to there isn't as much filtering going on to reduce interlace flicker.

Ian Holb · November 20th, 2007, 02:10 AM

EX1 latitude is very impressive. Look at the highlights in the wool cap; you can see every thread whereas on the other cameras, they are blown out to varying degrees. I disagree that the G1 is over-exposed, if only by 1/3 stops. (not enough to say its latitude even comes close.)

Piotr Wozniacki · November 20th, 2007, 03:37 AM

I think the still photo comparison is not fair against the HVX, as its chips resolution is clearly much lower; fast movement and comparing the XDCAM HD encoding with that of DVCPRO HD will be of much higher relevance.

This is why in my first impression post, I only compared the EX1 with the Canon, the latter keeping up surprisingly well in the 60i mode!

Can't wait to compare the EX1 side by side with my V1E...

Dom Stevenson · November 20th, 2007, 04:10 AM

I can't tell the difference, which is good news as it means i can hang onto my A1 and spend my money on something else, without feeling like i'm missing out. The thing i'm really looking forward to is going tapeless, but i think i can wait a bit longer, and it'll be interesting to see how Canon, JVC, and Panasonic respond to this camera.

Tim Polster · November 20th, 2007, 08:01 AM

I looked at the EX's 1080p output compared to the EX's 720p output.

I resized the 1080p in photoshop to 1280x720 to compare the two.

The 1080p does look a bit better.

The extra resolution shows up in sharpness as well as the appearance of tonal gradiations.

But, given this is a motion medium, I do not know how much this will translate to the end viewer on a television set.

Thanks for the links!

Tim Polster · November 20th, 2007, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom Stevenson

I can't tell the difference, which is good news as it means i can hang onto my A1 and spend my money on something else, ...

I can see quite a sharpness difference between the EX & the G1 in 1080p as well as the EX in 720p.

The EX frame looks a lot more refined to me.

I wish they were exposed the same to tell any lattitude differences.

Steven Thomas · November 20th, 2007, 08:33 AM

Based on the overall exposure, I believe it was fair. The mid tones on all the images look the same. It's obvious the EX1 blows them all away here on latitude. The HVX200 the worse. The G1 held up fairly well, but still not as well as the EX1.
On the EX1, the guy's cap maintains excellent detail while the highest IRE stuff on the car in the mirror still maintain some detail.
I guess they could of dropped the levels on the HVX until there was some detail on the car in the mirror that matches the EX1. If this adjustment was done, the overall image would of been underexposed and the image would suffer even more from what you're seeing now (especially in the shadows -noise & detail).
Then some would complain that the image was darker than the EX1 due to the overall exposure was not the same.

Oddly, this test seems to show a lot.

Peter Moretti · November 20th, 2007, 08:59 PM

I am SURE the EX has better lattitude. But, the exposures in the comparison are not the same. The EX is at a lower exposure than the others, which favors the EX when it comes to highlights.

Reading more about this camera, I have no doubt that it has significantly more lattitude.

But look at the dark colored balls. The HVX and G1 show more differentiation between them. Does that mean EX crushes the darks? If the exposure is the same, then you'd have to say "yes." I just think the EX's exposure was set lower.

Steven Thomas · November 20th, 2007, 09:14 PM

Well, that's certainly not what I'm seeing. I've seen the HVX200, it's not that great in low light.
Actually, look again, the blacks are crushed on the HVX200. This is the first thing you notice about the image.
In fact so much that the contrast has affected the label on the bottle. The G1 does not have this problem as well as the EX1.

To be fair, we don't know if each cameras curves were used to maximize latitude. But face it, the EX1
has 1/2" sensors. I'm a hard sell for the HVX200 since we got rid of it for other cameras.
Check out what Brian from Redrock Micro had to say about the EX1:
http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4521

Peter Moretti · November 20th, 2007, 09:24 PM

Steven,

Just looking at the pictures in the body of the article, it's clear the EX is underexposing (by comparision).

And if you download the G1 and EX 1080 30P images and switch between the two, you'll see the EX is significantly darker.

That said, yes, I do absolutely agree the EX has considerably more lattitude. I just feel this comparison makes the G1 and HVX look a little worse than they actually are.

Jack Zhang · November 20th, 2007, 09:31 PM

EX1 1080p30 blew away the competition! These sensors are what 1080p60 need! in 4:2:2 is even more awesomer for that. And heck, 4:4:4 in 1080p60 over Dual 3G HD-SDI would be awesomest!

Dee Joslin · November 27th, 2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Moretti

Just looking at the pictures in the body of the article, it's clear the EX is underexposing (by comparision).

And if you download the G1 and EX 1080 30P images and switch between the two, you'll see the EX is significantly darker.

That said, yes, I do absolutely agree the EX has considerably more lattitude. I just feel this comparison makes the G1 and HVX look a little worse than they actually are.

Agreed. I think everyone will agree that the EX1 is certainly stronger in the area of resolution. But not that much better than the Canon. I have to give credit where it's due. Look at the BMP's and compare the area of the green bottle near the leaf and lower left FIOS label. The Canon actually does a better job there than the others. Overall, the EX1 looks excellent, but it doesn't leave the Canon in the dust. Nobody sits and looks at stills from these cameras and we've all seen great imagery from all of them. Don't get me wrong, I have an HVX and I'm on the list for my EX1 but it's not a Canon killer or HVX for that matter.

Steven Thomas · November 27th, 2007, 07:20 PM

Well, it's true -, "beauty is the the eye of the beholder"
The 1080ii stuff was close with the Canon, but the EX1 latitude was better.

The EX1 1080 30P was in another level from the other cams

Peter Moretti · November 27th, 2007, 09:58 PM

True, but there are a few lingering ?'s about the EX. One is the preponderance of green. I know it can be toned down in the camera, but may be a result of the ClearVid sensor, which uses more green and less red and blue pixles than other types of sensors. I'm not so sure if this doesn't have some drawbacks.

Another is the EX's slightly more "processed" look, to my eye. Totally subjective, but the shots do look a tad more "video" to me and lacking of some depth. Now that could be a result of the exposure and having fewer hot highlights, but again the ClearVid requires some extra camera processing to make it work properly. So maybe that is causing a slightly more processed (again, very subjective) look.

November 19th, 2007, 09:47 PM	#31
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Another direct compare. This time to 720P Here's another quick glimpse from the 720 60P BMPs posted from the link earlier. The HVX200 is on the left, the EX1 on the right. The 720P is a lot closer, although the EX1 has the edge in this shot for rez, noise, and laititude. IMO, the 1080 stuff from the EX1 is in another league over the 1/3" cams. Last edited by Steven Thomas; January 14th, 2008 at 10:12 PM.

November 20th, 2007, 03:37 AM	#34
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	I think the still photo comparison is not fair against the HVX, as its chips resolution is clearly much lower; fast movement and comparing the XDCAM HD encoding with that of DVCPRO HD will be of much higher relevance. This is why in my first impression post, I only compared the EX1 with the Canon, the latter keeping up surprisingly well in the 60i mode! Can't wait to compare the EX1 side by side with my V1E... __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

November 20th, 2007, 01:20 AM	#32
Thomas Smet Trustee Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 1,719	It's kind of funny how even the 720p from the EX1 has more natural detail then 1080p from the HVX200. One thing these images do show us is that for 1080i shooting there seems to be very little reason to have a 1920x1080 image. The Canon 1080i image looks almost exactly the same as the EX1 1080i image in terms of detail. I'm pretty impressed with what Canon did with those cameras. Of course there is nothing wrong with having 1920 but in a way it almost seems like a waste for interlaced shooting. The encoder ends up having to work a lot harder for something that pretty much looking the same as if it were 1440. I do agree that for 1080p shooting 1920x1080 does have an advantage mostly due to there isn't as much filtering going on to reduce interlace flicker.

November 20th, 2007, 02:10 AM	#33
Ian Holb Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 127	EX1 latitude is very impressive. Look at the highlights in the wool cap; you can see every thread whereas on the other cameras, they are blown out to varying degrees. I disagree that the G1 is over-exposed, if only by 1/3 stops. (not enough to say its latitude even comes close.)

November 20th, 2007, 04:10 AM	#35
Dom Stevenson Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London UK Posts: 430	I can't tell the difference, which is good news as it means i can hang onto my A1 and spend my money on something else, without feeling like i'm missing out. The thing i'm really looking forward to is going tapeless, but i think i can wait a bit longer, and it'll be interesting to see how Canon, JVC, and Panasonic respond to this camera.

November 20th, 2007, 08:01 AM	#36
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	I looked at the EX's 1080p output compared to the EX's 720p output. I resized the 1080p in photoshop to 1280x720 to compare the two. The 1080p does look a bit better. The extra resolution shows up in sharpness as well as the appearance of tonal gradiations. But, given this is a motion medium, I do not know how much this will translate to the end viewer on a television set. Thanks for the links!

November 20th, 2007, 08:33 AM	#38
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Based on the overall exposure, I believe it was fair. The mid tones on all the images look the same. It's obvious the EX1 blows them all away here on latitude. The HVX200 the worse. The G1 held up fairly well, but still not as well as the EX1. On the EX1, the guy's cap maintains excellent detail while the highest IRE stuff on the car in the mirror still maintain some detail. I guess they could of dropped the levels on the HVX until there was some detail on the car in the mirror that matches the EX1. If this adjustment was done, the overall image would of been underexposed and the image would suffer even more from what you're seeing now (especially in the shadows -noise & detail). Then some would complain that the image was darker than the EX1 due to the overall exposure was not the same. Oddly, this test seems to show a lot.

November 20th, 2007, 08:59 PM	#39
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	I am SURE the EX has better lattitude. But, the exposures in the comparison are not the same. The EX is at a lower exposure than the others, which favors the EX when it comes to highlights. Reading more about this camera, I have no doubt that it has significantly more lattitude. But look at the dark colored balls. The HVX and G1 show more differentiation between them. Does that mean EX crushes the darks? If the exposure is the same, then you'd have to say "yes." I just think the EX's exposure was set lower.

November 20th, 2007, 09:14 PM	#40
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Well, that's certainly not what I'm seeing. I've seen the HVX200, it's not that great in low light. Actually, look again, the blacks are crushed on the HVX200. This is the first thing you notice about the image. In fact so much that the contrast has affected the label on the bottle. The G1 does not have this problem as well as the EX1. To be fair, we don't know if each cameras curves were used to maximize latitude. But face it, the EX1 has 1/2" sensors. I'm a hard sell for the HVX200 since we got rid of it for other cameras. Check out what Brian from Redrock Micro had to say about the EX1: http://redrockmicro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4521

November 20th, 2007, 09:24 PM	#41
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	Steven, Just looking at the pictures in the body of the article, it's clear the EX is underexposing (by comparision). And if you download the G1 and EX 1080 30P images and switch between the two, you'll see the EX is significantly darker. That said, yes, I do absolutely agree the EX has considerably more lattitude. I just feel this comparison makes the G1 and HVX look a little worse than they actually are.

November 20th, 2007, 09:31 PM	#42
Jack Zhang Inner Circle Join Date: May 2005 Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada Posts: 3,053	EX1 1080p30 blew away the competition! These sensors are what 1080p60 need! in 4:2:2 is even more awesomer for that. And heck, 4:4:4 in 1080p60 over Dual 3G HD-SDI would be awesomest!

November 27th, 2007, 07:20 PM	#44
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Well, it's true -, "beauty is the the eye of the beholder" The 1080ii stuff was close with the Canon, but the EX1 latitude was better. The EX1 1080 30P was in another level from the other cams

November 27th, 2007, 09:58 PM	#45
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	True, but there are a few lingering ?'s about the EX. One is the preponderance of green. I know it can be toned down in the camera, but may be a result of the ClearVid sensor, which uses more green and less red and blue pixles than other types of sensors. I'm not so sure if this doesn't have some drawbacks. Another is the EX's slightly more "processed" look, to my eye. Totally subjective, but the shots do look a tad more "video" to me and lacking of some depth. Now that could be a result of the exposure and having fewer hot highlights, but again the ClearVid requires some extra camera processing to make it work properly. So maybe that is causing a slightly more processed (again, very subjective) look.