N
Newbitor
Guest
anybody know much about both with the pros and cons of each and which one is more recommendable and why?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
BenB
Guest
"The XLH1 has higher resolution"
Um, where'd you hear that? I've used both and decided on the HVX200 due to the better looking image.
Um, where'd you hear that? I've used both and decided on the HVX200 due to the better looking image.
Um, where'd you hear that?
Every comparative resolution test between the two cameras?
I've used both and decided on the HVX200 due to the better looking image.
That's fine, but nothing will change the fact that the HVX200 has a lower resolution than the XLH1; which is not surprising given that its CCDs are only 960x540 pixels. It's worth noting, of course, that resolution is not the only thing that matters about picture quality.
B
BenB
Guest
Like my post stated, yes, I did use both side by side when evaluating them for our production company. No, I did not see any better final image from the Canon at all. In fact, I found the Canon's colors to be a bit flat compared to the HVX. You can argue tech specs (and what you stated is wrong) all you want, but I can assure you that in the real world where we make a living at this, side by side, the HVX does end up with a better quality image.
Not that the Canon is not good quality, it was a close call. But we need to work with color the Canon just didn't give us. It's a killer camera with a killer image. But to say it's better than the HVX is just silly. I have in fact compared them, exstensively, and we chose the HVX.
Not that the Canon is not good quality, it was a close call. But we need to work with color the Canon just didn't give us. It's a killer camera with a killer image. But to say it's better than the HVX is just silly. I have in fact compared them, exstensively, and we chose the HVX.
BenB said:It's a killer camera with a killer image. But to say it's better than the HVX is just silly.
And if you read my post, you'll notice that I explicitly did not do that, and listed reasons why someone might pick one over the other; so I'm not sure why you're trying to imply that I did.
BTW, I've met several people who bought HVX200s and then decided to replace them with an XLH1 instead; so they obviously thought it was better.
DBXMe2 said:the canon cam is HDV.... the HVX real HD.... cmon
What's 'real HD'? The HVX200 records 1280x1080 from 960x540 CCDs, the XL H1 records 1440x1080 from 1440x1080 CCDs.
Can you explain why one is 'real HD' and the other not?
B
BenB
Guest
4:2:2 color space, and the Canon may be able to be shown in a slanted way to be superior to the HVX on paper, but in real world paying work, the HVX is really the one to go with. The Color Space makes a universe of difference. And NO HD or HDV camera has full resolution CCDs, the all use pixel shifting of some form, so that argument about CCD size, etc, is just a waste of time.
I'll tell you in REAL WORLD PAYING WORK the HVX200 gives you much better footage to work with than the Canon. This is not something I figured out on paper, or from a reviewer who got to keep the Canon (or get it cheap), and I'm a reviewer for three different rags, I know how that scam works. I make a living at this, not just producing, but consulting and making sure my clients have footage they like and can use. The HVX200 is a fantastic camera, and the Canon has not a single thing over it, period.
I'll tell you in REAL WORLD PAYING WORK the HVX200 gives you much better footage to work with than the Canon. This is not something I figured out on paper, or from a reviewer who got to keep the Canon (or get it cheap), and I'm a reviewer for three different rags, I know how that scam works. I make a living at this, not just producing, but consulting and making sure my clients have footage they like and can use. The HVX200 is a fantastic camera, and the Canon has not a single thing over it, period.
M
MRoytman
Guest
I am familiar with the Canon XL2 and was thinking about moving over to HD. Although I do think that a HVX200 image may look better than Canon's HD cameras of that level, I heard that the HVX200 doesn't have a lens system. What is that all about? Does that mean if I wanted a shot that can only be performed by the wide angle lens that would be impossible?
I'd appreciate an answer from an actual HVX200 user.
I'd appreciate an answer from an actual HVX200 user.
B
BenB
Guest
1st, I'd say the Canon and Panny cams have very similar image quality. Do you want Long GOP based footage in a 4:1:1 format, or 4:2:2 all I-Frame footage?
Yes, there are lots of folks shooting digital films with the HVX200 and some pretty sophisticated lens systems. There's an adapter that will let you use some really nice lenses, I have a 2.0x teleconverter for it by Schnieder Optics, who also make a wide angle for it. There are other solutions. You'll have to shop around.
Even though I have major issues with the owner, DVXuser.com is a great place to find out more info on lens and rail systems for the HVX, as well as my preferred 2-Pop P2 forum.
Yes, there are lots of folks shooting digital films with the HVX200 and some pretty sophisticated lens systems. There's an adapter that will let you use some really nice lenses, I have a 2.0x teleconverter for it by Schnieder Optics, who also make a wide angle for it. There are other solutions. You'll have to shop around.
Even though I have major issues with the owner, DVXuser.com is a great place to find out more info on lens and rail systems for the HVX, as well as my preferred 2-Pop P2 forum.
Just to clear the air:
The current industry standard for "high-definition" is 720p or 1080i. It is recognized by engineers that these two formats are barely discernable even to the trained eye. That being said:
The Canon XL H1 shoots 1080i. The HVX 200 shoots 720p. So according to "industry standard" they are equal.
The XL can record to HDV tape. The HVX can record to DV just like the DVX. However that is a minor advantage to the XL after the following comparison.
While the XL records HDV 4:1:1 on tape it does have the capability of recording a 4:2:2 signal to and external hard drive. The HVX does that natively to onboard P2 cards (solid state PCMCIA, looks like a thick credit card). The P2 cards are great in that they can easily, with the proper add-on, be plugged into a computers PCMCIA slot and, most often times, the footage can be captured into an editing system in less than real time (FCP is about 1.5x). The downside is that with limited recording capacity once a card is full and the footage is transfered to you NLE you must format the card which completely erases all footage from that particular card. If something didn't transfer correctly it is gone and must be reshot.
That is the biggest negative for the HVX and Panasonic is coming out with larger capacity cards. One of the definite possitives is that the HVX records native DVCPRO HD which is the same as the VariCam and HDX900 so the HVX can be used as a B-cam, second unit cam, or crash cam (on larger shoots).
Personally, I like the HVX better because with the onboard cards recording "standard" HD it is much more portable than a comparable XL.
The current industry standard for "high-definition" is 720p or 1080i. It is recognized by engineers that these two formats are barely discernable even to the trained eye. That being said:
The Canon XL H1 shoots 1080i. The HVX 200 shoots 720p. So according to "industry standard" they are equal.
The XL can record to HDV tape. The HVX can record to DV just like the DVX. However that is a minor advantage to the XL after the following comparison.
While the XL records HDV 4:1:1 on tape it does have the capability of recording a 4:2:2 signal to and external hard drive. The HVX does that natively to onboard P2 cards (solid state PCMCIA, looks like a thick credit card). The P2 cards are great in that they can easily, with the proper add-on, be plugged into a computers PCMCIA slot and, most often times, the footage can be captured into an editing system in less than real time (FCP is about 1.5x). The downside is that with limited recording capacity once a card is full and the footage is transfered to you NLE you must format the card which completely erases all footage from that particular card. If something didn't transfer correctly it is gone and must be reshot.
That is the biggest negative for the HVX and Panasonic is coming out with larger capacity cards. One of the definite possitives is that the HVX records native DVCPRO HD which is the same as the VariCam and HDX900 so the HVX can be used as a B-cam, second unit cam, or crash cam (on larger shoots).
Personally, I like the HVX better because with the onboard cards recording "standard" HD it is much more portable than a comparable XL.
B
BenB
Guest
The HVX200 does in fact shoot 1080. There's some bad info floating around the net that it doesn't. Not true, it does. Also, there is the FS-100 that allows long form recording, and recording features not available on the HVX200 by itself.
I both produce and train students on this system daily, and have produced a video guide to the FS-100 which Focus endorses. I have several very large consulting clients who have approached me over the past year wanting to switch to this system. And to date, they all are in love with it. Tapeless cuts their production time down a lot.
BUT, it's not tape, you have to forget everything you've ever known about tape, it's not tape, it's a whole different universe. Once you get used to that reality, it's a great system.
It is also common practice to copy your MXF data from P2 cards to a hard drive first, then ingest into FCP. You always want to archive your original data. To say you lose it is just silly, and reflective of not thinking the tapeless work flow all the way through.
In fact, FCP 6 has a feature to ingest MXF data AND do a back-up of the original MXF data to a hard drive, both at the same time.
I've never actually seen anyone "lose" footage from a P2 card. If so, it's as rare as a Mini-DV tape going bad during recording. And with the advantages of the very durable and reliable FS-100, I can record QT files, so there's no ingesting process. With the next firmware release, the FS-100 will also do clip spanning in both QT and P2 formats inside the unit itself.
I've done a lot of production with this camera system, and have found it to be a fantastic system. There's no other way to get DVCPRO-HD so inexpensively. To see what I mean, go price out a DVCPRO-HD deck, and DVCPR0-HD tapes! Tapes are $45/15 minutes! The P2 system is really nice, and very reliable, and pretty flexible, too.
I both produce and train students on this system daily, and have produced a video guide to the FS-100 which Focus endorses. I have several very large consulting clients who have approached me over the past year wanting to switch to this system. And to date, they all are in love with it. Tapeless cuts their production time down a lot.
BUT, it's not tape, you have to forget everything you've ever known about tape, it's not tape, it's a whole different universe. Once you get used to that reality, it's a great system.
It is also common practice to copy your MXF data from P2 cards to a hard drive first, then ingest into FCP. You always want to archive your original data. To say you lose it is just silly, and reflective of not thinking the tapeless work flow all the way through.
In fact, FCP 6 has a feature to ingest MXF data AND do a back-up of the original MXF data to a hard drive, both at the same time.
I've never actually seen anyone "lose" footage from a P2 card. If so, it's as rare as a Mini-DV tape going bad during recording. And with the advantages of the very durable and reliable FS-100, I can record QT files, so there's no ingesting process. With the next firmware release, the FS-100 will also do clip spanning in both QT and P2 formats inside the unit itself.
I've done a lot of production with this camera system, and have found it to be a fantastic system. There's no other way to get DVCPRO-HD so inexpensively. To see what I mean, go price out a DVCPRO-HD deck, and DVCPR0-HD tapes! Tapes are $45/15 minutes! The P2 system is really nice, and very reliable, and pretty flexible, too.
CharlieAnderson
New member
the HVX200 is my preferred camera of choice. I've worked with a lot of cameras including the XL-H1 and I have to say that Panasonic gets my vote.
Yes the XL-H1 has inter-changeable lenses, but then again so does the HVX200 if you use a 35mm attachment like the M2. My studio is stepping up to the HVX200 with the M2 attachment for under the price of the XL-H1 in total. I like cannon but P2 is doing to be the preferred format reaaaal soon. Just take a look at the RED.
Yes the XL-H1 has inter-changeable lenses, but then again so does the HVX200 if you use a 35mm attachment like the M2. My studio is stepping up to the HVX200 with the M2 attachment for under the price of the XL-H1 in total. I like cannon but P2 is doing to be the preferred format reaaaal soon. Just take a look at the RED.
wielandsmith
New member
Got an HVX200 a couple weeks ago and haven't put it down (yes, i'm recording the screen from my shoulder mount). Personally, you'll probably be happy with either camera. They're both high quality - but I will put my 2 cents in for the HVX - it truly kicks ass.
720P/1080i
HVX is HD in 720 and 1080 (both interlaced and progressive), both industrial standards and lot of filmers love to work the 720 progressive mode... if you use green screen, 1080 can give a better result.. shoot a production in both formats and you will see the difference... that Canon thing has only 1080i and NOT 720... you have HD but it is interlaced and not progressive at all...
You can PAY CANON to reconfigure the camer to shoot in 50i and 25f. Watch out because 25f is a virtual 25p!!! With PANASONIC you get this standard on your camera and it is REAL PROGRESSIVE... is it not better to have it directly on your camera when you buy it ????? Let the camera operator choose by him self what he wants, the Panny HVX gives you that possibility...
- Canons 1440x1080 is not real 1080i....real HD 1080i is 1920x1080 and 1440x1080 is CONSUMER HDV and not INDUSTRIAL HD!!!
- 720P is REAL INDUSTRIAL HD as the resolution 1280x720 is real HD standard
- Canon in 1080i CONSUMER HDV only!!!
- Panny shoot in 1080 (60i/24P/30P) and 720P
Lot of Panny users find the image quality of a HVX better then the Canon, reason is because the HVX works internally with 1920x1080 (HD 1080p mode). Or your get the resolution with pixel shift or by CCD's, quality is the same, pixel is pixel. Each recording is captured in 1920x1080 and then downsampled to a size appropriate for the recording format to get the best possible result.
or in one line... THEY ARE BOTH GOOD CAMERA'S with a lot of techniqal details... advice, look for 2 friends who own each one of the camera's you want to buy and go with them to shoot... and compare the difference... it's always a personal taste...
I will go for a Panny because the image quality is top, colors are real (check the green and red), you have REAL PROGRESSIVE and it's HD in 1080 is SUPER!
TO HARD DISK
the HVX can record direct to the FS-100, check the internet and there goes a new world open...
SOLID CARDS
the HVX is using solid cards... big benefit is no tapes anymore and dirty heads... easy access to some footage without rewinding the entire tape and searching for a shot... just put the P2 card into the NLE and woppa... saves lot of time of putting the tape into the computer... some US news stations are using a full P2 system with the HVX200 as main camera...
LOOSING DATA
someone says here that you can loose easy your data... that is bull of crap... I use the P2HD system since the beginning and shoot daily...and NEVER and NEVER I lost one single shot during transferring or what ever... same when you use a tape machine, you stream it to the computer and use the tape again to shoot... then you come back home and your hard disk fails to work... bye bye footage... stupid of course when that happens, who don't make copies on the fly... use for example a RAID system and the computer makes immediately a backup....
INTER-CHANGEABLE LENSES
If you want really serious using inter-changeable lenses, buy then a HPX or another soulder camera. That are the big boys with broadcast quality.... and designed to work with inter-changeable lenses...
the idea for inter-changeable lenses is to provide a possibility for professional camera operators to use there favorite lenses and not be stucked in the standard lens provided by the manufacturer... to customise a camera unit to the personal taste of the operator... I own a few fujinon lenses but most of the time I use always one lens where I can do 90% of my job with... a news reporter need a totally different lens then a documentary maker or a nature filmer... but they all can use the same kind of camera units...
I have seen people who buy a canon only for that system and they always end up with one of two lenses and hardly change them... a HVX user with a few attachments can do the same job... have always found that a marketing sales technique from Canon...
CONCLUSION
but everyone forget one big golden rule... don't buy a camera only for the technical specifications but for the feel with it.... it will be your daily buddy for next couple of years... do you know how to handle it and to work with... does it gives yourself a professional vibe feeling (joking)... and can provide it the things what you need... why buying a camera with a lot of interesting techniqal things you never use... first realise why you need a camera, what you shoot with it... ( everyone is always specialised into one direction, ENG, film productions, documentary, etc ) .... how you gonna edit it... and what are your futher plans...
if a camera shoots only in 720P and you need only 720P, why bother to buy a camera who can do also 1080i... the camera has to fit in your requirements and not that your working style is depending on what the camera can do and not...
for me is then the simple advice... PANASONIC... if you take a DVX, HVX or a HPX or the most expensive they have... they all work on the same way, same layout and using the same accessoires... you don't have to read 3 different kind of manuals to operate all camera's...
I use the HPX, HVX and the DVX... even for a lens I don't want a Canon, I prefer a Fujinon... for still photography I use NIKON, one of the oldest lens manufactures in the world... colors are better for a Panasonic & Nikon compared to a Canon... the only Canon that you find in my office is a Canon copymachine... that is where they are good in if you ask me.... but the RED... ehhhh....
HVX is HD in 720 and 1080 (both interlaced and progressive), both industrial standards and lot of filmers love to work the 720 progressive mode... if you use green screen, 1080 can give a better result.. shoot a production in both formats and you will see the difference... that Canon thing has only 1080i and NOT 720... you have HD but it is interlaced and not progressive at all...
You can PAY CANON to reconfigure the camer to shoot in 50i and 25f. Watch out because 25f is a virtual 25p!!! With PANASONIC you get this standard on your camera and it is REAL PROGRESSIVE... is it not better to have it directly on your camera when you buy it ????? Let the camera operator choose by him self what he wants, the Panny HVX gives you that possibility...
- Canons 1440x1080 is not real 1080i....real HD 1080i is 1920x1080 and 1440x1080 is CONSUMER HDV and not INDUSTRIAL HD!!!
- 720P is REAL INDUSTRIAL HD as the resolution 1280x720 is real HD standard
- Canon in 1080i CONSUMER HDV only!!!
- Panny shoot in 1080 (60i/24P/30P) and 720P
Lot of Panny users find the image quality of a HVX better then the Canon, reason is because the HVX works internally with 1920x1080 (HD 1080p mode). Or your get the resolution with pixel shift or by CCD's, quality is the same, pixel is pixel. Each recording is captured in 1920x1080 and then downsampled to a size appropriate for the recording format to get the best possible result.
or in one line... THEY ARE BOTH GOOD CAMERA'S with a lot of techniqal details... advice, look for 2 friends who own each one of the camera's you want to buy and go with them to shoot... and compare the difference... it's always a personal taste...
I will go for a Panny because the image quality is top, colors are real (check the green and red), you have REAL PROGRESSIVE and it's HD in 1080 is SUPER!
TO HARD DISK
the HVX can record direct to the FS-100, check the internet and there goes a new world open...
SOLID CARDS
the HVX is using solid cards... big benefit is no tapes anymore and dirty heads... easy access to some footage without rewinding the entire tape and searching for a shot... just put the P2 card into the NLE and woppa... saves lot of time of putting the tape into the computer... some US news stations are using a full P2 system with the HVX200 as main camera...
LOOSING DATA
someone says here that you can loose easy your data... that is bull of crap... I use the P2HD system since the beginning and shoot daily...and NEVER and NEVER I lost one single shot during transferring or what ever... same when you use a tape machine, you stream it to the computer and use the tape again to shoot... then you come back home and your hard disk fails to work... bye bye footage... stupid of course when that happens, who don't make copies on the fly... use for example a RAID system and the computer makes immediately a backup....
INTER-CHANGEABLE LENSES
If you want really serious using inter-changeable lenses, buy then a HPX or another soulder camera. That are the big boys with broadcast quality.... and designed to work with inter-changeable lenses...
the idea for inter-changeable lenses is to provide a possibility for professional camera operators to use there favorite lenses and not be stucked in the standard lens provided by the manufacturer... to customise a camera unit to the personal taste of the operator... I own a few fujinon lenses but most of the time I use always one lens where I can do 90% of my job with... a news reporter need a totally different lens then a documentary maker or a nature filmer... but they all can use the same kind of camera units...
I have seen people who buy a canon only for that system and they always end up with one of two lenses and hardly change them... a HVX user with a few attachments can do the same job... have always found that a marketing sales technique from Canon...
CONCLUSION
but everyone forget one big golden rule... don't buy a camera only for the technical specifications but for the feel with it.... it will be your daily buddy for next couple of years... do you know how to handle it and to work with... does it gives yourself a professional vibe feeling (joking)... and can provide it the things what you need... why buying a camera with a lot of interesting techniqal things you never use... first realise why you need a camera, what you shoot with it... ( everyone is always specialised into one direction, ENG, film productions, documentary, etc ) .... how you gonna edit it... and what are your futher plans...
if a camera shoots only in 720P and you need only 720P, why bother to buy a camera who can do also 1080i... the camera has to fit in your requirements and not that your working style is depending on what the camera can do and not...
for me is then the simple advice... PANASONIC... if you take a DVX, HVX or a HPX or the most expensive they have... they all work on the same way, same layout and using the same accessoires... you don't have to read 3 different kind of manuals to operate all camera's...
I use the HPX, HVX and the DVX... even for a lens I don't want a Canon, I prefer a Fujinon... for still photography I use NIKON, one of the oldest lens manufactures in the world... colors are better for a Panasonic & Nikon compared to a Canon... the only Canon that you find in my office is a Canon copymachine... that is where they are good in if you ask me.... but the RED... ehhhh....
There is some pretty serious misinformation floating around this thread!
First, I think everybody needs to put their Biases aside and look at some cold, hard facts.
Between the two cameras, it depends on what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot and cut it, to make your decision. The XLH1 will give you better overall pixel-by pixel resolution. It's as clear as day, that a pixel shifted 960x540 will NOT look as good as a 1440x1080 native image on screen. Pixel-shifting does not create extra pixels, it upsamples.
So, if you are going for the details, go for an XLH1. Also go for an XLH1 if you want to use different lenses and higher quality glass, and (on the stock lens) have a longer zoom reach. 24F is essentially about as close to progressive as you can get from interlaced CCD's and its very hard to tell the difference between 24F and 24P native. Go for the XLH1 if you don't want to dish out money on solid state and prefer the ease of HDV.
Go for the HVX200 if you want slightly better lattitude, 4:2:2 colourspace and less compression artifacts. If dealing with fast moving things, this would be the natural choice.
Umm, funny thing here but, 1440x1080 is actually HIGHER than 1280x720 (which is upscaled for 960x540 anyway). Im totally lost as to how you can possibly see 720 as being of better pixel resolution, or did you fail at math? :shock:
From my personal experiences I have been using HDV cameras now for a while, and have had far less issues from them as I was originally warned about. Of course solid-state is the way of the future, but its not for everyone, and if resolution or lens options makes you swing toward the XLH1, I for one don't think you need be afraid of the consequences at all![/i]
First, I think everybody needs to put their Biases aside and look at some cold, hard facts.
Between the two cameras, it depends on what you want to shoot and how you want to shoot and cut it, to make your decision. The XLH1 will give you better overall pixel-by pixel resolution. It's as clear as day, that a pixel shifted 960x540 will NOT look as good as a 1440x1080 native image on screen. Pixel-shifting does not create extra pixels, it upsamples.
So, if you are going for the details, go for an XLH1. Also go for an XLH1 if you want to use different lenses and higher quality glass, and (on the stock lens) have a longer zoom reach. 24F is essentially about as close to progressive as you can get from interlaced CCD's and its very hard to tell the difference between 24F and 24P native. Go for the XLH1 if you don't want to dish out money on solid state and prefer the ease of HDV.
Go for the HVX200 if you want slightly better lattitude, 4:2:2 colourspace and less compression artifacts. If dealing with fast moving things, this would be the natural choice.
- Canons 1440x1080 is not real 1080i....real HD 1080i is 1920x1080 and 1440x1080 is CONSUMER HDV and not INDUSTRIAL HD!!!
- 720P is REAL INDUSTRIAL HD as the resolution 1280x720 is real HD standard
Umm, funny thing here but, 1440x1080 is actually HIGHER than 1280x720 (which is upscaled for 960x540 anyway). Im totally lost as to how you can possibly see 720 as being of better pixel resolution, or did you fail at math? :shock:
From my personal experiences I have been using HDV cameras now for a while, and have had far less issues from them as I was originally warned about. Of course solid-state is the way of the future, but its not for everyone, and if resolution or lens options makes you swing toward the XLH1, I for one don't think you need be afraid of the consequences at all![/i]
F
flexmore
Guest
Umm, funny thing here but, 1440x1080 is actually HIGHER than 1280x720 (which is upscaled for 960x540 anyway).
and hence why I like the Z1 of late because I am getting a cleaner picture than the HVX200. They are both great in their own regard but for the time being, the upressed 1440 --> 1920 is currently suited best for my needs.
I don't like the noise the HVX produces compared to the Z1
B
BenB
Guest
ALL HD cams on the market today do some form of pixel shifting, fact.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 2,005
Network Sponsors
