HD For Indies

DVXuser.com : Canon XH-A1 vs HVX

UPDATE - enough flack has come in about the camera setups here that a Large Grain of Salt should be consumed with the review about image quality, esp. out of the box.

Barry Green does a long, detailed, side by side comparison between the Canon XH-A1 and the Panasonic HVX200. LOTS of side by side, same-time-same-place comparison frame grabs, some short sample clips, etc.

While Barry has been accused of having a Panasonic bias in the past, and he does seem to favor the HVX in this article, I have to say, looking at the footage and stills (presuming both cameras were optimally set up...and UPDATE - oops, now looks like they weren't) that I'd agree with Barry on his objective analysis - the color does just "pop" better on the HVX in the raw, uncorrected footage, and the multiple frame rates from the camera, and 4:2:2 standard def video are definite advantages - among others. (Barry even quotes me from the Texas HD Shootout)

On the other hand, the ability to do long record times, with low cost tape, no archival issues as P2 has, does make the Canon a good choice for many circumstances (documentaries in remote locations, for one, or any situation where you have small crew and need to shoot a lot of footage). You could improve the looks of the Canon footage in post (to a limit, of course, and it would take you more work to get as nice a look as the HVX generates straight away).

Anyway, go read for yourself, it is long and it is thorough, and also covers many of the "how is it to shoot with?" questions that I'm usually not so worried about as a post guy but are completely crucial and critical when working with it in the field.

Do keep in mind, however, that the REAL cost of the cameras is even more different than their roughly $4K and $6K MSRP indicate - the HVX200 can't record ANY HD at that price - you have to go buy some P2 cards or a FireStor. Update: not true. From now through March 31st, buy one through an official reseller and get an 8GB P2 card included, so you can....record 8 minutes of 1080 res footage. Hmm.. And the logistics of needing an offloading solution for your P2 cards also makes matters more complicated and pricey as well. Ready to go shoot stuff, I consider the MSRP of an HVX200 more like $10K at LEAST, whereas that Canon is still about $4K - just go buy some inexpensive DV tapes and you're ready to go. The HVX is sort of in a class by itself as a not-quite-regular-camcorder tapeless device. It is fully self contained, it DOES shoot some VERY nice pictures for the money, but it is a funky beast, so not quite the same recording expectations as you'd have with a traditional tape vased camcorder.

Another issue - resolution. I keep hearing about how similar the XH-A1 is to the XL H1 in many respects, so I'd have to say in that case that the XH A1 should be making sharper looking imagery as compared to the Panasonic - more detailed. In my Texas HD Shootout last year, the Panasonic generated some of the least sharp imagery, whereas the XL H1 was definitely the sharpest/most detailed. If you were going theatrical, that'd be a reason to bias towards the XL H1, but for home viewing (SD or HD), I'd be inclined to go with the Panasonic if you didn't have access to a really good colorist.

As for the comparison, Barry Green says:

"If the footage is competitive and the price is lower, does that make the XHA1 the “winner”? Er, no. Not at all – they’re different tools in different classes, at different price points. " (he goes on to elaborate extensively from there).

If you're shopping for a sub-$10K HD camcorder, this is DEFINITELY must-do reading (see caveats below in update). Objectively, I think he's on track (having not worked with the XH-A1 but have with the XL H1), subjectively I may quibble a little bit but he certainly makes strongly defensible arguments.

-mike

UPDATE - HVX vs. the Canon XHA1 - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking - there's some complaints that the XH A1 was not set up as well as it should be from owners of that camera - they are saying the matrix etc. settings look squashed flat, "completely flattened with very little contrast" - the debate seems to be whether the camera was or was not unintentionally set up in a non-optimal way. So perhaps the XH A1 CAN make better looking source material - the debate goes on. Even given that, however, the pros/cons comparison is still out there - P2 (better for cinema style work) vs tape (easier field operation and longer shooting times), lens controls on the cameras, ease of use and shootability, HDV vs DVCPRO HD (I'll pick DVCPRO HD to cut with any day over HDV - hellllloooooooo, long HDV render times!), and others. Quibble over whether the camera was optimally set up - fine, there are full sized, uncompressed PNG frame grabs from both, take those into Photoshop or FCP and color correct'em to your heart's content to see whether either (or both) will give you acceptable results for what you need.

Also, re-reading the article, there are some examples of issues with the XH A1, without a matching sample of the HVX200 in the same circumstances.

Do keep in mind, Barry runs an HVX200 training seminar, and this review is on DVXuser.com. BUT it still does impart a lot of useful information.

Further Update - consensus is building that:

a.) the Canon needs to be tweaked "out of the box" to get a better looking image, and
b.) Barry didn't do so.

While he did mess around with the different gamma settings, folks are saying he should have messed around with the matrix settings. OK, given that - there's an extra level of "ya gotta do this" to mess with the Canon to get good results, which will take some time, doodling, and experience. Whereas my experience with the HVX was turn it on, cycle through the Cine modes until you found one you like, then get going.

If you're going to be post heavy, then a flat full range image is actually BETTER to work with, since you'll have more control and not have pre-crushed blacks or anything. More things to think about...

SO...don't make all your qualitative purchasing decisions based on the image quality presented here.

One commenter, however, did slog through all the commentary:

After reading the 8 or 9 pages of back and forth (I'm doing a lot of rendering today) it appears that Barry used as neutral as possible settings on both cameras and basically used out of the box settings. So both cameras are can produce nicer looking images if you tweak them, but Barry made it a point to not tweak them.

Red comments (link below) for more on all this...

-mike