i am on the fence on which of the two to purchase. both seem relatively similar, but maybe i am missing something. right now i am leaning towards the canon XH series. any suggestions or thoughts???

realizing we can't know too much about the XH series, what are some thoughts on canon vs. jvc vs. panasonic?? any info or thoughts would be greatly appreciated...

at this point I'm going with the Canon A1. Never care much for the JVC. Maybe Panasonic or Sony will do something soon.

Well, the XHA1/G1 is essentially the same as the XLH1 ... same DIGIC II processing, same censor...the 20x zoom lenses seem identical, except the XH-series lens is fixed. I guess if you like the images the XLH1 produces, and you like the form factor of the FX1/Z1, go with Canon. JVC...it's a nice camera, but there's nothing earthshattering about it.

Choose your format, then choose your camera. The prices might be similar but they are completely different systems... 720p vs. 1080i, interchangeable broadcast video lenses vs. fixed built-in zoom lens, etc.

Just a small clarification: the XH cameras and the XL H1 lens are both 20x, but not the same lenses. Different number of elements and groupings than the XL lens. The XH cameras go a bit wider, and not quite as long.

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/xhfaq.php
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=518010&postcount=78

Choose your format, then choose your camera. The prices might be similar but they are completely different systems... 720p vs. 1080i, interchangeable broadcast video lenses vs. fixed built-in zoom lens, etc.

i am an independant filmmaker looking to shoot primarily in 24f in hd. it would be nice to find a camera that provides that hi-def, "film-look" and could handle lower light conditions.

I have been most impressed with Canon's XL H1 low light performance.

I based this on a comparison with the XL1s. The XL H1, in my opinion, is definitely better. This was a big surprise to me as I expected it to be worse.

I like the JVC a lot, but the issue of choosing formats isn't quite so simple from my viewpoint. I've done a lot of testing and conversions comparing footage from both cameras, and IMHO Canon HDV is more multi-format friendly if you know what you're doing. HDV 24F looks pretty dang good as 1080 24p, and it's simply phenomenally sharp and crisp in the 720 frame, with even more color sampling comparatively due to the 4:2:0 of a 1080 frame converted to 720.

1080i also converts VERY well to 720 60p by a number of post methods, and I think that is due to the extra horizontal resolution of the format.

To be fair, JVC 720 24p faired pretty well bumped up to the 1080 frame, but it didn't look nearly as sharp as Canon 24F can look.

These cameras are all mish-mash of compromises so look at the footage posted and decide what camera's look you like best and then consider the tradeoffs (fixed lens vs. interchangeable, etc.) and make your move.

thanks for the note. that does help quite a bit.

I've shot with both a JVC HD100 and a Canon XLH1, and with Sony Z1U, which will be similar in form factor to the new Canons coming out.

The biggest difference between them is ergonomics -- the image from all can be tweaked every which way, depending on what you want.

The JVC has the best ergonomics -- you can learn to operate it by touch in only a short time. The controls make sense. The lens is all manual. If you are more comfortable with an all-manual camera you will be very happy. The shoulder-mount balance is not great but is way better than the Canon.

The little A1 camera, however, has the top-mount lcd and handle which makes low shots really easy. It's easy to transport. It's lighter. It's less intimidating. It travels more easily. It will be easier to use in tight spots or from weird angles. It is, however, harder to hand-hold.

So it depends on your needs. For travel and run-and-gun, the new smaller Canons would probably be better. For shoulder-mount hand held doc work, get the JVC. If you're shooting a narrative locked on a 'pod, the JVC probably wins, unless you need the 20x zoom on the Canon and don't have the scratch for a different lens on the JVC.

The biggest factor, however, is editing: if you really want 24p, you probably need to figure out your editing workflow before picking the camera.

Chuck

I still love the JVC. The problem I have with the new Canon's is that you lose a lot of resolution when in 24f mode.

The problem I have with the new Canon's is that you lose a lot of resolution when in 24f mode. For now it provides the highest 24fps image detail of any camera under $20K. Frame Mode is widely known to have a bit less detail than 60i from the XL H1, but still outstanding. Seems to be rare for people actually shooting with the H1 to be unhappy with the image. No reason to think the XH cameras will have less detail, since they use the same sensor and L glass. But that does remain to be seen since the XH cameras aren't out yet.

What is really amazing with this latest generation, is that discussions between the cameras are indeterminate. There is no deciding feature set that makes one the 'must have camera'. The Z1 may even fit in that, although it is maybe a half-generation behind with lower resolution and a 24f mode that is not up to the Canons (based on reviews).

My caveat would be audience dependent. If the target audience is Internet, using current/previous generation HD TVs (1280x720 or 1328x768). or current/next generation HD TVs (1080p). All of the cameras work. All of the cameras are subject to tuning. All of the cameras have compromises.

Another issue would be total cost and features. For example, if you are a PC editor, would $1300 be better spent on ProspectHD? Filters? A 35mm DOF adapter? Or better lighting and grip equipment?

For now it provides the highest 24fps image detail of any camera under $20K. Frame Mode is widely known to have a bit less detail than 60i from the XL H1, but still outstanding. Seems to be rare for people actually shooting with the H1 to be unhappy with the image. No reason to think the XH cameras will have less detail, since they use the same sensor and L glass. But that does remain to be seen since the XH cameras aren't out yet.
The two shoot outs seemed to have the JVC image on top. Examples are "While the Canon was slightly crisper, the JVC rendered a more naturalistic, more alias-free image while yielding only a little ground in terms of raw resolution" from Four Affordable HD Camcorders Compared (http://dv.com/features/features_item.jhtml?category=Archive&articleId=177103305). In the Texas Shootout! (http://dv.com/print_me.jhtml?articleId=189500064) the Canon had the highest resolution, but the JVC had the highest resolution in frame/progressive modes. Chirs Hurd may have more specific input.

However, as stated, all these cameras are good. The A1 is very attractive in a price/feature comparison.

Pete Bauer would know as well as he was also in attendance at the Texas Shootout.

The problem I have with the new Canon's is that you lose a lot of resolution when in 24f mode.I don't think "a lot" is an accurate way to describe it, but loss of resolution in 24F mode is an issue only for those who fixate solely on numbers and specifications and who have never actually seen the images.

What is really amazing with this latest generation, is that discussions between the cameras are indeterminate. There is no deciding feature set that makes one the 'must have camera'.Indeed this is a crucial, in fact fundamental concept to grasp, at least around here it is. The biggest single mistake anyone can make in selecting which HD camcorder to buy, is to think in superlative terms of one camera being the "must have camera," because that is a highly subjective determination which has absolutely nothing to do with "image quality." It is instead, as Chuck Fadely correctly pointed out previously in this thread, primarily a question of ergonomics, to which I'll also add budget and workflow. The "must have" camera for one person will be a different choice for another person. There is no single right or wrong answer; there is only the fact that what's right for one person won't be right for another, and thanfully there are a number of relatively inexpensive systems from which to choose. And that's not really amazing. What's really amazing is that we have an array of affordable choices at incredibly low price points, enabling more people to access the tools required for High Definition acquisition.

The Canon had the highest resolution, but the JVC had the highest resolution in frame/progressive modes. Chirs Hurd may have more specific input.My specific input is to echo Chuck Fadely's comments from earlier in this thread, about the biggest difference between these cameras being ergonomics, and that the images from all can be tweaked every which way, depending on what you want; and to reiterate the single most important point that Adam Wilt was trying to get across in his assessment from our Texas HD Shootout, when he said "any of these cameras can create stunning images."

Choose your format first, be it either 720p or 1080i or something else; then choose your camera. More importantly, realize that your equipment does not affect "image quality" in any way. You can create award-winning video a cel phone camera. Pixel count does not make or break the quality of your image. What you point the camera at, and how you point it, is what governs image quality.

i am on the fence on which of the two to purchase. both seem relatively similar, but maybe i am missing something.

As others have suggested, the Canon XH-A1 and JVC HD100U are actually quite different cameras: different body design and controls, different recording formats, etc. If you really want a 'film look' camera you may also want to consider the Panasonic HVX200, as it seems to be popular with people who are so inclined. If you like shoulder-mounted cameras then the JVC is your best choice for HD under $10K, but then you still have to decide if you like the image it produces. If you want an affordable camera with a decent zoom lens and inexpensive recording then the XH-A1 is worth a look, and so on.

I would suggest that a drop from 1440x1080 to 800x540 in Frame Mode is a lot. But as Chris suggests it is really about what you need. Like the Panasonic 200 the 1080 is interlaced and if you are going to shoot in a progressive mode or frame mode you lose resolution taking it below where the JVC's progressive resolution is. If resolution in frame is not your primary concern the new Canon's seem a steal to me at $4000. Especially if you are looking to use something like a Redrock 35mm adapter. I have been using the JVC with a Redrock M2 and it is really, really long. If you plan to use a stock lens I am quite sure that the Canon is much better glass. On the other hand I prefer a true manual focus lens like the one of the JVC.

Original Poster: what will be your primary use for the camera and what type of cameras and lenses are you use to working with? I think the answers to these questions will help point you in the right direction. I have heard people say that the learning curve on the JVC is high, I didn't find that to be the case but that has to do with the cameras I have worked with in the past. Personally I would love to get my hands on one of the new Canon's.

i am quite new to this site, and really to the more sophisticated world of DV. the primary use for this camera will b for lower budget short films and documentaries. i edit with FCP. as a still photographer, i always used canon and enjoyed their performance and interface. my previous shorts were shot in 8mm, so HD will be quite a welcome jump.

my decision on the camera will depend on it's ability to shoot in low light, versitility (in the A1's case, with the fixed lens), and the ability to obtain a "film-like" feel/appearance - statistics aside, if lower res would equal a more realistic "35mm" look, than that is something i would consider a plus.

i can't tell you how impressed i have been by the wealth of knowledge on this site and the amount i have learned in this thread alone. thanks for all the input!!

Joseph...the first time i shot something with a 24p camera i was really blown away by how much it really did look like film. The contrast ratio isn't the same but I was impressed. The one thing I found missing was the depth of field look. There are a few good articles on DVinfo about achieving a shallow depth of field by cheating your iris open and us ND filters. Recently I have been using a 35mm adapter, there are several options available now. They allow use to use prime still lenses and give that depth of field look that you can aler by adjusting your f stop. Take a look out in the main forum at the P+S Tech page and alternative image pages. And if you like the Canon's and are familiar with them then that is half the battle as far as I'm concerned. Best of Luck with which ever route you choose!

that sounds good.

would a 35mm converter work on the new XH series, seeing how the lenses appear to be fixed? if not, would the difference be great enough to then look more seriously at the JVC?

I believe that you need an interchangable lens to use most 35mm adapters.

If there is one that used the fixed lens, then I expect someone will make a post to that effect.

What are your plans for the camera? Are you going to make films?

Edit: Aaron Frick, below, posted that adapters do indeed exist for fixed lens cameras. I stand corrected.

i will be doing mostly short film with a few documentaries. for the most part, the films are for festival circuits and resume' pieces.

have you compared the difference between using the converter vs. the effect in post?

By "doing the effect in post", I assume you mean creating a shallow depth of field, by unsharpening the background in an otherwise "in focus" video.

If this is the case, then I feel that this would only be feasible if you had very little movement in the scenes and you had a lot of time to do the effect in post.

Please let me know if you meant something else.

I am using a Redrock M2 and it works on fixed lens camera. Even with the JVC you have to fit it over the stock lens as they do not have a relay lens out yet. The P+S Tech also works with fixed lens camera, but they do have relay lenses available for cameras that have interchangable lens systems. If you were to get a 35mm adapter then the JVC lens would actually be a disadvantage in my opinion. It makes the camera very long. The new Canon's look like they would be great for using 35mm adapter.

Aaron, I think you're mixing and matching the very different terms "effective pixel count" and "lines of resolution." I'll leave it at this: it is my opinion that NOT using Canon 24F mode simply because its resolution is a little less than the same camera's 60i mode is a mistaken idea.

Picture detail, which I'll define as the product of horizontal and vertical resolution in line pairs, is just one of many variables in the largely subjective pursuit of finding "the best picture." The picture detail of 24F is not inferior to the progressive images of other cameras in its price class. The only camera in that range that gives it a run for its money in motionless luma charts of 24fps images was the HD100, at 700x700 (which I thought was a bit generous; I'd have called it 700x640). Adam called the Canon F-Mode at 800x540, but I don't have those images to look at. My own test (http://www.geosynchrony.com/scratchpad.htm), put F-Mode at 800x600 +/-20 lines in each directions. And in actual shooting of video with motion the Canon codec does an admirable job, so I think that this constant picking at F-mode for "lost resolution" is as pointless as people complaining about the out-of-the box color in any of these new cameras that are totally tweakable from luma to party colors.

So as has been said many times already, people should choose a camera within their price range based on ergonomics, workflow, features. They all look great in skilled hands.

Peter: Fair enough and well said. Why is it that we are constantly hearing these report comparing these numbers? I fully understand buying a camera that fits your needs. I would not invest in the Panasonic 200, not becuase of whatever the pixel count is in 24p but because P2 just wouldn't work for what i do. It seems that all I read in magazines and online is about pixels and resolution. AARRGH!

As what was said earlier, it depends on what you shoot. I do a lot of Doc work & couldn't live without the auto-focus & image stabilizer. The over-crank under crank of the new JVC is tempting though. I'm also used to the canons (XL1s), so I'm partial, plus I have batteries etc. and the thought of having everything that I need from the HD1 for $4000 is a no brainer for me.
Chris

there is one more thing i am a bit curious, that i don't think has been touched on yet.

i have enjoyed working with canon over the past few years because of the durability i have found in ther products. of the companies discussed, any feelings on durability, customer service, product resources...

Just what I can say about the canon (XL1s)
I've had it for 4+ years without any problems, running it in all kinds of weather. Chris

Been using the JVC now for about 2 months, its solid, and Andrew Young is it who shot with one for the Madagascar doc even dropped it in the drink, dried it out and continued on.

But in that regard, the only concern I have is the evf, its not the most solid looking item, and would be something I hope is looked at for the HD200 or HD250.

I just put our XLH1 through a hellacious shoot, daylight, night, warm weather, humid weather, dust, smoke and artificial rain.

And then XLH1 said, "is that all you got bitch!"

In my first week of ownership I subjected my XL-H1 to hours an hours of extremely cold weather in Park City, UT during the Sundance FF.

I had the same sassy response from my cam too, Robert. :-)

If you plan to use a stock lens I am quite sure that the Canon is much better glass. On the other hand I prefer a true manual focus lens like the one of the JVC.

The biggest problems I have with the JVC stock lens is the heavy breathing and signifigant CA it seems to show all over the place. To be fair, the XL-H1's glass isn't perfect either and will show some CA too, but it's edge-to-edge sharp and doesn't breathe. And I really love using the "SD" 16x Canon XL manual lens with the H1. It has a different, slightly more contrasty look and in certain apertures and focal lengths performs quite well in HD. And of course, it's got that "pro feel" too.

I love the ergonomics of the JVC (especially love the focus assist) but it really needs a better lens IMHO, even if it has that "pro manual feel".

The other thing to consider is that the HD100 is 24 and 30p HDV only. (I don't consider "motion smoothing" to be a reasonable facsimile of standard 60i/p video) There's also something to be said for 1080i, in that it produces a super crisp hyper-real look, which has its place for television/documentary production.

I'm a happy owner of the Panasonic HVX, and am quite happy with it. The main advantage with it is the dvcprohd codec. Also, the variable frame rates and the possibility of shooting 720p60 at 4:2:2 is something no other camera in the price range offers. Resolution is not everything. I've seen my footage in a 50" plasma screen and I was stunned with the quality.

But you're right, every camera has its advantages and disadvantages. The HVX was the camera for me, and I'm quite happy with it. The A1 seems like a good proposition. I wouldn't use HDV for editing, tough- I would suggest getting a AJA or Decklink card for capturing trough the component outs and working with the DVCPROHD codec.

I would suggest that a drop from 1440x1080 to 800x540 in Frame Mode is a lot.

Hey Aaron, as Pete touched on, these numbers are mixed up.

The 1440x1080 you're refering to is not the resolution of the camera per se, but what is laid to tape in the 1080i flavour of HDV. It doesn't matter whether you shoot standard interlaced or frame mode, it will be laid to tape at 1440x1080, and then stretched by your NLE/monitor to 16:9 frame for post production/viewing (exactly the same as the Sonys, even though the image is softer).

In the case of your JVC, the data is laid to tape at 1280x720, but again, this is not the resolution of the camera (which is a function of the camera head, lens, DSP and so on), but merely the HDV 720p codec.

The 800x540 you mention from Adam's tests is the resolution he measured coming from the camera itself (I believe this was HDV independent because he used the SDI outputs). These are TV lines of res, or lines per picture height, so you can effectively times the vertical number by 1.77 to fill the 16:9 frame, meaning the XLH1 can resolve something like 1420x540 total pixels in frame mode, as opposed to 1420x800 in interlaced mode (both laid to tape, as mentioned, within the 1440x1080 HDV scheme).

With the JVC, it will be something like 1240x700, close to the limits of the codec. And as Pete said, those numbers may be a little generous for the JVC, and a little lean on the Canon side. If anything the Canon, even in frame mode, has the edge in sharpness.

In any case, resolution is not a real point of difference between the Canon cams and the HD100.

If you want to see 24F in action, take a look here:http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=126

Steven Dempsey - among others - has put up some really beautiful XL-H1 24f shots recently.

The A1 seems like a good proposition. I wouldn't use HDV for editing, tough- I would suggest getting a AJA or Decklink card for capturing trough the component outs and working with the DVCPROHD codec.

But converting HDV to DVCProHD involves losing some horizontal resolution, so it's arguably better to use one of the intermediate codecs like Cineform or Canopus HQ. And that doesn't require a special capture card, just the software to do the codec conversion.

as Pete touched on, these numbers are mixed up.The inadvertant misinformation that resulted above from confusing pixels with TV lines of resolution is an excellent example of how important it is not to get hung up on numbers and technical specifications, and to focus instead on how the image actually looks.

If it is one thing that the shoot out has shown us it is that at the end of the day there are only small details between all of the HDV cameras that are different. In fact the resolution should be the least of your concerns. I would much rather have a clean less detailed image than a bad image with more detail. I do not even care anymore how much resolution a HD camera has. I just want the image to be clean and natural and offer a decent workflow. Take the Panasonic camera for example. The chips are only 960x540. They do use pixel shift to gain more detail however and the images look very clean. It one of the lowest detailed cameras of these HD cameras but yet it has very clean images. The 540 vertical chip from the HVX200 isn't all that much different than the single 540 field from the H1. Both use some level of pixel shifting interpolation to gain more detail. I do not know exactly what 24F is doing but it is something to do with pixel shifting of some type. That means some scenes may have more detail then others depending on the colors in that scene.

To me wanting a camera because it has 5% more detail is like wanting to pay $1,000 more for a cpu for a new editing system to render your projects 5% faster. It may be faster but who cares.

I used to question 24F at first as well but I for the life of me cannot find anything to complain about it and I hate interlaced video with a passion.

Take the Panasonic camera for example. The chips are only 960x540. They do use pixel shift to gain more detail however and the images look very clean. It one of the lowest detailed cameras of these HD cameras but yet it has very clean images.

But I've heard at least one person say the HVX200 yields a lot of artifacts in dim lighting compared to the Canon XLH1, so there again it's not a clear-cut comparison. The HVX200 certainly seems to deliver a different "look" than HDV cameras.

By the way, the difference in detail between a camera with a 960x540 sensor and one with a 1440x1080 sensor can be non-trivial, and if the point of HD is to deliver clearer images then that's something worth thinking about. As Chris says numbers aren't everything, but they can serve as a useful reference point.

The main advantage with it is the dvcprohd codec. Also, the variable frame rates and the possibility of shooting 720p60 at 4:2:2 is something no other camera in the price range offers.

Ok, I know the HVX has great color, but I think it has more to do with its DSP than the mere codec. I get a little tired of "4:2:2" bandied about like it's the full-raster real deal. http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv/much_720p24_pt3/

A quote from a friend: "color space ratios are badly misused, and it is less ambiguous to quote absolute horizontal resolution numbers. 4:2:0 does not mean that there is no V or Cr information stored at all, it means that in each line, only one color difference channel is stored with half the horizontal resolution. The channel which is stored flips each line, so the ratio is 4:2:0 for one line, 4:0:2 in the next, then 4:2:0 again, and so on. DVCProHD is 4:2:2 but at a ratio of 1280 luma samples by 540 cb and 540 cr. Not really as much chroma bandwidth as one would think at first."

It's sub-sampled raster 4:2:2 and a fairly heavy pass of compression on the image too. DVCPRO HD has trouble with saturated reds and excessive detail. I know this from having captured raw SDI from the XL-H1 many times to the codec. (bypassing HDV compression)

The HVX is a great camera for how it handles images, especially for the lower res CCD, but let's not call it "true 4:2:2".

True HD 4:2:2 is sampling an image with half the chrominance of the luma in a given HD frame size, i.e. 1920x1080 or 1280x720, in which case the only camera that does this in the category currently is the XL-H1 (live camera head signal) to a full raster 4:2:2 codec (Sheer, CineForm, PhotoJPEG, Uncompressed) via SDI.

Barlow...great post and great link! Now I understand why the resolution differences have less affect in HDV and DVCProHD recording.

It also beings to answer some questions I've been asking. In your last paragraph you state:

True HD 4:2:2 is sampling an image with half the chrominance of the luma in a given HD frame size, i.e. 1920x1080 or 1280x720, in which case the only camera that does this in the category currently is the XL-H1 (live camera head signal) to a full raster 4:2:2 codec (Sheer, CineForm, PhotoJPEG, Uncompressed) via SDI.
Is that only from SDI, or is it also from HD component output? All of the camera's have HD component output. When doing this, would the different resolutions of the the Canon's interlaced CCD vs the JVC progressive CCD be more apparent (since the chroma information would be captured)?

Thomas and Kevin, it is my experience that a change is only noticible if it was a bottleneck. If it wasn't...you don't see the change. A 500hp M5 BMW is no faster than a 225hp 525 on Manhattan's 3rd Avenue in the evening rush hour.

Even then, in general use, a 33-50% change is generally needed for the change to be generally noticable. However, a 10-20% change may 'feel' better in some circumstances. The difference in power between a 525 and 530 BMW.

And what you are saying is that these cameras are all with in 10-20% of each other. And with different strengths and weaknesses, it all averages out.

Chris, is there a place people can post their configurations and post processing when posting footage? As Josh said, there is some outstanding footage posted. However, without knowing what setting acheived that affect it may be hard to produce. Maybe a standard way of posting settings.

Thanks to everyone,

David

...what you are saying is that these cameras are all with in 10-20% of each other. And with different strengths and weaknesses, it all averages out.

Yes and no. The most impartial reviews of all these cameras conclude that they each have strengths and weaknesses which mean there isn't one clear "best" one for all users and all purposes. But if you want to talk numbers, the XL-H1 has resolution up to 50% better than the HVX200 and can deliver roughly 15 times the data bandwidth via HD-SDI, while the HVX200 can record up to 4X the bandwidth that the XL-H1 sends to HDV tape. So depending on what you want to do, that may all even out or it may not, and the only way to decide what works for you is to either test the cameras yourself or look carefully at an assortment of sample footage.

Yes and no. The most impartial reviews of all these cameras conclude that they each have strengths and weaknesses which mean there isn't one clear "best" one for all users and all purposes. But if you want to talk numbers, the XL-H1 has resolution up to 50% better than the HVX200 and can deliver roughly 15 times the data bandwidth via HD-SDI, while the HVX200 can record up to 4X the bandwidth that the XL-H1 sends to HDV tape. So depending on what you want to do, that may all even out or it may not, and the only way to decide what works for you is to either test the cameras yourself or look carefully at an assortment of sample footage.
Which brings up the question, how does HD-SDI (on the H1 and yet to be released G1 and HD250) compare with HD component (most cameras support both 1080i and 720p) on the others?

Panasonic did a table that took the four sensors (960x540p, 1280x720p, 960x1080i, and 1440x1080i), and applied two factors: 1.5x for green shift (h and v on sensor 1, h on 3 and 4) and 70% vertical resolution on interlaced sensors. This resulted in 1440x810, 1280x720, 1440x756. and 2160x756 respectively. However, the recording formats are 1440x1080 Y for 3 and 4, 1280x720 Y for 2 and 960x720 Y for 1. And the chroma sampling was effectively 720x540 for 3 and 4, 640x360 for 2 and 480x720 for 1.

The Steve Mullen article that Barlow referenced indicated that in their native storage mechanisim (HDV and DVCProHD), the chroma samples recorded are below the resolution of the CCDs, and comparable between the formats. In that analysis, coupling the sensors with the recording format yields rather similar recorded resolutions.

If this information was valid, the recorded information would be between 1440x756 and 1280x720, about 15%. However the chroma sampling may favor the 1080i recording format. None of this deals with motion compression though. Or dynamic range net of compression.

Personally, I would love to see direct to Cineform recording in the camera. If that was a $3k option on the A1 (a C1?), would you buy it over a G1?

Is there a way to objectively measure the lens differences between the cameras?

Panasonic did a table that took the four sensors (960x540p, 1280x720p, 960x1080i, and 1440x1080i), and applied two factors: 1.5x for green shift (h and v on sensor 1, h on 3 and 4) and 70% vertical resolution on interlaced sensors. This resulted in 1440x810, 1280x720, 1440x756. and 2160x756 respectively. However, the recording formats are 1440x1080 Y for 3 and 4, 1280x720 Y for 2 and 960x720 Y for 1. And the chroma sampling was effectively 720x540 for 3 and 4, 640x360 for 2 and 480x720 for 1.None of this is relevant. None of this has any bearing whatsoever on "image quality." Image quality is determined solely by the person operating the camera. All that matters is where and how you point the camera. Forget this numbers nonsense and test the cameras yourself, as Kevin suggests above. Actual hands-on time is the only way you can make a logical determination about which one to buy. You're not accomplishing anything by spouting numbers and tech specs on an internet message board... in fact it's highly counterproductive.

I think this topic has outlived its original purpose. Let's please move forward with discussions that are more appropriate to this community, as in how to use this gear and what are we creating with it. Enough of this pointless "which one is better" crap. Thanks in advance,