Has anyone here tried or have any experience removing the stock lens from a HVX? Anyone gone that far in taking one apart that they could provide testament to it's ease or difficulty? Any manuals or such would be highly appreciated.

I'm looking at designing a 35mm mod for HVX cameras that will yield an overall brighter setup compared to traditional methods.

In theory the mod could provide an effective light "gain" of 2 stops when using 35mm setup.

This would effectively mean you could bet back to the cameras original working ASA. (ie. approx 400 for the HVX) Currently with most 35mm add-on adapters you end up with an approximate working ASA of 100, or between 50 and 60 once you throw a 35mm lens into the equation.

This is impractical for most film style lighting setups, particularly indoor.

If you don't understand the relationship between ASA, f stops and shutter speeds? Here's a really good read: http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

Dennis,

I would not even recommend attempting such a venture, regardless what your level of technical expertise is. I don't remember where I saw it, but somewhere on the 'net you'll find a cutaway view of the HVX and other handheld cams currently on the market which clearly illustrates why this would be a completely destructive operation.

The lens elements and the internal mechanisms that control them are literally integral parts to the body; you could not disassemble the lens from the camera without adversely affecting both the imaging chip and the rest of the camera electronics, not to mention completely ruining the built-in seals that protect the imaging chip and other sensitive internal parts from dust and other airborne contaminants.

What you're proposing to do - create a 35mm lens adapter that doesn't shoot through the built-in lens - has always been a sought after dream for most of the handheld cam owners, and one reason cameras like the XL series and the JVC 100/150 series are favorites for those with lens adapters.

In short, physically removing the lens assembly and associated mechanisms means you would in effect permanently change and even destroy an HVX - or any other camera with a built-in lens. The money invested in trying to create such a device would be better spent in purchasing a camera body designed for removable lenses.

I would not even recommend attempting such a venture, regardless what your level of technical expertise is. I don't remember where I saw it, but somewhere on the 'net you'll find a cutaway view of the HVX and other handheld cams currently on the market which clearly illustrates why this would be a completely destructive operation.

If anyone wants to donate their HVX, I will gladly attempt such an operation. ;-) My work is absolutely NOT guaranteed. Hehe... I promise I will return all parts after the experimentation is done and they will show no more signs of wear or use than can be expected with excessive amounts of cutting, grinding, prying, breaking and filing. Oh, I promise I won't use a torch unless I've had a few beers first.

In short, physically removing the lens assembly and associated mechanisms means you would in effect permanently change and even destroy an HVX - or any other camera with a built-in lens.

What about the guy who modded his FX1? (http://www.eidomedia.com/hdv/)

The advice given was that it's not recommended and with this type of mod there is a much greater chance of completely destroying the unit than having any success. There will always be those who are willing to make sacrifices in the spirit of experimentation.

In short, physically removing the lens assembly and associated mechanisms means you would in effect permanently change and even destroy an HVX

I do believe that was the point. We've had people talk about taking about DVX's here to mod the electronics... I'd be interested to hear if anyone has dug in with the HVX.

Anything can be disassembled, especially given that it was assembled in the first place. I've known many people who would buy $5000 electronic equipment and take them apart... mostly to make them better. It's a lifestyle choice.

It's like Vegas, isn't it? Only bring the money to the table that you are willing to lose. And have fun whether you double your wad, or lose it. Also, learn the rules and strategies of the game before you trade your cash for chips.

The gamble of modding an HVX might really pay off.

...or not.

Could be a fun project though.

Sam, thank you for that link. I was extremely impressed by the mod-work performed by Matteo Ricchet and will be contacting him in the not so distant future.

I appreciate everyone's comments here. It is true that such an idea would seem so absurd to some but realized by others.

The obvious solution is to just go with the XLH1 or HD100 and come up with a direct add on adapter. But so far when weighing price, footprint, functionality, P2 card vs tape vs SDI, etc.. the list goes on and on and the choice to do this to an HVX becomes more and more obvious.

I'm currently looking to buy a HVX used and will go from there. Such a task will certainly not be an easy or fast one but certainly possible. I've had a lot of experience modding Sony equipment over the years as well writing code for modchips - likely some of that experience will come in handy as time goes on.

Thanks again everyone for your posts so far.

If anyone has diagrams or anything else that might be helpful (like a smashed up HVX for sale) please let me know.

Good luck Dennis, and keep us informed.

I love the plan, and the guts, and the fact it is backed up by technical experience. I saw the Italian FX1, if I recall.. and would love to know what the ultimate results were...

Don't forget the multiplication factor using 35mm lenses on 1/3" CCD's. Your going to be stuck with some pretty long focal lengths.

Don't forget the multiplication factor using 35mm lenses on 1/3" CCD's. Your going to be stuck with some pretty long focal lengths.

Not if ground glass is employed !
Think Brevis but without the stock lens.

Found this image on Matteo's site.

http://www.eidomedia.com/hdv/test/finito/images/IMG_0164_R.jpg

This is exactly like something I'm looking to do.

Found this image on Matteo's site.

http://www.eidomedia.com/hdv/test/finito/images/IMG_0164_R.jpg

This is exactly like something I'm looking to do.

So do you think you could pull it off ?

Found this image on Matteo's site.

http://www.eidomedia.com/hdv/test/finito/images/IMG_0164_R.jpg

This is exactly like something I'm looking to do.

I would say it's possible with the HVX... I'm not sure what you really hope to gain from it though -- lots of time and effort spent on such a thing could easily be applied somewhere else. Given the way camera prices are shuffling about these days and it looks like systems such as RED will deliver 10X or more what the HVX is offering for about 4X the price, I'm seeing less attraction to modifying low-end cameras. As much as you mod the HVX, it's still going to be a noisy, pixel-shifted, 1/3" CCD block... IMO, a much more worthy hack would be to get RAW footage out of the thing like what Andromeda has done for the DVX.

But then again.. As Barry Gribble said above, "it's a lifestyle choice". Too right... Some people just like to tinker with things. Personally, I don't find a lot of appeal in tinkering with something I've paid several thousand $$$ for... I tinker with my computers, but I still wait until the fair market eBay value of my notebook is $500 or less before I hack it to pieces and build a robot out of it.

Matt, I think it can be done but I will definitely need some help and these forums are a great start.

I need to study the design of the relay lens from my PS Technik which takes the image from the screen of the mini35 to the CCD of my XL2. A well designed relay lens is where I will need to start.

I've read of some people using an F1.4 50mm in reverse as a relay lens, but I'm looking for less loss if possible. Remember, my goal is to have a 35mm adapter projecting the image directly on the camera CCD with a complete light loss total equal to the original stock lens (f1.6 for HVX, slightly more than 1 stop).

The "ground glass" portion I'm not too concerned about. These days we've got people like Dennis Wood (creator of the Brevis) with vibrating gg systems that produce incredible results with HD cameras with losses at about 1/2 stop. The technology is out there to harness I just need to figure out the best way to bring it all together.

For starters I would probably not worry too much about finding a way to attach the 35mm adapter directly to the camera. At the beginning I might just use a rail system could easily be used to mount the 35mm lens, 35mm gg system, relay lens, and HVX camera (without lens). This might require some fine tuning to get the distances accurate.

I also have been emailing Daniel Schaumberger of http://www.jetsetmodels.info/holders.htm who builds gg holders for 35mm adapters, he's offered to help me if he can with any construction or milling work I may need. He also knows a lot about 35mm adapters in general.

In the meantime I'm trying to get hold of someone now who's put their HVX up on the market. I'll need that too : )

I would be more concerned about the electronic implications of removing the lens system from the HVX.
With focus and iris directly controled by the lens who knows what will happen when the two are seperated from the camera.
If only somebaody could test it out on perhaps a damaged camera on it's last legs. Surly panasonic have some near death reterns that are filling up a bin somewhere.
If we could get the ok on the electronics front I would be willing to beta test the mod with my camera.
-matt

Dennis, nice idea but or better: Have you read the threads about "chromatic" problems the XH1's owners have when they use an other lens? I tryed a non"HD" zoom on a Varicam, The flare inside the lens, the color franges according to the lens figure, even a sharp line of contrast between sun and shadow...there were too many factors to realy do a picture with it. But i would love to hear a solution.

Has anyone here tried or have any experience removing the stock lens from a HVX? Anyone gone that far in taking one apart that they could provide testament to it's ease or difficulty? Any manuals or such would be highly appreciated.

I'm looking at designing a 35mm mod for HVX cameras that will yield an overall brighter setup compared to traditional methods.

In theory the mod could provide an effective light "gain" of 2 stops when using 35mm setup.

This would effectively mean you could bet back to the cameras original working ASA. (ie. approx 400 for the HVX) Currently with most 35mm add-on adapters you end up with an approximate working ASA of 100, or between 50 and 60 once you throw a 35mm lens into the equation.

This is impractical for most film style lighting setups, particularly indoor.

If you don't understand the relationship between ASA, f stops and shutter speeds? Here's a really good read: http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm

To my way of thinking, you would be money ahead if you sold your HVX, bought a Canon XL-H1 or a JVC HD100/110, removed the stock lens and installed a mini35 with a relay lens. You could also use a Letus35 with a relay lens with either the Canon or JVC to save money over the mini35.

You would get the gain you wanted when you removed the stock lens and replaced it with a relay lens. You would have no CA problems, and you would also be able to put the camcorder back together and sell it when you were done using it.

You could also test it before you made the plunge to see if it worked for your application, rather than getting a hack saw out and destroying a perfectly good HVX on a lark.

Just my humble opinion.

Hi Colin,

The idea is to use a relay lens to take the 35mm image projected onto a gg (ground glass) directly to the CCD block of the HVX. I don't intend on using alternative lenses directly on the CCD block of the HVX.

Hi Dave,

I've definitely considered the mini35 on the JVC or Canon however the mini35 loses 2 (or more) stops of light which takes the working ASA of the camera down from 400 to 100. Add a 35mm lens and at 1 f-stop you go from 100 ASA to 50 ASA. This is an impractical working ASA for lighting interior scenes and yields way to much depth of field to the point where the DOF is much too obvious.

A good gg will only lose .5 stop of light, combined with a relay lens I might only lose another 1/2 to full stop. If you think about this it puts me at f1 to f1.4 total light loss - basically the same as when shooting with the HVX stock lens.


Other idea:
I also intend on flipping the CCD block of the HVX so in that sense no flip mechanism is required in the 35mm adapter. This would prevent the image from being up and having to be flipped in post.

Yes all this renders an HVX useless for regular work but I truly believe this would be the ulitmate 35mm digital camera (next to RED of course) due to the overall size and light gain. The HVX body only is 7 inches in length - yet so much power on-board.

I'm still looking for an HVX to buy and starting to research relay lenses.

Dennis,

GG directly on the CCU sounds interesting... have you done that with a cheaper camera? It seems like something you could start working the kinks out with anything.

Good luck.

Dennis,

GG directly on the CCU sounds interesting... have you done that with a cheaper camera? It seems like something you could start working the kinks out with anything.

Good luck.

Barry,

I haven't tried anything with a cheaper camera yet, but likely a good idea. I do however own an XL2 where obviously the lens comes off and I can do some limited testing in terms of testing some good relay lens designs.

I found archives on DVinfo actually from when the XL1 was big news and people were trying to do the very same thing. In most cases 24mm or 50mm SLR lenses were being used as a relay lens combined with "close up" kits to focus on very close gg screens. Problem is if the 24mm or 50mm lens is rated at f1.4 then I'm no better off shooting through the stock HVX lens which is also rated around there (once you zoom in a little).

The idea is a relay lens design with virtually no light loss. That's basically where I am with my idea so far... just finding out as much as possible about relay lens design and alternative relay lens design methods.

The goal was to add 2 stops of light gain to the equation, half of which is easily accomplished by not needing the stock HVX lens.

We'll see what happens and where my progress lands me.

For experimentation I would recommend a JVC HD1 or 10. The form factor and resolution are much the same. Especially the consumer version HD1(no XLR and high edge enhancement) can be found used for a good price (under $1000?)

Along the same lines I would recommend doing an advanced search selecting the "JVC HD1/10" forum with the keywords " ground glass". I would also try "35mm".
This topic was discussed at extensive lengths back in the day by the first batch of prosumer HD enthusiasts. I seem to recall issues with ground glass and the high resolution not working out.

Check these out for starters. Hope they help.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=22456&highlight=ground+glass

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30235

Thanks Ken, I will check out those links.

Hey Dennis -

Love the ambition. Hope you don't think I'm too forward, but I wanted to comment on the notion of light 'efficiency.'

Most people making 35mm adapters treat f/# as an algebraic variable that can just be manipulated to tell you your total light loss. I find it far more valuable to think of f/# more like numerical aperture -- roughly, a mathematical expression that describes the size of the cone of light in an system.

When you use a scattering plate, you're basically re-randomizing that cone of light. That's why people have noticed a (roughly) algebraic relationship between various lens elements.

In a non-scattering system, though, you don't just start with some arbitrary amount of light and subtract from that total with each element. Properly, you diverge or converge ray bundles, and depending on their total angular displacement you can either increase or decrease the f-number with various attachments (though in practice they usually decrease it).

In a scattering system, the precise scattering properties of your scattering medium (typically ground glass) matter a lot. Since most people are using 35mm still lenses (that is, non-telecentric lenses, like 3-chip video camera lenses), the incident rays on the ground glass aren't perpendicular except on-axis.

The ground glass re-randomizes some of that light, so the rays that are pointing away from your second (relay) lens get scattered back towards the camera.

Note that the numerical speed of your relay system does not guarantee that you'll get all that light. If the scattering properties of your ground glass yield perfect scattering, you'd actually require an (impossible) f/0 relay lens to capture 'all' the light.

In practice, the scattering will send some light off axis and allow some through unscattered. Better relay lenses use field lenses or condenser lenses to redirect the outer ray bundles so they're more perpendicular to the scattering medium. The idea, I think, is that this will even out the hot-spot: the hot spot results from incomplete scattering, and some unscattered light goes straight into the camera lens. Off-axis, that unscattered light is simply lost.

Ironically, aerial lenses Panavision's Frazier and Hylen lens systems do exactly what 35mm adapters are trying to do, but without any scattering plate at all.

As it turns out, you don't need to scatter the light in order to create an image from a 35mm lens. The image is always there. If it doesn't actually strike a physical surface, the rays continue unimpeded. They can then be collected just like a normal image. If your relay system is large and fast enough, you can theoretically capture all of the light (minus scattering and reflection at glass/air interfaces, of course).

Just for fun, if you've got a 35mm adapter, try getting it focused, setting everything up, then removing the ground glass completely.

If your condenser lenses are strong enough, the rays should be bent directly into your second camera. No hot spot, no scattering. Maximum light efficiency. You should be able to record the aerial image directly onto your camera.

Or am I missing something?

I forgot about the optical invariant. Never mind; it probably wouldn't work without scattering (only because the rear lens would have to operate at a truly ridiculous f-number, to the point where it would have pretty shallow DOF on its own).

I am curious to know what these rigs look like without the scattering plate, though - my guess is you get some properties of the taking lens and some of the rear lens - diffraction patterns, for example - but probably not the DOF.

I'd try it myself, but my XL1s was stolen last week. It was part of a medium-format rig (image plane 75mm x 50 mm, fiber optic plate, dual PCX condenser).

They work in aerial image mode and the Sony autofocus works as well within limits. I regularly use mine with the GG removed for adapting telephoto lenses to the camera.

You lose the shallow depth of field and have to zoom in furthur to get inside the vignette of long lenses.

If you have time to waste in a search on YouTube for videos by "agus35monk" and look for "The Tiger is 75 years young", you will find footage shot on a Z1P with Agus35 with groundglass removed.

I remember reading that the CCD block on the HVX shifts forward and backward to help with macro focusing. They were saying you could focus all the way to the front of the lense. I'm sorry I can't remember who "they" are, but make sure to take this into consideration, as it will effect the distance to the gg. This is my only concern. Good Luck!

Cheers.

I know someone who has experience with that cutting thing:

http://www.mgm.com/hannibal/home-flash.html

Has anyone here tried or have any experience removing the stock lens from a HVX? Anyone gone that far in taking one apart that they could provide testament to it's ease or difficulty? Any manuals or such would be highly appreciated.

I'm looking at designing a 35mm mod for HVX cameras that will yield an overall brighter setup compared to traditional methods.

In theory the mod could provide an effective light "gain" of 2 stops when using 35mm setup.

This would effectively mean you could bet back to the cameras original working ASA. (ie. approx 400 for the HVX) Currently with most 35mm add-on adapters you end up with an approximate working ASA of 100, or between 50 and 60 once you throw a 35mm lens into the equation.

This is impractical for most film style lighting setups, particularly indoor.

If you don't understand the relationship between ASA, f stops and shutter speeds? Here's a really good read: http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm
Just so you know, the guys in Crooklyn have been doing it for years on the DVX and I think now on the HVX. You know the Crooklyn gang, Broadway Photo er Royal Camera er Prestige er Digital Liquidators er ETC. When you call them up about there below cost price and they'll tell you "thats the body only...it won't work without a lens but we can sell you the lens"....and a charger..and a battery...and a mic...and a mic holder...and a cable....and the cardboard box.....So I guess its no problem taking the lens off!

Jim Martin

p.s. Chris, hopefully you won't delete these Crooklyn names but if you have to, I understand

Well I still think for the overall price, ability to shoot 4:2:2, workflow advantage of P2, increased light gain over any other 35mm adapter option on the market and no need to flip images in post or add on TFT/LCD's - the HVX lens & CCD modification would surpass many digital 35mm systems falling only short of RED which is nearly 5 times the price!

I'm with you Dennis, if nothing else it would be nice to get rid of that dam digital focus at least.

Well I still think for the overall price, ability to shoot 4:2:2, workflow advantage of P2, increased light gain over any other 35mm adapter option on the market and no need to flip images in post or add on TFT/LCD's - the HVX lens & CCD modification would surpass many digital 35mm systems falling only short of RED which is nearly 5 times the price!

I don't know about that... The XLH1 has superior resolution and interchangeable lenses as it is and after P2 cards are considered, is no more expensive. You can also use 35mm lenses with it using an adapter like the Brevis which attaches directly to the camera body. The only thing it lacks is true 24p (uses 24F mode due to the 1080i sensor). But I don't see that as a problem - at times the increased resolution is superior. The real advantage to the HVX is it's color reproduction. Color out of the HVX200 is still plain awesome. As for the 4:2:2 color space, I thought it would be superior for chromakeying, and it is, but with the HVX's pixel-shifting and lower resolution, the end results are no better vs. keying with 1080 24f from the XLH1. As for RED, it's true it's more expensive, but it has a lot more to offer and in some ways less too. It's a different camera, different market, different purpose. It's going to work a lot better for me, but won't be a good fit for many HVX200 users.

I wouldn't say superior resolution. Both cameras use the same bag of tricks to achieve higher "effective" resolutions. Canon goes with horizontal pixel shift to achieve 1440 pixels horizontally but since it's an interlaced sensor offers 1080 pixels natively for vertical resolution. The HVX being a progressive sensor uses pixel shift to get 1440 pixels horizontally and scans 1080p vertically and converts it to 1080i.

A resolution chart in front of both cams may reveal slightly more sharpness with the XLH1 in 1080i modes but for 720p shooters likely no advantage - especially if you have to deinterlace in post or go with the frame mode of the Canon.

As for interchangeable lenses, is there still only one HD lens available for the XLH1?

Adding P2 cards to the HVX may not make the XLH1 more expensive, but if you want to record 4:2:2 you need to go external with the XLH1 and that's no cheap option either. Let's not forget the advantages of shooting to solid state memory either ie. no mechanical parts, no maintenance, quiet, use in harsh environments, drop it in your fish tank, etc..

Speaking of 4:2:2 it's more than just less jaggies for chroma-keying. DVCPRO HD uses intraframe compression which compared to HDV makes for a lot more ease during the editing and rendering process. It's exactly why programs like Cineform exist - so people can convert their HDV non frame independent compressed footage to something similar to DVCPRO HD (intraframe compression) and be happy editing.

I currently own Canon (XL2) so don't get me wrong - I'm not brand dedicated and could care less what brand I own or use. In the end it has to get the job done, be cost effective, offer some useful features... but at $8500 vs $5300 it's a no brainer for me.

Let's not even begin to started on other features of the HVX like 4 channel 16 bit uncompressed audio, variable frame rates from 12 to 60 fps, not front end heavy........ . ...

The XLH1... the only thing it lacks is true 24p (uses 24F mode due to the 1080i sensor).The word "true" in "true 24P" is completely irrelevant anymore. 24F is 24P. 24F is no less "true" than 24P. Nevermind that the CCD block is 1080i... what matters is what's coming from the DSP, and the output is in fact progressive 1080p24 (or 1080p30 if desired). As proof that there's no difference between 24F and 24P, consider that 24F captures *as* 24P in Final Cut Pro, Premiere Pro and other editing applications. The software can't tell the difference, and neither can the eye. The 24F vs. 24P thing is a complete non-issue. For all practical purposes, they're identical.

Canon goes with horizontal pixel shift to achieve 1440 pixels horizontallyIncorrect. It's important to note that each CCD in the Canon XL H1 image sensor block is 1440 x 1080 already (horizontal pixel shift then provides a resolution boost up to 1920).

is there still only one HD lens available for the XLH1?Currently there are two HD lenses available for the XLH1; the stock 20x HD lens and the wide angle 6x HD lens. Most H1 shooters who own the older 16x manual lens from the XL1 / XL2 line have reported it to be adequate for HD use (it is built to specs that are better than standard definition). And although limited to only certain types of shooting applications, any of the high-end Canon L-series EOS 35mm still photo lenses will provide HD resolution on the XL H1.

Hope this helps,

Incorrect. It's important to note that each CCD in the Canon XL H1 image sensor block is 1440 x 1080 already (horizontal pixel shift then provides a resolution boost up to 1920).

The specs on the XLH1 say "effective" 1.56 mega pixels in 16:9 HD mode. If 1440 x 1080 = 1,555,200 and Canon uses horizontal pixel shift the "true" horizontal resolution can only be less - can it not?

BTW Chris, I just love this site and all the work you've done here. I spend more and more time here everyday and soon will get fired from my job because of it. Cheers!

Thanks for your kind remarks, Dennis.

So-called "effective" pixel counts always refer to the actual number of pixels used on the CCD *before* the Pixel Shift process is applied. The differentiation between total pixels vs. effective pixels is due to the fact that there is almost always a certain number of unused pixels along the outer edges of a CCD sensor. The effective count is important because that's what's actually being used. Pixel Shift is never figured into that number though. For example, the specs for the original Canon XL1 state that it had 270,000 total pixels on each CCD, of which 250,000 were effective. Do the math and you'll find that the effective count was less than the native resolution for standard definition DV (345,600 pixels). A combination of horizontal and vertical Pixel Shift processes boosted the resolution of these less-than-SD chips up to 720 x 480 (and more importantly, nobody complained about it back then).

Likewise, each CCD on the Canon XL H1 has a total 1.67 megapixels, of which 1.56 megapixels are effective. They're "native" 1440 x 1080, before Pixel Shift is applied. Hope this helps,

The word "true" in "true 24P" is completely irrelevant anymore. 24F is 24P. 24F is no less "true" than 24P. Nevermind that the CCD block is 1080i... what matters is what's coming from the DSP, and the output is in fact progressive 1080p24 (or 1080p30 if desired). As proof that there's no difference between 24F and 24P, consider that 24F captures *as* 24P in Final Cut Pro, Premiere Pro and other editing applications. The software can't tell the difference, and neither can the eye. The 24F vs. 24P thing is a complete non-issue. For all practical purposes, they're identical.

Er... Chris, I'm usually in agreement with everything you say, but I don't agree here. The 24F mode in the in the XLH1 still comes from an interlace-scanning CCD imager and the internal DSP must de-interlace to create the progressive frame. On fast motion, I can still get interlace combing or scanline shift in 24F mode. In controlled shooting situations, this isn't a problem when you plan your camera moves... When shooting live, high speed events, it shows. It's still best to shoot in 24F mode if your target is 24p because the CCD can scan at 48i and the de-interlacing is done internally on raw info from the sensor block before correction and compression. It's fine and great that it captures as 24P, because you're right, it is encoded that way, but de-interlacing of an interlaced CCD source sill isn't true 24P and no de-interlacing algorithm can reach back in time 1/48th of a second to make half the image match the previous set of scanlines.

I wouldn't say superior resolution. Both cameras use the same bag of tricks to achieve higher "effective" resolutions. Canon goes with horizontal pixel shift to achieve 1440 pixels horizontally but since it's an interlaced sensor offers 1080 pixels natively for vertical resolution.

Chris already beat me to it, but there is no pixel shift on the Canon CCD. All elements are native 1440x1080 active pixels.

A resolution chart in front of both cams may reveal slightly more sharpness with the XLH1 in 1080i modes but for 720p shooters likely no advantage - especially if you have to deinterlace in post or go with the frame mode of the Canon.

There is more detail there, but the frame mode does present a problem on fast moving subjects - as I noted above. On a static res chart, the pixel shift of the HVX makes it appear to have more resolution than it does... Various wobulation techniques can break down the pixel shift, as can fast motion once again, and detail is lost. Subjects that are far from the camera such as scenery type shots begin to test the limits of the pixel shift. Look at Robert's report on the H1 vs. the HVX for scenery/landscape shots.

Adding P2 cards to the HVX may not make the XLH1 more expensive, but if you want to record 4:2:2 you need to go external with the XLH1 and that's no cheap option either. Let's not forget the advantages of shooting to solid state memory either ie. no mechanical parts, no maintenance, quiet, use in harsh environments, drop it in your fish tank, etc..

The 4:2:2 isn't all it's cracked up to be... Not by the time the DVCPROHD codec trashes your resolution from a pixel shifted 960x540 (up to 1280x720 or 1920x1080) down to a 960x720 and 1280x1080 respectively (1440x1080 for PAL users). The pixel shift along with Panasonic's color matrix create stunning visuals with the HVX and I do love the camera for this. But sooner or later, depending on the task at hand, the pixel shift and low-res CCD block become a hinderance to the camera.

Speaking of 4:2:2 it's more than just less jaggies for chroma-keying. DVCPRO HD uses intraframe compression which compared to HDV makes for a lot more ease during the editing and rendering process. It's exactly why programs like Cineform exist - so people can convert their HDV non frame independent compressed footage to something similar to DVCPRO HD (intraframe compression) and be happy editing.

True, but the conversion to Cineform RAW is quick and painless and it can be done as the video is captured. There are times that the extra color depth of the DVCPROHD from the HVX gives more range to pull a key, but I've found with a properly lit set and greenscreen I have just as easy of a time with the higher resolution of the HDV originated footage. Honestly, I don't know which one is truly better. I have found both to work just fine and both to be lacking of what I want... Hence why I'm shifting over to RED. The keying tests I've done on RED frames are mind-blowing. It's so clean and has all the color depth I can hope for, images practically key themselves in Shake. Personally, I despise HDV in every way. Especially with all the in-fighting amidst the HDV crowd and how tapes from one brand of camera/deck won't always work in another. Sony cameras/decks play back 720p HDV from JVC cameras/decks just fine, but Sony cripples them and won't let the signal pass out over HDMI or firewire, only component. That's just wrong... I have no love for DVCPROHD either.

Anyway, I'm going to get a huge dose of HDV stupidity this weekend and for about 10 days of editing after that. Hopefully it will be the last time... And to make matters worse, it's coming as 720p30 from a JVC JY-HD10U camcorder... w/Letus35 adpert and Nikkor lenses. Should be interesting... I get to cut that with stuff I shoot on the HVX.. All the HVX work is mostly going to be 720p60 and/or greenscreen. At least the project involves hot chicks with guns, so I do at least have that to look forward to.

Let's not even begin to started on other features of the HVX like 4 channel 16 bit uncompressed audio, variable frame rates from 12 to 60 fps, not front end heavy........ . ...

Of course... You just mentioned two of the biggest reasons why I bought the HVX200 in the first place. In fact Panasonic had me at 60fps, 720p. Tapeless workflow was the icing on the cake, even though now I'm a bit grumpy over the [much] slower than initially promised evolution of the P2 format.

On fast motion, I can still get interlace combing or scanline shift in 24F mode. In controlled shooting situations, this isn't a problem when you plan your camera moves... When shooting live, high speed events, it shows.I can't help but ask, why choose 24fps for live, high speed events anyway? Personally I've always equated that frame rate with the cinematic style, which is all about controlled shooting situations and planned camera moves (or at least, that's what it should be about, to an old-school geezer like me).

...there is no pixel shift on the Canon CCD. Oh yes there is! While all elements on a Canon XL H1 (and XH G1 & A1) are indeed native 1440 x 1080 active pixels, there's also a Pixel Shift process in the horizontal axis added to that. The boost in horizontal resolution provided by Pixel Shift gives the DSP the requisite number of sampling points to create an image "significantly greater than 1440 pixels wide," which of course is then recorded to an HDV cassette as 1440 x 1080 anamorphic (just like HDCAM)... and then automatically scaled to 1920 x 1080 again by any HDTV display... etc.

If appears I was quite incorrect to state the XLH1 offers 1440 horizontal pixels. It is in fact 1920x1080 (screen resolution) while the block would in fact appear to be 1440x1080. That is quite a bit more horizontal than the HVX in fact.

Vertically however, 1080i and 720p perceptually are suppose to be the same but given Panasonic says their HVX sensor is 1080p (even though you can't get that out of the camera) I wonder how the HVX 1080i stands up to the XLH1 1080i mode - anyone care to comment?

Anyway I think the point being made was why go through the trouble of building a direct add-on 35mm adapter to a modified HXV200 when you can use the XLH1 or HD100 to do the same thing.

My answer to that again is given the low cost of the HVX with all the functionality it packs it becomes very clear why - well at least to me. I'd be shooting 35mm, DVCPRO HD on solid state memory with a few extra in camera features like gamma, etc.. all for less than $6k. Think of it as RED's little brother.

Jeff - by the way that's great you're getting into bed with RED. It's clearly the next step once you factor in the price of a good HD camera and mini35 adapter. I haven't decided on a path for myself yet. I'm working with an XL2 and mini35 and recently added a HVX to the collection. We'll see what's next.

I can't help but ask, why choose 24fps for live, high speed events anyway? Personally I've always equated that frame rate with the cinematic style, which is all about controlled shooting situations and planned camera moves (or at least, that's what it should be about, to an old-school geezer like me).

...To put a "live event" into the context of 24p cinema. I guess that's the best way to put it. It's not something I've done much of, but it's happened once or twice.

I saw a great boxing video a while back on ESPN2 that used 24p and other cinematic tricks, like wild color correction and overcranking. Rather than giving the feel of a live fight, these guys looked like gladiators.

24p definitely has its uses in the real world - specifically to help make it seem beyond reaity.

I saw a great boxing video a while back on ESPN2 that used 24p and other cinematic tricks, like wild color correction and overcranking. Rather than giving the feel of a live fight, these guys looked like gladiators.

24p definitely has its uses in the real world - specifically to help make it seem beyond reaity.

You sure it wasn't 30p you saw, not 24p? Even most shot for television programs shot on film are shot at 30, not 24 as everyone would have you believe.

You sure it wasn't 30p you saw, not 24p? Even most shot for television programs shot on film are shot at 30, not 24 as everyone would have you believe.If anything, it might have been shot at 15 fps! It was that noticeable - mainly because of an extremely fast shutter speed. In style it was very similar to the apartment fight scene in the Borne Supremacy, which would have been 24 fps. It's been a while. Coulda been 30, i guess...

Ironically, the Borne movie went for more of a reality look, while the fight documentary went for more of a hyper/artistic look.

Anyway, 24fps can be used for live events or documentaries, but I'd only use it if I were going for a special or film look.

For those who were kind of interested in the XLH1 resolution vs HVX200 debate that was somewhat out of place for this thread...

Check this out:

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/papers/AG-HVX200.CCD-WP.pdf

Clearly written by Panasonic but still they make some great claims on pixel shift technology and why a 1920 pixel 1/3" CCD will sacrifice light sensitivity and not produce as good low light images and worse images in SD mode.

They say in one section (page 3) that pixel shift (or spatial offset technology as they like to call it) improves resolution by a factor of 1.5 and that interlace resolution is equivalent to 70% of the vertical pixel count of the progressive CCD.

On the chart on page three where is says "Panasonic" & "Company B" you can see that you are not gaining any vertical resolution with the XHL1 (actually losing just slightly) and then gaining about 46% horizontally but at the expense of MTF (modulation transfer function) ie. image quality!

And for a camera that can do it without an external device you still can't beat the P2 card which allows Intra-frame recording...

Interesting stuff.

The stock lens on an HVX is rated at f1.6 which is about 1 and 1/3rd stop of light loss. In terms of sensitivity/low light handling the HVX is rated at about iso 120-160. Theoretically is should be more sensitive than the Canon but empirically it's not. Good Luck.

Hi Charles, thanks for the info. Do you remember where you got those ISO values from? I honestly always thought they were more up in the 300 to 400 range but I could be wrong.

It would be great to knows these values.