I finally had a chance to play around with an HVX200 this past weekend. A friend of mine owns one and we went shooting together for fun and also to compare the two cameras.

Here are some of my initial thoughts:

1. I can see why people prefer the focus ring although it felt odd to me when I used it first, not completely smooth. I soon got used to it, however, and I can say that it is far superior to that of the XHA1.

2. The LCD is really bad on the HVX. I'm not sure how anyone can use it to focus reliably even with the focus assist function. It looked like the kind of quality I would see in a really cheap LCD. The XHA1's LCD is way better and easier on the eye. It feels like it is much higher rez also.

3. Despite the bad LCD of the HVX, the viewfinder is good and the focus assist works very well in this mode.

4. The variable frame rates of the HVX are amazing. I wish there was an easier way to flip into that mode instead of wading through menu options. We shot some eagles in flight using slowmo and it was a beautiful thing.

5. I was really skeptical about the P2 workflow but I have to say, I am a convert and see the huge benefits of no moving parts, no play head to worry about wearing down, instant record and instant non-linear access to recorded clips.

6. We did some resolution (real-world scenes, not charts) to see how the HVX performed in 1080 mode. While I was impressed with what I saw, the HVX falls short of the mark for me. The frame of the XHA1 just looks like the kind of HD I see on Discovery HD Theater and the HVX frame looked like a larger DVX picture. Not a big deal to most people but it is to me.

7. The physical appearance of the HVX is very cool. This thing looks like it could be dropped from a ten storey building and survive (don't try this at home, folks). It feels and looks robust and, being a DVX user, I had no trouble locating most buttons and switches instantly.

8. One of the other things I thought was not going to be a problem with the HVX because of its 4:2:2 colorspace was vibrating reds and neon oranges. In my tests, certain reds and orange street signs pulsed just as much as the XHA1.

9. Noise was surprisingly distracting on the HVX and there was a lot of it even in well lit scenes. The "grain" of the Canon was a lot more pleasing and reminiscent of fine film grain compared to the HVX's clunky digital noise. The Canon did not display as much noise in well lit scenes.

My overall impression is that I'm glad I got the Canon over the Panny. If the HVX had the same apparent resolution as the Canon, it would have been a no-brainer for me, even with the relatively low capacity of the p2 cards. Noise did concern me but I didn't have the camera long enough to do further tests. When we played the footage back from both cameras for some non-technical people, the XHA1 just got more wows in terms of the stunning resolution and clarity.

I'll be posting some footage and stills soon.

He Steven,

The Panasonic works with P2 cards only? Is that right?
Of course both users (Panasonic and Canon) can use a harddrive unit, but what is the maximum cappacity of the P2 cards?

I saw the Panasonic in a nearby shop. I agree...it looks like a long camera which fell on his lens from a very high building. But it looks very robust.

I'm very curious about the results.

Thanks for the nice report.

In June a friend and I are going to visit London. For almost a week. We're going to make recordings of three concerts and also will add footage of London. We are really looking forward to that trip. Also hope to have good weather then.

We're going to use two Canon camera's: XM2 and XH-A1.

Looking forware to see the footage of that slow motion Eagle.

Groeten,

Gert

They make 16GB P2 cards now, so storage is not really an issue - you can get roughly 35 minutes of 720p HD on one card, so 70 minutes on two.

You can record on Mini DV tape in SD DV mode only.

I've used the HVX on several jobs and I like it, BUT with several caveats. It needs A LOT of light. Considerbly more than my A1 I've found. Also, if the light is low, the video noise is really noticeable and quite bad.

If you're talking bang for the buck there is no comparison. The A1 cost you $3250 or so (with rebate). HVX is $5000 for camera only, then $900 for each 16GB P2 card - so $6800 (approx.).

That's double the cost of an A1. Get a Firestore FS-C for $1200 and now you've got an all digital workflow (like P2) and still save money.

The HVX variable frame rates do rock though. :)

Yes, noise was an issue, I amended my post with a #9 on that.

Thanks for the info. If anything, it makes me feel better about my choice of the A1 over the HVX. I love all the bells and whistles of the HVX, but when I think realistically about my NEEDS and not my WANTS, I couldn't justify the difference in price.

One thing that REALLY intrigued me about the HVX though, was the DVCPRO HD format. Intraframe compression is a good thing.

In the end though, the image is what counts. Your comparison sounds like it reached the same conclusions as many sites I've visited. Most say the HVX has better colors, but that the A1 has a sharper image. I figured I'd go for the sharper picture and fix colors in post if I can't get a CP on the A1 set to my liking. Besides, I don't ever plan on pulling any keys.

Although, you gotta love the idea of a $5k VariCam...

Next on my list is a Firestore indeed. I'm very pleased with my A1.

But....I always like to compare and look at other camera's footage.

I've gotten my fingers all over all of the prosumer and high-prosumer (XLh1 and the HVX200) and I can honestly say, nothing really beats the XHA1/G1 configuration.

The cameras are great, and they take a great image. There is no way around it, with the good glass and imaging sensors that seem to work, there is little to complain about.

Now, if I had my choice, I would go with the XLH1, and just kick it with that, it has all of the features that I want on a camera, in a form factor I'm used to (I am a Beta SP/SX DVCPro shooter by trade), and I think XLH1s are perfectly customizeable for speed shooting. They do great.

Still, the HVX is awesome, but I think it falls flat on imaging for me, it didn't blow my socks off, and the P2 card expense sealed me away from what I could really do with it. Yes, I know that the edit workflow is great, and fast as it gets, still, it just didn't leave me in a sub-10k position, I would spend all of my money on the camera.

Right now, the Canon is the new great choice.

I owned both. I recently sold off the XH-A1 due to HDV and mini tapes.
P2 to hard drive is nice and "neat".
(no more little tape stacks cluttering up the edit bay)
I also had a problem with poor color from the Canon and the look of 24f.
I had a hard time "fixing" the colors in post on the Canon since there was so little to work with.
I have read many times that there is no difference between 24f and Panny 24p- but to my eyes there is. The Canon 24f stutters in a strange way.

I did prefer the actual build of the Canon over the Panasonic.
It was not as clunky.
And I agree- the Canon's LCD blows away the HVX.
To each his own.
I wanted to love the XH-A1- but mini tapes and HDV is not for me.

Good thread, as always you can never get the perfect solution but depending on your needs both are incredible camcorders.

I wanted to love the XH-A1- but mini tapes and HDV is not for me.


I hear ya i've got over 100 tapes on my desk it's always a mission finding what i need when I need it..

How do you archive your P2 footage?

If you weren't getting good color and getting stuttering in 24fps, it wasn't the camera. It takes quite a bit of setup before shooting. And the 24fps stuff captured with FCP's 1080p24 setting and edited in a 24p timeline looks just like any other 24p footage, whether it comes from film or tape, in terms of the motion.

I guess everybody has different opinions, which is why there are different cameras. I actually like the clunkiness of the HVX over the way the Canon feels, but I like the images from the Canon better, and the lens. To me the HVX is better balanced and feels even more solid than the Canon. I like the viewfinder too, but like Canon's LCD better. The main thing I liked about the HVX was the ability to shoot slomo. But I couldn't make P2 work for me because of the need to shoot up to 10 or 12 hours of footage a week when on the road and no way to easily transfer the data to something reliable like discs or DLT tapes. Still that slomo capability really tempted me. I spent a lot of hours trying to figure out a way to make the system work but I had to go for the Canon, which I like a lot. But I also like the HVX camera itself.

I owned both. I recently sold off the XH-A1 due to HDV and mini tapes.
P2 to hard drive is nice and "neat".
(no more little tape stacks cluttering up the edit bay)
I also had a problem with poor color from the Canon and the look of 24f.
I had a hard time "fixing" the colors in post on the Canon since there was so little to work with.
I have read many times that there is no difference between 24f and Panny 24p- but to my eyes there is. The Canon 24f stutters in a strange way.

I did prefer the actual build of the Canon over the Panasonic.
It was not as clunky.
And I agree- the Canon's LCD blows away the HVX.
To each his own.
I wanted to love the XH-A1- but mini tapes and HDV is not for me.

I totally agree with you.

I own the FX1, A1, HVX and HV20 and they excel in at least one of their features.

It is not one fits all kind of thing.

I used the A1 this week for a 3 hour seminar where I needed the 20X zoom. I forgot to take the 24f off. Even though it was set on a tripod fixed the motion from the speaker looked different from the 24P of the HVX.

Here is a clip of the A1 left and FX1 Right. Capture DVCPROHD 1080i http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FimirGcSN_c
This is a chroma key with the HVX P2 720p24 SEE ATTACHMENT
This is the A1 at 20X 6 db gain capture DVCPROHD 1080i. You can't see the 24f effect unless you are seeing it in a 42" Plasma. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRddB0U9hY

I have read many times that there is no difference between 24f and Panny 24p- but to my eyes there is. The Canon 24f stutters in a strange way.


Okay, let's do a little side to side, apples to apples test, shall we?

The HVX is on the left and the XHA1 is on the right:

http://www.pinelakefilms.com/XHA1/compare.wmv

Don't worry about the resolution or color grading, just concentrate on the motion. HVX is set to 24p, XHA1 is set to 24f

How did you capture the footage?

There is really no fair way of comparing cameras. I can make either one look better.
I personally use Steven's VIVIDRGB on the A1. (thanks for the time you saved me Steven)

How did you capture the footage?

Using Cineform in Premiere Pro

My vote goes to the XHA1. Better colour in that shot too.

In regards to the variable frame rate of the HVX, I honestly believe that's just a gimmick to make the camera more appealling. Variable frame rates can be achieved very easily in editing providing the footage has been shot in either 60i or 50i using any HDV camera capable of 1080i. Preferably with a higher shutter speed of course. In Vegas for example it's very simple. Just make sure your project is set to progressive with deinterlacing set to interpolate. Load an interlaced clip onto the timeline, right click on the clip and adjust the playback rate. Could it be any easier than that on the HVX? A playback rate of 0.5 would be the same as shooting at 60fps on an NTSC HVX. Of course it can be adjusted too, so you're not stuck with whatever rate you filmed at.

Of course you lose a field and your vertical resolution is halved working this way. But remember the HVX's sensors are only 960x540 and the variable frame rate only works at 720P. So doing this on a camera such as the XHA1, or even the HV20, a Sony etc, you'll still end up with a higher resolution image.

Hello Steven,

I edited my previous post. I didn't see your last post before.

So, you are not downloading directly from the P2?

I can't judge your last clip because I can't get wmv files to play smooth.

What I can tell from the clip is that the HVX was not optimized.

Another important questions are:

1: Shutter Speed and frame rate.
2: How did you get two different formats & frame rates on one timeline?
3: What setting did you use to compress for the web?

There are many other variables that make either camera look better. As far I can tell from the wmv, they both look terrible (24f or 24p), but again all wmv look that way to me. (G5 Quad, 4.5 GB)

Another unrelated question. Can the color in the A1 with your VIVIDRGB be raised a tad more?

Thanks

Shutter speed was consistent on both cameras: 1/48
Frame rate was the same: 24fps
I converted the original MXF files from the HVX to Cineform 1280x720 files so I could read them as native 24p files.
I captured the Canon footage using Premiere and Cineform and exported the capture to Cineform 1280x720m 24p
I then opened up a 1280x720 24p project in Vegas 7. I stacked both files on the timeline, ensuring they were aligned to the same event in the frame. I scooted over the HVX file halfway across the edit window which gave me a split screen effect.
I then rendered the project out as a 1280x720, 24fps, 10mbps WMV

All the while the 24fps frame rate was preserved for both cameras.

Like I said, I'm not putting this comparison up for any other reason than to compare how both cameras do 24fps. Quality of footage or colors, etc. are irrelevant.

BTW, the footage looks and plays fine on my computer.

Regarding VIVIDRGB, the colors are already pretty saturated but if you want more, then just do it in post. Adding more color to the preset is going to start introducing noise. It's optimized to give the most amount of color without introducing noise.

The motion looked the same to me for both cameras, I did not notice any difference.

it looked like the hvx had more grain and a lower quality image + the colors didnt look as rich...
but the motion did look the same (24p=24f) no diff to my eye...

-Sam~!

At 24 fps (native), and 1/48s shutter there cannot be any difference between motion rendition...can there? I can understand 24p, for example from the HV20 in 24p mode, looking wonky at 29.97 fps but once 3:2 pulldown is performed...it looks exactly the same as the XH-A1 24fps.

I can see a difference, but it's very very subtle. If you look at the grass on the XHA1 side, it appears to move more fluidly. Where as the HVX grass appears to strobe very slightly. A similar effect to watching 15fps video. Or perhaps due to there being slightly more motion blur from the XHA1?

If you shoot everything at 24fps and capture properly (in FCP in the 1080p24 setting) and edit in a 24p timeline, it's the same--24 fps is 24fps if there's no pulldown involved (like with the HV20).

Last summer I saw a demo of the XDCAM HD FP350 and then later in the day a music video shot with the HVX200. They both looked great, and the HVX looked surprisingly good on the closeups. There were no long shots in the piece, and the lower resolution of the camera would show up there probably. However, I'd be happy with that camera too (except for the P2 part). I think there's way too much measurebating about cameras, formats and all. Thanks to Chris for that wonderful word--wish I had thought of it. You can shoot a decent film with any of the small HD cameras that are out there today. The quality is amazingly good from any of them. And shooting 24p is fine but not really necessary even if you're going to film. Two years ago I had a music video transferred to 35mm film that I shot with a DSR500 mostly, and closeups and slow shutter effect shots with a DSR250. It was all shot and edited at 60i. The resulting print looked exactly like the video, actually a little better. I thought the reverse pulldown would make it funky but on the big screen you really couldn't notice anything...unless you watched it half a dozen times with your measurebating glasses on.

When Barry Green did his comparison article on the XH-A1 and HVX200 he did a nice split video comparison. Motion and blur were exactly 100% the same.

Yeah, I only put my own example up there because someone was saying they thought the Canon 24fps motion was different....obviously that's not the case.

That's it.

Steven what CineForm you using?

btw VividRGB is the first preset I got for my g-1 :D
I was like a kid in the candy store when sucking up the HD-sdi into the machine with CineForm.....lol

AspectHD 4.3 for Premiere Pro 2.0

I've looked at the two clips about 20 times on a 24" monitor. Paying attention to the grass, detail in the moving vehicles, detail in the road, sign and orange bleeding in the sign. Frankly the HXV200 footage looks just a "hair" better to me. What am I missing here since most comments are the XHA1 looks better?

Regards,

Okay, I don't want to come across as being cranky but I downrezzed the Canon footage and did not grade the pictures. As I said in my original post:

Don't worry about the resolution or color grading, just concentrate on the motion. HVX is set to 24p, XHA1 is set to 24f


So please don't comment on the picture quality because it is not an apples to apples test....only the motion is accurate.

Ok Steven I understand. This was just such a great opportunity to look at both side by side and consider all the variables.

Regards,

I've looked at the two clips about 20 times on a 24" monitor. Paying attention to the grass, detail in the moving vehicles, detail in the road, sign and orange bleeding in the sign. Frankly the HXV200 footage looks just a "hair" better to me. What am I missing here since most comments are the XHA1 looks better?

Regards,
If you were on the P2 forum most people would see it your way.

No preconceived notions here. I own a SD cam but am looking to move up. It dosen't matter to me what the "brand" it is. Just want the best possible image from a cam that fits my budget.

No preconceived notions here. I own a SD cam but am looking to move up. It dosen't matter to me what the "brand" it is. Just want the best possible image from a cam that fits my budget.

You don't, but the people who own one do.

I personally like the image of my HVX better. The thing is that with the HVX you need a good quality LCD to focus ($1,200) a 2X lens converter ($800), P2 cards or FS-100 HDD ($1,800). That is just to match the A1's better LCD, the 20X zoom, HDV tape recording. The auto-focus on the HVX is totally useless.

At 3 times the price what you get as I said before a better image, 1080p24-30-60i, 720p25-30-60, DVCPRO50 24p-30p-60i, DVCPRO25 24p-30p-60i, DV24p-30p-60i on tape. You also get frame rates from 2-60 for super fast motion to over 2x slow motion at 720p. You also get time lapse, HD at higher color resolution 4:2:2, independent audio channels 1 and 2 plus build in mike on 3 & 4 and no HDV 4:2:0 rendering.

The audio system on the A1 is not very good at all. The auto level is very consumer like. There are some reports in this forum of audio interference from radio or TV stations. I had an interference while using the build-in on the penthouse of a hotel. I didn't notice at first because the music was so clear that I though that is was the original music being played at the party. When I put all 3 cameras sound together is when I noticed.

So the question is, How much can you afford? If you can only afford $3,500 then there is no better camera than the A1 at that price range.

I own both and I am very happy with them. They both have different uses.

I like what I got for the price I got it. If I had $100,000 to spend I wouldn't get any of the sub $10,000 camera.

thank you for the effort.

You also get time lapse, HD at higher color resolution 4:2:2, independent audio channels 1 and 2 plus build in mike on 3 & 4 and no HDV 4:2:0 rendering.

The audio system on the A1 is not very good at all. The auto level is very consumer like. There are some reports in this forum of audio interference from radio or TV stations. I had an interference while using the build-in on the penthouse of a hotel.

Are you saying that on the XH-A1 you cannot record to each audio channel separately? Is it not possible to record a separate mic on each channel?

I am looking at the V1U and the XHA1, and I was leaning toward the XHA1, but if I can't record separate channels on the XHA1, that's a problem. And, if the audio on the XHA1 is unusable, that's also a problem.

Is it not possible to record a separate mic on each channel?

Of course it does.

Bill

a colleague just purchased the hvx, and i had the chance to play around it with for the first time outside of a store showroom all week, so here's my two cents. it's definitely a nice camera -- gorgeous image, and the variable frame rates are very cool. having held both in my hands for at least a few days, i find it really would be a tough call between the hvx and xha1, EVEN if the camera packages were the same price. i love the xha1's extra resolution (i know just how much resolution seems to be debated, but the a1's advantage here is pretty clear to my eyes) and tape-based workflow. and i love love love the hvx's variable frame rates. the p2 concept is cool, but it can get so cost prohibitive, especially for casual users and enthusiasts, and the xha1's hdv implementation has been nothing short of great for me. in low light situations, the xha1 has an edge. i had two 1k softboxes and a 500w overhead running, and was still picking up some visible noise on the hvx, tho it wasn't objectionable and the picture was very nice. i find the audio is fine on both cams for the majority of stuff, and would run separate sound anyway, regardless of camera, for anything involving more complicated setups. you hear this countless times, but if i had to choose one or the other, it really would come down to where the majority of my work came from. all costs aside, they both kick out a lovely image. if i was doing a lot of chroma key work and had a requirement for a lot of slow motion stuff, i would go hvx. if i needed a little boost in resolution and wanted to stay tape-based, i would pick up an xha1. also, the xha1's lens goes wider and has almost twice the zoom range of the hvx. in any case, it's hard to go wrong either way IMHO, but, in the pure interest of "getting the shot", each camera has strengths that might make it a better tool for the job.

also, the xha1's lens goes wider

Just to clarify, the wide end of both cameras is pretty much identical.

Just to clarify that audio issue that was mentioned in the long post above, that is not a camera problem when you get interference from a radio station. And yes you can record into two different channels. The only downside I've found in audio on the XH A1 is that you can't record line in to one channel and mic in to the other. You have to be both line in or mic in even when using 2 different mics. That is not a problem for most anybody.

I also compared the two cameras before buying the Canon. I wanted the HVX200 because of the variable frame rate; however, the tradeoffs of other things made it not worth it for me. If I shot nothing but sports, then I would have figured out a way around the P2 workflow. (Sony seems to have that issue solved with the upcoming XDCAM EX.)

I thought the viewfinder and LCD of the HVX200 were adequate. I don't use the LCD all that much. I also think the balance is better than the XH A1 for hand held shooting. Both camera's lenses are equally wide, but the Canon has a 20:1 zoom. I think the HVX is about 12:1. I really like the look of the HVX on closeup and medium shots but it seems softer than the Canon on long shots. I think if Panasonic comes out with some sort of little Bluray burner, as Sony is doing with the XDCAM EX system, and the price of P2 goes down while capacity goes up, then the workflow could improve significantly. What makes a camera like the XDCAM EX good for people like me is that it's fairly easy to transfer your footage from the SxS cards to burn XDCAM discs. So it's just like shooting XDCAM HD except you have to go through the additional step of making the archival disc...not quite as convenient as putting a tape on a shelf, but not too bad, considering the cost.

Just to clarify that audio issue that was mentioned in the long post above, that is not a camera problem when you get interference from a radio station. And yes you can record into two different channels. The only downside I've found in audio on the XH A1 is that you can't record line in to one channel and mic in to the other. You have to be both line in or mic in even when using 2 different mics. That is not a problem for most anybody.

Thank you for the clarification. One situation needing mic/line different on the channels 1 and 2 might be when you are using a mic on one and a feed from a board or sound system on the other. However, in these situations, a mixer would solve the problem and work better anyway.

I suppose there isn't any built-in attenuation on the mic inputs, or maybe there is, but not adjustable independently? In any case, I will check to find out.

The XH-A1 is looking to be the best choice for what I need it for.

...
I suppose there isn't any built-in attenuation on the mic inputs, or maybe there is, but not adjustable independently? In any case, I will check to find out.
...

It's there, independent for each channel.

About P2 workflow, I think things will go slightly different direction in near future with very high speed and capacity CF media. For now, P2 is not practical solution for majority of users.

Are you saying that on the XH-A1 you cannot record to each audio channel separately? Is it not possible to record a separate mic on each channel?

I am looking at the V1U and the XHA1, and I was leaning toward the XHA1, but if I can't record separate channels on the XHA1, that's a problem. And, if the audio on the XHA1 is unusable, that's also a problem.

You can not record to XLR and internal for safety at the same time. You can record to XLR 1 and 2 separately.

Just to clarify that audio issue that was mentioned in the long post above, that is not a camera problem when you get interference from a radio station
I own 6 cameras and never had interference while using the internal mic. How then it is not a camera problem.

I really will like to know what I am doing wrong.

You can not record to XLR and internal for safety at the same time.Correct, and this isn't possible because the internal mic is stereo and therefore always requires two channels for recording, leaving no other audio track available for an additional source via XLR. This is possible with the XL series camcorders when the option to record four audio channels is enabled via the menu. Four channel recording is not available on the XH series camcorders.