XL H1 vs XDCAM
 

the other day I had a long discussion about the difference in the quality of this two cameras. my friend was pretty sure that XDCAM was much better. he has seen the footage with my xl h1. So what's your opinion? I don't think it should be much better to xl h1 with uncompressed SDI.

The simple truth is, any camera with larger sensors will give more dynamic range. There are other factors as well, but all things being equal, the larger sensors will win. The main reason is that if you put the same number of pixels on a 2/3 as on a 1/2 or 1/3, the pixels have to get smaller and smaller to fit on the smaller ccd. This makes each pixel less sensitive to light and therefore reduces the dynamic range available.

There are many situations where you might be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two cameras based on image alone.

Go get a copy of the September issue of DV magazine. The Texas HD shootout is in there and you can read all the comparisons that we did.

-gb-

What about the comparison test that we all have read between xl h1 and cinealta F900, it was said that there was not a very noticable difference in resolution and in overall picture. Also, what about the MPEG compression with XDCAM and uncompressed with H1? does it not matter?

XDcam should be a lot better considering the pricetag (PDWF350 starting at 24 500 USD without lens).

You have HD SDI out on XDcam aswell, or?

no, as i know it doesn;t have it. so exactly that rises the question. is xdcam with a larger sensir but compression better than uncompressed h1?

Yes, the F350 has HD-SDI out. The F330 does not.

XDCAM HD is a funny thing. By the specs, it's not very impressive; it's easy to dismiss it as an overgrown HDV camera. In practice it's much better. The 330 and 350 start coming into their own when handed a situation that 1/3" cameras can't deal, like low light or an impossibly high dynamic range. They won't "fix" either situation, but the pictures they put out in both look markedly better than the small cameras.

I would imagine the glass on the XDCAM cam is much better as well.

The cameras come without a lens, and so far, people are putting everyhting from $20k+ 2/3" HD lenses on them, to cheap 1/2" industrial lenses.

Intrestingly enough, the cheap lenses still give a very much HD image, even if with a fair amount of defects. (Kinda like the lens that comes with the HD100!)

what about cinema lenses? can adapter like mini35 be use with xdcam? for me DOF is very important.

You'd use the PS Technic Pro35, with a 2/3" to 1/2" adapter.

Resolution is but ONE of many factors. I am not a huge fan of the F900 series but it BLOWS THE XLH OUT OF THE WATER for almost all applications. The XDCAM-HD cams are 1/2" CCD and will be better than the XLH in most applications. The 350 also does fun frame rates, etc. I am not a fan of the compression but on the best settings, it looks terrific. It looks dang good on most settings for that matter. Is the XDCAM-HD a better cam than the XLH? I think most people would say yes...



ash =o)

Comparisons and contrasts between cameras are fun and informative. But while doing so, please keep in mind it isn't always apples-to-apples. There are many, many variables, including cost -- and which of those variables are important to you make the "which camera is better" question mostly a personal, subjective decision rather than a fact.

The XDCAMs are full-size shoulder-mount, record on optical discs, and with good glass added, are in a price class about 3 times the XL H1. The XL H1 is compact for a shoulder-mount, records to tape, and has a bit less lattitude than the XDCAMs. Overall resolution is similar. From what I've read, the H1 using HD-SDI should do a slight bit better for controlled keying work because the higher rez CCDs put out more chroma information. If low light performance is supremely important, little doubt that the XDCAMs will, uh, shine. Is extremely shallow depth of field the most important thing in your life? The XDCAM would have a slight edge due to the 1/2" chip, but neither of these cameras "as is" will impress you...time to spend another 3 times the money!

And those are just a few of the considerations. By and large, you get what you pay for. Yet even across price classes, a particular feature may rock your world. That's why we say regularly here that there's no substitute for putting your hands on the cameras and seeing how you like them.

Personally, I'm bit disappointed with Canon XL h1, and here are the reasons why.

First of all, the camera costs around $9000 and its lens is anything but professional! If Canon previously validated XL2’s 20X lenses (or previous XL series) by claming that it was not fully pro camcorder, than it makes no sense with XL h1, because of $8000+ price range. In other words, only costumers interested buying a camera with that price would be either pro videographers or cinematographers interested in cheaper film-look solutions. Therefore, the h1 should have been released with only pro manual lens (JVC, for instance made a right decision with GY HD100’s lenses)
Second, there is no 24P on h1 (unlike 350 Xdcam)
Also, there is a difference in sensor size, not to mention all the conveniences associated with XDcam’s hard disc – its reusability and its recording times.
So, as far as camera, F350 is better, but, than again, it costs more than
$30 000 with lens…

Not quite right. The full story would be:

1-Canon decided to call a 24P end-result 24F just to head off critics (assumedly). They get to that end result using interlaced chips.

2-Sony is also using interlaced chips on the F330 and F350. In the end, I think they make the correct marketing decision. It's a perfect fascimile of true 24p, except that V res is somewhat compromised in 24p mode. Not many people realize they do this on these cams.

In both cameras, I feel the fake 24p mode is perfectly acceptable.

There is no 24 "P" on the F350 XDCAM either. The F350 XDCAM does not have progressive scan CCDs. Both the XL H1 and the F350 XDCAM have 24fps emulation modes that most users find to be just as good as 24P.