Is the Canon XH A1 still worth the money vs. owning an HV30?

[supergain]

For the price, I haven't been impressed with the HVX footage out there - and I've had less than positive experiences with Panasonic video equipment in the past. The codec might be worth it for archiving sports footage, but for normal narrative or run-and-gun, I find it a strange mix of pixel-shifted SD/HD sensors coupled with a high-bandwidth codec.

A1 footage, on the other hand, runs the gamut from very low-end looking video all the way to clips that compare favorably to anything I've seen out of any camcorder, period.

Most EX1 clips I've seen have a bit of a strange tint to skin tones. The overall color balance I'm looking for just doesn't seem to be there. I might be wrong, though - it might be due to the amount of folks with more money than chops jumping on the EX1 technology bandwagon and quickly posting some questionable results.

I admit - it's a bad time to buy a prosumer camera - but that's life. Thank goodness I was never banking on the Scarlet being out any time soon.

[Braceface]

I agree that it's a bad time to buy a camcorder. I'm REALLY watching the progress of what is coming out, especially with the new canon DSLR

[fishops]

Pixel Shifting in the HMC-150 only speculation on my part... But there are video samples you can view. With the HMC-150 it's not that the image is bad (it's a lot sharper than the HVX and looks better)...but it seems like it has the same noise issues as the HVX . Of course...when you downscale to 720p it hides them.

The HVX is a 720 line native camera. You can't "downscale" HVX footage to 720 to hide anything, that's its native chip resolution. Everything I've heard so far about the HMC seems to indicate that the 21MB AVC mode is as good if not better than DVCPROHD until you start pushing it up to 60P. I haven't seen any noise in any of the test clips I've seen, could you link me to an example?

For the price, I haven't been impressed with the HVX footage out there - and I've had less than positive experiences with Panasonic video equipment in the past. The codec might be worth it for archiving sports footage, but for normal narrative or run-and-gun, I find it a strange mix of pixel-shifted SD/HD sensors coupled with a high-bandwidth codec.

The HVX is a 720 line native camera. There's only one sensor, and it's HD. There's no pixel shifting involved at 720P when shooting with the HVX. What panasonic stuff did you have a problem with? I have had nothing but hate for their consumer line, it's definitely third-tier. Their pro line however has done me right for many years, and I've done some *terrible* things to DVX100s in the past

I'm really not trying to be a cheerleader for panasonic, it's just that I've used the HVX extensively for concert footage, events, short films and music videos that ended up on MTV, and I've never had the issues you guys are bringing up.

[supergain]

fishops,

I guess we're talking about different cameras. I'm referring to the HVX200, which has three pixel-shifted CCD's at 960x540. Native 16:9 720p is 720x1280. I'm getting these numbers from wikipedia.

[Ian-T]

The HVX is a 720 line native camera. You can't "downscale" HVX footage to 720 to hide anything, that's its native chip resolution.

I know this. I was not referring to the HVX with that comment. But..since you brought it up...that's part of my whole point. Being that it is native 720p...in addition to how it aquires its image....these factors (IMO) does not do the final image any justice. It does not mean it's a bad image...not what I'm saying at all...but...there are several consumer cams that far surpass its image (once again IMO).. I've said it before..."In-camera" color in the HVX is better than most cams in its class...but...the reality is....most of that can be done in post (where I would rather work).

But..back to the HVX's 720p...downsampling from a much higher resolution (than what it's capable of natively) would have made a tremendous difference with the HVX's "final" image. That's why I said...the HMC-150 is sharper....and IMO...better looking than the HVX. Basically....it's what the HVX should have been in the first place....especially for the type of money one pays for it... I'll take it one step further...but IMO (once again)...it's not even worth it to me to try and capture an uncompressed image from the HVX....the HMC...yes. It's been proven times and times again with a cam like....umm....the HV20.. if you want a decent looking SD image....it's better to downsample it fro a 1440x1080 image than shooting it 'in-cam" at SD. It's the same principle with the HVX...it it had a higher resolution sensor...even like the new cam...it would look much better delivering 720p.


Edit: This is also why I mentioned you would have to go up to the super expensive HPX to get a sharper more detailed image.

I haven't seen any noise in any of the test clips I've seen, could you link me to an example?

You've no doubt watched the same test clips that I've seen here.

I'm really not trying to be a cheerleader for panasonic, it's just that I've used the HVX extensively for concert footage, events, short films and music videos that ended up on MTV, and I've never had the issues you guys are bringing up.

Well...I had no problems with....and never noticed ANY rolling shutter artifacts in my HV20....until folks brought up the issue at DVXUser.com and here. Since then....I've been very concious about it...and am careful to work around it.

[Ian-T]

fishops,

I guess we're talking about different cameras. I'm referring to the HVX200, which has three pixel-shifted CCD's at 960x540. Native 16:9 720p is 720x1280. I'm getting these numbers from wikipedia.

You were right the first time. it's the same cams we are discussing. I don't quite understand all the mechanics behind it...but from what i understand... 960x540x3...is still only a 960x540 image . regardless of it being 3CCD's. In addition...pixel shifting is used in this process to get to the 1280x720p image. My whole point was....pixel shifting (though it has been used in other cams) causes the image to be soft...because it's sort of faking it to help get the image to 720p. resolution wise....the cam does not have any more potential.....though the image looks very good. but I think folks mistaken the soft look of the image...for..a "film-look".... I'd rather have the option to soften it myself.

[fishops]

fishops,

I guess we're talking about different cameras. I'm referring to the HVX200, which has three pixel-shifted CCD's at 960x540. Native 16:9 720p is 720x1280. I'm getting these numbers from wikipedia.

You're right, I concede that. I was mistaken.

there are several consumer cams that far surpass its image (once again IMO).. I've said it before..."In-camera" color in the HVX is better than most cams in its class...but...the reality is....most of that can be done in post (where I would rather work).

There may well be consumer cams that surpass the HVX's image. However, this stops being true as soon as you're on set and have two minutes to dial down exposure, lock shutter speed, check white balance and mark your rack focus (with the director breathing down your neck). Image is a sum of many parts, resolution being one (relatively minor) piece in the puzzle. Comparing the image to the EX1 is fair, and the HVX will almost certainly lose out. Comparing it to the HV20 or A1 is apples and oranges, and an irrelevant argument.

"Fix it in post" is also not a useful statement. Time is money, and every second you spend diddling with color correction in post is money out of the budget. With enough time in post you could make a handheld HV20 shot in 60i look like a 24P dolly shot with glossed out color and a cherry on top. It's not worth doing when you have a deadline, a budget, a director and a client.

[fishops]

also....ian-t......I think you need to stop.... counting pixels.......all those little dots....seem to be....affecting your...typing.............

[Ian-T]

"Fix it in post" is also not a useful statement. Time is money, and every second you spend diddling with color correction in post is money out of the budget. With enough time in post you could make a handheld HV20 shot in 60i look like a 24P dolly shot with glossed out color and a cherry on top. It's not worth doing when you have a deadline, a budget, a director and a client.

Yes you are right. I look at all of this purely from a hobbyist's POV. I was going to mention this....but...too....many....dots...on ...my....mind...ha ha.

And don't get me wrong...i wouldn't mind having an HVX. But looking at what's currently being offered out there vs the actual cost of the HVX and the P2 workflow...it better be able to wipe my a## too.