Jump to content


Photo

Hvx200 vs Canon xl2


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 precious nchanji

precious nchanji

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Student
  • MN, st paul

Posted 28 March 2008 - 12:16 PM

I am a bit confused on what to rent for a music video i want to shoot, so i am looking for some advice or tips on which i should rent. This is my first music video ever
  • 0

#2 Kevin Olmsted

Kevin Olmsted
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Producer

Posted 11 April 2008 - 02:52 PM

Hello!

One camera being HD and one being SD, I think that is the first thing you need to ask yourself. HD or SD?

I don't think it's really worth renting the HVX-200 unless you're going to really take advantage of the full-blown HD that it is capable of. So if you go that route, are you getting P2 cards in with the rental or a Firestore-type device? If you shoot on tape, you can only shoot 25Mbps DV in which case a DVX-100 would more suit your needs and likely be cheaper. Also, are you just the DP or are you editing it as well? You'll need to make sure your system can handle the HD.

If your shooting SD it seems the decision is more between renting an XL2 or a DVX-100. Being more a Panasonic fan, that's my recommendation. Just personal preference but I like the color better and I believe it responds better in lowlight; I also prefer the various picture/color adjustments it offers. Also (I think) the DVX-100 supports true progressive frames, whereas the XL2 uses it's 'frame' mode which somehow fakes it. Again, mostly personal preference. The frame mode on the XL2 looks very nice. With the XL2 you have the advantage of renting additional lenses to suit different needs. I recommend getting a manual lens instead of the stock lens; the focus and zoom on the stock lens do not disengage from the servos when switched to manual and feel a bit sluggish when you want a real fast crash zoom or rack focus.

All in all the DVX-100 and XL2 are well-matched cameras, each with different advantages and disadvantages. The XL2 offers interchangeable lenses while the DVX caters more to filmmakers with more advanced cine options.

If your going HD then the choices change. I've shot a little bit on the HVX-200 and it is very nice, though unless you really need the full HD, you might also look at less-expensive cameras like the Canon XH-A1 or the Sony HVR-V1U, both shoot in their own forms of progressive and look very nice. On a fixed budget, a less expensive camera might free up money for other accesories.

I didn't think that maybe you meant the XL-H1 instead of the XL2 in which case I still recommend the HVX-200. Your still shooting HDV on the H1 versus full HD on the HVX-200 and your only real advantage is the interchangeable lens. I've shot with all the cameras I mentioned in this post except the XL-H1 but looking at the specs I don't think it's worth the $9K price tag.

I hope some of this info helps!

Kevin
  • 0

#3 Andrew Koch

Andrew Koch
  • Sustaining Members
  • 243 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Burbank, California

Posted 12 April 2008 - 03:26 PM

I would like to make a couple of corrections to the previous post. The XL2 does have true progressive scan. The "fake" progressive scan aka Frame Movie Mode, is a feature of the older XL1 models. One advantage of the XL2 over the DVX100 is that it has actual 16x9 CCDs whereas the DVX has 4x3 CCDs. On the DVX, if you want to shoot 16x9, you end up cropping your image by 25%. Some of the newer DVX models have a "squeeze" mode instead of simply letterboxing, but you are still not getting increased resolution.

The other thing I want to mention is that the HXV200 is not capable of fullblown HD. The camera uses CCDs that are 960 x 540 (Basically just a bit higher than standard def) and upresses them to HD resolutions using something called Pixel shift technology. Some people don't object to this and it might be fine for your purposes, but just realize that there is a reason why this camera costs $5,000 and not $30K for a true HD camera.
  • 0

#4 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 12 April 2008 - 04:26 PM

I don't think it's really worth renting the HVX-200 unless you're going to really take advantage of the full-blown HD that it is capable of.


I disagree with this point. Even if you're posting on standard def or for web delivery, you want to shoot at the highest quality you can manage (many standard def music videos are shot on 35mm film after all). The HVX also offers additional features like variable frame rates, and at standard def you can record in DVCPRO 50 mode for more robust color information for color correction.
  • 0

#5 Kevin Olmsted

Kevin Olmsted
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Producer

Posted 14 April 2008 - 11:21 AM

I apologize for any erroneous info I may have inadvertantly put in my original post.

Michael, you are absolutely correct. Capturing at the highest quality level posible is the best way to go. After all, you can always bring the quality down but not up.

I mentioned the 25Mb Dv because unlike some of the HDV camcorders out there, I believe the tape on the HVX-200 can only record 25; nothing higher. Just making sure that someone renting it would know that to take advantage of the HD aspect they would need to rent P2 cards or a Firestore as well. I've never rented gear so I don't know how that would work.

I guess if the choice was simply between the two cameras mentioned, I would choose the HVX200 for the main reason is, as Michael stated, get the highest quality source material.

Since the original post doesn't have a lot of detail, I still address the NLE as a possible variable in the choice of cameras. If the shooter is also the editor, one should make sure their computer can handle higher res video.

Andrew thank you for correcting me on those items. I have a DVX-100 and knew the chips were 4:3. I use an XL2 at work but everything we do (at 100 mph) is 4:3/30i so I've never dove into the more 'cinematic' elements of the camera. I should have looked before opening my mouth.

Kevin
  • 0

#6 John Atala

John Atala
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • L.A. & Rio de Janeiro

Posted 19 April 2008 - 07:04 PM

4:2:2 100mbit/sec vs. 4:2:0 25mbit/sec Mpeg-2

Hvx-200 is the way to go.
  • 0

#7 Hemant Tavathia

Hemant Tavathia
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • New Jersey

Posted 19 April 2008 - 07:13 PM

I don't think the question is which camera is better. The question is which camera should be rented for the music video. So, you gotta look at where the music video is finally going. What kind of look does the director want etc. etc. Between XL2 and HVX200, I prefer shooting on P2 cards on the HVX.
So, nchanji, if you have more info about the music video, i.e. where it is finally going, what you are editing on, budget, the look you are going for etc., the advice could be better.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 April 2008 - 09:47 PM

"Hemant T" -- you need to go to My Controls and edit your display name into a first and last name as per the forum rules listed at the top of the registration page. Thanks!

If "precious nchanji" is also not a real name, he should edit it as well...
  • 0


Glidecam

The Slider

Visual Products

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Opal

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Tai Audio

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineLab

Visual Products