|
|
|
Texas Shootout!(2)
|
By Adam Wilt, September 1, 2006
Correction: There was an error in the original publication of this article, both print and online. In the outdoor tests, the Sony XDCAM HD was actually recording in 25Mbps, not the 35MBps bitrate originally reported. That error has been corrected in this online version of the article, and a correction will appear in the next issue of DV.
Following filmmaker Barry Green's tests on Canon's HL X1, JVC's GY-HD100,
Panasonic's AG-HVX200, and Sony's HVR-Z1 in Burbank, California, (featured on DV.com as "Four Affordable HD Camcorders Compared"), Chris Hurd of dvinfo.net, Mike Curtis
of hdforindies.com, and I arranged a four-day test near Austin. We explored the
same four cameras more thoroughly, recording to their native formats, using test
charts and static scenes, dynamic motion, indoor and outdoor setups, and
location work. We also went handheld, to roughly evaluate the cameras for run
'n' gun work. We shot some scenes using the high-end Panasonic AJ-HDC27H VariCam
as a reference, and took the opportunity to get a first look at the new Sony
PDW-F350 XDCAM HD camcorder.
Omega Broadcast Group (www.omegaaustin.com) provided facilities, monitors,
lighting, tripods, cameras, and Macs. Seven camera operators came from across
the country, bringing gear with them. A five-person capture crew worked with
Mike to record live signals and playback from each camera's native format; one
person was fully occupied logging camera setups and shots (see sidebar for
credits).
We spent four feverish days working to capture almost 60 separate
setups, about half of them recorded uncompressed to hard disk in Mike's array of
Macs and all recorded to native formats: HDV and DVCPROHD tapes, P2 DVCPROHD
cards, and XDCAM HD optical disks. Where possible, natively recorded files were
imported into FCP for analysis (the P2 recordings and 60i/50i HDV), while other
clips (24f Canon, 24p JVC, the XDCAM HD shots) were captured via SDI or analog
component to uncompressed files in FCP, from which Mike made JPEG2000 or
DVCPROHD files to send me via FTP.
The analysis that follows is based on both on-set playback and discussions we
held at the time, as well as detailed examination of footage, which I did upon
my return from Austin. In the former case, we used the 1280 x 768 Panasonic BT-
LH1700W monitor, a 1440 x 1050 Canon Realis LCOS projector, and a 42-inch plasma
of unknown resolution. Afterwards, I played back footage using Final Cut Pro
5.0.4 using FCP's Digital Cinema Desktop Preview playback to a 1920 x 1200 HP
LCD and analog component playback to the same display using an AJA Kona LH card
for detail, and HD-SDI playback from the Kona to a BT-LH1700W, for highlight
handling and dynamic range.
Please read Episode 1 of "Affordable HD Camcorders Put to the Test" for caveats
related to camera tests. I don't have space to reprise them. In the Burbank
tests, we inadvertently handicapped the Canon XL H1. In Austin, we ran the
HVX200 at a disadvantage. Keep that in mind. Also read reviews of the individual
cameras (May '05, May '06, June '06 DV; online at www.dv.com/reviews). Check
dvinfo.net and hdforindies.com for other perspectives and more details-we ran
more tests (24p, 50i, uncompressed; detailed study of Panasonic VariCam and Sony
F350 images) than I have space to cover.
We shot test charts in standard video gamma and standard color matrices. While
this duplicated Barry Green's tests, Mike Curtis wanted fresh baselines, and I
had new charts (a DSC Labs ChromaDuMonde with seven-step resolution trumpets
the better to see aliasing with, and a MultiBurst Square Wave chart in place of
the Combi 4.1). We confirmed the findings of the Burbank tests, and added data
on the F350, on the XL H1 with the 3x wide-angle and 16x manual lenses, and on
the GY-HD100 with the 13x wide-angle zoom. But we also recorded natively, and my
report is solely on the native-recording tests, complete with luma and chroma
subsampling, so we're measuring system performance, not just raw camera
performance.
We shot charts (indeed, most footage) at apertures from f2 to f4, toavoid diffraction-limited resolution losses. Charts were shot from about five feet away (the exception being the 3x wide-angle on the XL H, requiring a very close chart), with lenses zoomed to fit, so these tests didn't exercise extremes of lens performance. We weren't trying to comprehensively test the lenses, we wanted rough baseline for system comparison.
All cameras were shot with sharpness minimized, except the Z1. The Z1 was set to
7 on a scale of 0 to 15, because it gets so soft at 0 we all agreed it needed
help. (The Z1's CCDs are 960 x 1080 native.) In retrospect, we should have done
the same with the HVX200, setting its sharpness between -4 and 0 on a scale of -
7 to 7; the HVX's 960 x 540 CCDs are coarse enough that it needs help, too.
The F350 performed admirably in 24p mode with shutter off: 800 TVl/ph horizontal
resolution and a solid 800+ lines vertically. However, when the shutter was
turned on at 1/48 second or higher, vertical resolution dropped to 540 lines,
and the image showed signs of field-doubling, like CineFrame modes on the FX1
and Z1 HDV cameras.
F350 images were crisp and contrasty, and made the XL H1 seem soft by
comparison. The F350 shows clear aliasing at 1000 and 1200 TVl/ph on the
MultiBurst chart; the XL H1's image is much flatter there. The camera and its
lens showed little chromatic aberration (C.A.) on the charts, which undoubtedly
contributes to the crispness of the F350's pictures.
We also looked at the Canon XL H1 with the 16x manual lens, and the 3x wide-
angle. Surprisingly, while they showed considerable barrel distortion, they
didn't suffer vastly in terms of overall contrast and sharpness. The stock 20x
and the 3x both showed considerable C. A., the well-regarded 16x much less so.
Indeed, the 16x looked to equal the 20x overall; what it may lack in detail it
makes up for with reduced C.A. (For more on using a manual 16x SD lens on the XL
H1, see Tim Sassoon's story in July 06 DV.)
The JVC's optional 13x lens looked about as good on the test charts as the 16x
in terms of sharpness, but I wonder how carefully I squared off the charts and
focused--different parts of different charts are in focus while other parts are
softer. The 13x showed less C.A. than the 16x on both charts, for a visually
crisper picture.
The HVX200 shoots both 1080- and 720-line formats, and it's sharper in 1080.
While its resolution is only 540 x 540 (TV lines per picture height horizontally
x TV lines vertically), the 1080-line recording preserves more of that
resolution. 720p recording uses 960 samples/scanline, so filtering for recording
causes detail near 540 TVl/ph to be diminished, whereas 1280-sample recording in
1080-line modes has a cutoff at 720 TVl/ph. 1080-line images show no graying-out
of detail at all--the images retain considerable contrast at 540 lines, simply
switching into aliasing at that point. Displayed on a 1080p monitor, scaled-up
720 images look a bit softer--although on a 720p display, there's little
difference aside from the grayed-out area at 540 lines on the vertical
resolution trumpets.
It's amusing to compare 720p charts: the JVC HD100, the least expensive of the
720p cameras, records the most detail, since its 1280 x 720 HDV recording
matches the square-pixel 720p format. Both DVCPROHD cameras cut off at 540
TLl/ph, the limits of DVCPROHD's 720p sampling. However, the HVX200's charts
show aliased detail well past that point, whereas the higher-resolution--but
better filtered--VariCam shows more uniform gray areas in both resolution
trumpets and multiburst patches beyond 540 lines. A naive observer might think
that the HVX is able to render higher resolutions, based on visible chart
detail, but that detail is really a spurious lower-frequency aliasing artifact
("Aliasing in Detail", June 06 DV). Look at the small text and other edges on
the ChromaDuMonde chart-it's crisper on the VariCam's image.
720p Results
| Camera | CCD pixels, HxV | luma sampling, H x V | H res x V res |
| JVC GY-HD100 | 1280 x 720 | 1280 x 720 | 700+ x 700+ |
| Pana AG-HDX200 | 960 x 5404 | 960 x 720 | 540 x 540 |
| Pana AJ-HDC27H | 1280 x 720 | 960 x 720 | 540 x 700+ |
1080-line Results
| Camera | CCD pixels, HxV | luma sampling, H x V | H res x V res | comment |
| Canon XL H1 | 1440 x 1080 | 1440 x 1080 | 800 x 700+ | (800 x 540 in frame modes) |
| Panasonic AG-HVX200 | 960 x 540 | 1280 x 1080 | 540 x 540 | (MTF high at 540 TVl/ph) |
| Sony PDW-F350 | 1440 x 1080 | 1440 x 1080 | 800 x 700+ | (800 x 800+ in 24p; 800 x 540 in 24p with shutter on) |
| Sony HVR-Z1 | 960 x 1080 | 1440 x 1080 | 540 x 700+ | (540 x 540 in CineFrame modes) |
Notes: Despite the similar numbers for the XL H1 and the PDW-F350, the F350's images were crisper, contrastier, and showed less chromatic aberation.
We left the AG-HVX200 in 1080/24PA mode for the rest of the tests.
We shot a high-dynamic-range (HDR) scene with each camera at the same location,
so there would be no angular differences between the shots (although the tripod
did get moved slightly at one point). The scene, showing Chris Hurd reading
Robert Goodman's Guide to the VariCam, is intended to show how each camera reacts
to extremes of light and shadow, and how each camera's color sampling affects
the image.
We white-balanced on tungsten, and gelled one background light with amber and
the other's bottom half with blue, so we could see how the cameras handle not
just overexposure, but overexposed color as well. Since there is no motion, the
codecs are not particularly stressed.
I took reflected-light readings using a Spectra Cine Pro IV-A light meter across
the black and white backdrops; compared to the gray area of the chip chart, the
black cloth is 4, 5, and 6 stops darker, while the row of six circles in the
patterned white cloth running across to the blue-gelled lamp are 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3,
4.5, and 5.5 stops brighter, an overall range of 11.5 stops.
For this and subsequent tests, we tried to set up each camera for the "best"
image visually, usually using nonstandard gammas and black stretch. We set each
camera up to expose the crossover point on the CDM's grayscales at 50 percent in
standard gamma, locked exposure, then dialed in the gamma and other settings we
desired. We left color matrices and gains alone. If we tried to match the
cameras, we'd still be there today, and besides, we wanted to compare the basic
color rendering of the cameras.
Canon XL H1: Cinegamma 2, black stretch on, low manual knee, sharpness -7. Gray
rendered at 37 percent.
JVC GY-HD100: Cinegamma, black stretch 3 (maximum), manual knee at 80 percent,
sharpness MIN (not off). Gray rendered at 43 percent.
Panasonic AG-HVX200: Cinelike D gamma (knee and black stretch not separately
controllable), sharpness -7. Gray rendered at 40 percent.
Sony HVR-Z1: Cinegamma 1, black stretch on, knee not controllable, sharpness 7.
Gray rendered at 37 percent.
Still frames show the results. However, because we tried to set each camera up
optimally (and arguably we could have done better on the Panasonic--I'll be
doing follow-up tests on the HVX200) and we left color rendering alone, these
shots cannot be directly compared for which one is "best"--only for how they
differently rendered the scene.
Dynamic range: Despite differences in tonal scale rendering, all four cameras
were roughly equal in handling extremes of light and darkness. The Canon did the
best job of shadow rendering, but (depending on how you look at things) may
sacrifice the highlights slightly at this exposure setting. The JVC crushed
blacks slightly more than the others, though it nicely separated shadows (as you
might expect from its 43 percent gray, the highest of the bunch). The flatness
of the HVX's Cinelike D gamma curve, without separate black stretch, left the shadows
compressed, though the detail is still there.
Color rendering: As the stills show, the cameras do different things with color.
To my eye, the Panasonic and JVC are the most natural, most closely matching
actual scene colors. The Canon and Sony are more saturated and "Kodachrome"-
like--they match each other fairly well, with the Sony tending more towards
orange in the reds.
The stills also show differences in color sampling. The HVX200's 4:2:2 color
pretty much reproduces the scene as it was, albeit a bit softer horizontally
than the luma signal. The JVC's 4:2:0 progressive chroma shows some coarsening
in the vertical direction, most noticeably on the red cloth against the green
backdrop, and in the cover of Goodman's Guide. The Canon and Sony, using 4:2:0
interlaced images, show pathologically evil chroma sawtooths in the red cloth,
Goodman's Guide, the orange pitcher, and the test chart--an artifact of 4:2:0
interlaced color.
This sawtoothing can be ameliorated with chroma blur, but it's even more of a
nuisance than DV25's 4:1:1 sampling. In fairness, FCP's codecs show what's there
without chroma smoothing (see http://adamwilt.com/24p/#CodecDifferences),
whereas playback hardware and other software codecs often provide some sort of
smoothing or filtering. 24f images captured from the XL H1's tape via a Kona
card to uncompressed 4:2:2 files on the Mac do not show sawtoothing. The Canon
smooths the image upon output, arguably with a slight drop in chroma resolution.
The XL H1 stands apart in highlight handling. Observe the blue wash on the
backdrop, for example. Most of the cameras simply let color components saturate,
with hue shifts in areas of incipient overexposure. The blue wash goes cyan as
both the blue and green channels reach maximum values. The Canon desaturates
these bright areas, preventing hue shift. While there may be a slight loss of
detail in some overexposed areas as a result, many find the resulting image more
naturalistic. Different cameras, both SD and HD, handle the abruptness of hue
shift in different ways (most probably due to differences in knee processing),
but the XL H1 is the first low-cost camera I've seen that eliminates it
entirely.
Noise: All the cameras are clean in the highlights, but show different noise
levels in the shadows, mostly noticeable in the wall and the floor at the left
side of the picture. The Z1's image is cleanest, followed closely by the XL
H1's. The JVC is noticeably noisier, and the HVX200 is slightly noisier than the
JVC. The HVX's noise is characteristically colorful, while in the others it's
mostly luma noise. Perhaps the higher chroma resolution of DVCPROHD is partly
responsible, but even in E-E mode, the HVX is visibly noisier.
We set up the cameras side-by-side, and introduced two female models, one blond
with pale skin and the other dark-skinned and dark-haired. We shot in wide,
medium, and close up framings. We shot close up at +1 and +2 stops to look at
overexposed skin tones. We shot medium-wide at -2 stops for shadow handling,
then switched off key and fill for more underexposure. We also shot medium-wide
at +6dB and +12dB.
Both the HD100 and the XL H1 handled overexposure the best, showing the least
blowout and less hue distortion just prior to blowout. Their +2 stop shots were
only slightly worse than the HVX200's and Z1's +1 stop shots--but recall that
exposures were set in normal gamma on the gray card and aren't directly
comparable: the HVX is nominally 1 stop overexposed in this setup. The HVX200
handled hue in overexposure a bit better than the Z1, but not as well as the JVC
or Canon.
In underexposure, the JVC fell below the others in shadow detail, but on the WFM
it appears its master black level was being crushed at 0 percent (and the
HVX200's is just riding above it) while the other cameras have their master
blacks set a few percent above 0 percent, so this test is inconclusive (it also
explains the crushed blacks in scene #9).
At high gains, the Z1 was the cleanest. Its +12 dB pix were better than the
others at +6 dB. The Z1 also held its chroma the best as gain was boosted, while
the other cameras tended to desaturate unevenly. The XL H1 was a close second in
noise levels, while the HVX and HD100 got the worst marks: at +12 dB, they
looked like fast 16mm film from the 1970s.
We had our models stand in front of a greenscreen and blew their hair with a
fan. They walked at varying speeds past the set, and danced in it in medium and
closeup framings. They shook patterned blankets to stress codecs. Martial
artists sparred in both normal and low-key, side-lit scenes.
For the most part, all the cameras behaved perfectly well. The HVX showed no
motion degradation--with its intraframe DVCPROHD codec, moving frames look as
good as static frames. However, in normal playback, the long-GOP formats handled
these scenes just as well as the HVX, with no noticeable compression artifacts.
Only on the shaky blanket tests did the long-GOP cameras show a bit of
degradation in the fast-moving detail, with the XL H1 and the F350 doing the
best and the HD100 and Z1 showing noticeably more compression artifacts on still
frames--but all clips, played back at 1x speed, looked fine: it required single-
framing or slo-mo playback to notice defects.
Our quick 'n' dirty greenscreen setup didn't provide adequate separation between
our blonde model and the background, making keying difficult, at least at my
level of experience. I found it easier to get a clean key with less background
spill on the DVCPROHD footage than on any of the HDV clips, but I don't know
whether to attribute this to the HVX's 4:2:2 chroma sampling or its different
color rendering overall.
We took the cameras outside and had each operator handhold each camera while
shooting a martial artist practicing fighting-staff moves, so we could compare
handling, image stability, and ease of focusing.
As might be expected, the shoulder-mounted HD100 and XL H1 gave the most stable
images, with the JVC capturing the smoothest moves despite its lack of image
stabilization. The HVR-Z1 did very well for a handheld. Sony's excellent optical
Steadyshot soaked up whatever tremors the operators imparted to the camera. The
HVX fell behind the others--its weight and off-center handgrip clearly reduced
everyone's ability to handhold it smoothly. Panasonic's optical image
stabilization is less aggressive than Canon's and Sony's, and it appears to
operate over a smaller angular deflection, so it was less effective in removing
handheld jitters.
Rough ranking
| Perfection | 10 |
| HD100 | 8 |
| XL H1 | 7 |
| HVR-Z1 | 5.5 |
| HVX200 | 3 |
| Blair Witch | 0 |
None of the four cameras excelled in on-the-fly focusing, with every one showing
at least a couple of out-of-focus shots. The JVC and Canon footage appears to
have been shot at smaller apertures (deeper depth of field), so it's hard to
make conclusive statements about focusability.
All operators expressed a preference for the crisp CRT finders on the F350 and
VariCam--their larger sensors and corresponding shallower DoF may have
influenced this somewhat, but no one could deny the advantage that crisp, 500+
line CRT finders with variable peaking gave over the coarse LCDs on the low-end
cameras.
|
AD Nate Weaver Says
Assistant Director (and GY-HD100 owner/operator) Nate Weaver had this to say
about the handheld tests:
HVR-Z1. Not a fan of the handycam form factor. Important buttons are not in
intuitive places. Handycam is hard to handhold steady. Stabilization helps, but
still retains "small cam handheld" footage feeling. LCD is almost better than
viewfinder for daylight use once you learn how to expose with the reflective
backing of LCD.
HVX200. Again, not a fan of handycam form factor. Viewfinder magnification is a
joke, focus very difficult through it. Flip-out LCD is very low-res, confidence
in focus is low. EVF peaking barely serviceable. Focus assist difficult to use
in-shot. Manual focus-by-wire works well.
XL H1. Eyepiece magnification very high, but LCD res is so low the large image
size is moot. Controls in good places for the most part. Sits on shoulder
reasonably well. Same issues with focus assist methods as HVX-peaking isn't
enough, focus assist hard to use in shot.
HD100. My favorite, but everybody expected that. Switches are in right places.
More important, focus assist methods are useful and work.
VariCam. The way it's supposed to be done. Viewfinder peaking works perfectly
and makes quick-action focusing easy as possible. Heavy on shoulder, but what
you'd expect at this level. You need experience with this cam to get fast on it.
F350. Same comments as VariCam, except slightly shorter body helps film-style
production length issue.
|
I took each camera in turn and tracked Mike Curtis as he walked and ran twice
around me over the course of about 40 seconds, passing areas of shadow and
highlight, to get roughly comparable footage of fast motion and typical sunlit-
scene contrasts. I also held a medium telephoto lockdown in the middle of the
shot to see how stably I could hold the camera. I ran the F350 at both 25 Mbps
and 18 Mbps to compare it to the other cameras.
As in the previous series of shots, all my lockdowns were acceptable aside from
the HVX, which I wasn't able to hold sufficiently still. In motion, though, the
HVX footage wasn't substantially worse than the footage from the other cameras.
This scene was the most revealing in terms of compression quality, as Mike ran
quickly past the shadowed front of Omega's facility. While the HVX's pix were
boringly consistent no matter what was going on, the long-GOP cameras all showed
increased noise during the most stressful parts of the shot.
| Camera | Bitrate/GOP | Still quality | 1x quality |
| HVX200 | 100/1 | 10 | 10 |
| XL H1 | 25/15 | 8 | 9.5 |
| F350 | 25/15? | 8 | 9.5 |
| HVR-Z1 | 25/15 | 7 | 9.5 |
| F350 | 18/15? | 5 | 9 |
| HD100 | 19/6 | 4.5 | 9 |
These rankings are on arbitrary scales. The quality degradation seen in normal
1x playback is an increase in noise in stressful scenes; it's only in still-
frame or slo-mo playback that compression artifacts show up as distinct defects.
I was impressed by how good Canon's HDV codec held up. It was even better than
XDCAM HD's 25 Mb codec (although the difference in the shots makes such
comparisons suspect). And while XDCAM HD's 18-Mb image was visibly worse
than the 25-Mb image, it wasn't unusably so. JVC's codec also fell short of the
mark here, even though it had an easier job (30 progressive frames per second at
1 megapixel per frame vs 60 interlaced fields per second at 1.5 megapixels per
frame), but again, the pix were perfectly usable in 1x playback.
Back in the studio, we measured each camera's MOD (minimum objective distance,
or near focusing limit) at full wide and full telephoto. We also found the
breakpoint where the MOD starts moving out as one zooms in.
| Camera | Lens | WA MOD | Breakpoint | Tele MOD |
| HD100 | 5.5-88mm | 0" | 16mm | 32" |
| HVR-Z1 | 4.5-54mm | 0" | Z56, ~12mm | 32" |
| HVX200 | 4.2-55mm | 1.5" | 20mm | 21" |
| XL H1 | 5.4-108mm | 1" | Z64 | 37.5" |
Notes:
- "Z" scales run from 00 to 99; could not correlate Canon's Z scale with focal
length due to lack of a lens scale.
- Canon specifications give the XL H1's 20x WA MOD as 20mm (.79 inches), tele
MOD as 1m (39.4 inches)
- HVR-Z1 breakpoint measured at Z51 in Austin, but we didn't write down its
focal length; I measured Z56 and 12mm on my own Z1 after the fact.
The cameras were hauled out to Auditorium Shores, on the south bank of the
Colorado River across from downtown Austin. There we shot the statue of Stevie
Ray Vaughan, trees blowing in the wind, and a slow pullback from a downtown
skyscraper to reveal downtown. Stuart English's daughters posed for a telephoto
shot by the water, and our two models sat on a blanket for two shots. We
photographed a dragon boat (in Austin!) practicing on the river, and close ups
of rocks and sticks being tossed into the water--all to get some real-world
footage with sparkling water, big skies, people, and both natural and man-made
backgrounds.
The HD100 showed sticky details in high-complexity, gently moving areas of
foliage-some elements of the image would freeze for six frames, then jump
slightly, instead of moving continuously. I shot foliage specifically to invoke
this, but it was also seen in reeds, grasses, and leaves on the far riverbank
behind the dragon boat. It's a subtle defect, but on the big screen I wasn't the
only person to notice it. None of the other cameras showed sticky details.
The removable-lens JVC and Canon both had noticeable color fringing on contrasty
edges of buildings, telephone poles, and the like, while the Z1 and HVX were
less affected. Surprisingly, the JVC's 13x lens was no better on location than
the 16x, despite its superior showing on the test charts.
The models on the blanket both had light-blasted highlights on their skin. My
preference here is for the JVC's rendering, followed closely by the HVX: the
blown-out areas hold a bit of chroma and look a bit more natural than the
Canon's white highlights--which only goes to show that what looked good in the
studio didn't look quite the same in the field. Conversely, the JVC's highlight
rendering on water splashes was the least pleasing; its green-tinged watery
highlights looked less natural than the desaturated renderings of the other
cameras.
At no time did our HD100 show the splitscreen effect, regardless of subject,
light levels, or gain settings.
Winners and Losers
At the conclusion of these articles one is supposed to pick "the best camera"
and cast the others into darkness and damnation.
Sorry.
All these sub-$10,000 cameras would have been deemed miraculous two years ago.
At the same time, compared to their more expensive brethren (from the Panasonic
HDX900 and Sony PDW-F350 to the VariCam and the CineAlta), they all have severe
limitations. Each is a study in compromise--each manufacturer chooses some
aspects of performance and handling to optimize, invariably at the expense of
others.
Canon XL H1: The sharpest of the bunch, the best-looking 25-Mb codec,
impressively low noise (and that's without engaging any of the noise-reduction
options), and no hue shifts in highlights. Shoulder-mounted configuration aids
stability, but it's still a handful. Highlight handling looks better in some
shots than in others. Interchangeable lenses are a plus, but the stock servo
zooms, while responsive in run 'n' gun situations, are frustrating when precise,
repeatable moves are called for. Vivid colorimetry is a bit much, but it's
almost infinitely adjustable. 24f and 30f modes compromise vertical resolution.
JVC GY-HD100: Sharpest 720p recording and very pleasing, naturalistic image
rendering with excellent highlight handling. A shoulder-mounted HD100 makes
stable, steady pictures, and it's an ergonomic delight. Best focusing aids of
the bunch. Interchangeable lenses with calibrated zoom and focus scales. Its
codec suffers the most degradation under stress, and long-GOP sticky details
detract from subtle motion rendering. It's a bit noisy, too.
Panasonic AG-HVX200: DVCPROHD recording with consistent, surprise-free rendering
of simple and complex scenes alike. Pleasing colorimetry, but lots of noise.
Least stable handheld, and softest image.
I think we discriminated against the HVX by using Cinelike D gamma and minimum
sharpness; HD Norm or High gamma with low manual knee and midrange sharpness
setting might be better choices. I'll be doing follow-up tests with different
gammas and sharpness settings. Also bear in mind the HVX's unparalleled
flexibility: 720p and 1080i/p, variable frame rates, time lapse, and single-
frame. This camera does things the others can't, something not explored in this
sort of test.
Sony HVR-Z1: It has the cleanest image, but was otherwise undistinguished. It
has no true 24p option. It is however the cheapest of the bunch, has in-camera
downconversion with letterboxing, full 50 Hz/60 Hz switchability in both SD and
HD, superb optical stabilization, and arguably the best servo zoom available.
Which one would I pick? I want the ergonomics and tonal scale rendering of the
JVC along with the sharpness and image processing of the Canon, combined with
the frame-rate and format flexibility, intraframe recording, and color of the
Panasonic, and the low-cost, low-noise, optical stabilization, and international
compatibility of the Sony. And I want better glass than any of them had. No
camera wins hands-down. None of them lose. Different tools for different needs.
Side-by-side tests like this overemphasize differences rather than noting
similarities. You can take any one of these cameras and shoot stunning material
with it. Which one you pick depends on your aesthetic preferences, working
style, and postproduction workflow.
Just choose one that works best for you and start shooting. Remember, talent
trumps technology every time.
|
Credits
Camera Operators:
Nate Weaver, Los Angeles CA, provided a JVC GY-HD100 and also served as first AD
and lighting director.
Pete Bauer, Houston TX, supplied a Canon XL H1 and lighting gear.
Michael Devlin, Foresthill CA, brought a Sony PDW-F350 and Leader LV5750 HD
WFM/vectoscope.
Greg Boston, Dallas TX, brought his Canon XL2.
Boyd Ostroff, Technical Director for the Philadelphia Opera, supplied a Sony
HVR-Z1.
Scott Cantrell, TapeWorks (www.tapeworkstexas.com), Texas Houston, supplied a
PDW-F350 body.
Jen White, Austin TX, operated the VariCam.
Capture crew
Craig Negoescu
Lary Cotten
Neil Halloran
Rita Sanders
Zane Rutledge
Talent
Stacy and Carolee of Austin Models & Talent.
|
|
Special Thanks
Omega Broadcast Group (www.omegaaustin.com) provided studio space and time, as
well as a VariCam, HD lenses, an HVX200, a Z1, assorted lighting equipment,
tripods, monitors, and Macs. Extra thanks to David Fry and Allan Barnwell at
Omega, as well as Jordan Hristov who helped coordinate all the equipment.
Carl Hicks and Craig Yanagi of JVC, and Geoff Coalter of Canon USA, for the
generous loan of expensive cameras.
|
|
Chris Hurd (www.dvinfo.net) organized facilities, personnel, and equipment, and
made sure people got fed.
Mike Curtis (www.hdforindies.com) supplied Macs and RAIDs, set up capture
systems, captained the capture crew, and wrangled footage.
Adam Wilt directed, shot, and generally annoyed everyone.
Lishka DeVoss kept all camera and shot logs and served as production runner.
Zane Rutledge doubled as a cameraman for the Auditorium Shores shoot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|