Hello! i was wondering if the Canon XH-A1 was the right camera for feature-length filmmaking. I looked at both the canon XH-A1 and the Panasonic HVX200 and i'm not sure which one to get. and do i need a 35mm adapter or is the canon XH-A1's 20X zoom good enough? (i think its 32mm) please give me some info about digital filmmaking and which camera to get. Thanks.
XH-A1 filmmaking
- Thread starter niceguy15
- Start date
Zack Birlew
Veteran
If I might direct you to the Other Cameras forum, you'll find a wealth of information on the A1 there.
To sum things up, the A1 is just as good as the HVX200 for filmmaking of any kind. However, the feature set is vastly different, the workflow equally so. It basically comes down to your needs. Need a slow motion shot? Get the HVX200. Need to save a few bucks for that Steadicam rental? Get the A1. Don't trust tape? Get the HVX200. The conversation can go on and on.
Look in the Articles section for a comparative review by Barry Green of both cameras.
Also, look in any of the hardware sections along with the A1 section, you'll find a post here and there talking about 35mm adapters of various make and style. There are some who argue that you don't need a 35mm adapter and there's some who swear by it. Just decide for yourself.
Finally, you can find a lot of 35mm adapter footage in any of the footage sections for any camera.
To sum things up, the A1 is just as good as the HVX200 for filmmaking of any kind. However, the feature set is vastly different, the workflow equally so. It basically comes down to your needs. Need a slow motion shot? Get the HVX200. Need to save a few bucks for that Steadicam rental? Get the A1. Don't trust tape? Get the HVX200. The conversation can go on and on.
Look in the Articles section for a comparative review by Barry Green of both cameras.
Also, look in any of the hardware sections along with the A1 section, you'll find a post here and there talking about 35mm adapters of various make and style. There are some who argue that you don't need a 35mm adapter and there's some who swear by it. Just decide for yourself.
Finally, you can find a lot of 35mm adapter footage in any of the footage sections for any camera.
Zack Birlew
Veteran
Dude, like I said, you'll have better luck talking about this in the A1 forum. This isn't the right section of the site to ask this question.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
no, the A1 is not right for filmmaking. it's right for practice. there, i said it.
Zak Forsman said:
Thats your opinion and fair enough. But a wet statement like does very little to help, if you have some factual reasons would be nice if you could state them otherwise its little more than trolling.
Would also be interested to hear of your personal experience with the Canon A1 that supports your claim.
cheezweezl
Veteran
xh-a1 (hdv) vs. hvx (dvc pro hd)
hdv sucks. there, i said that. get the hvx.
hdv sucks. there, i said that. get the hvx.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
HDV compression. HD networks won't even consider broadcasting programs unless the HDV content is a very small percentage. and on a big screen forget about it. the macroblocking, etc just falls apart. but it remains a good practice medium, imo. if you're going to project it theatricaly, and don't want an intentionally 'dirty' image, i'd avoid HDV altogether.ncje said:
-zach- said:
May I direct your attention to this thread
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=42291.
...and this one
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=73226
By the way, this thread is turning into a flame war really quickly. Original poster, all of this stuff have been discussed over and over hundreds of time, please take the time to do a search on the pro and cons of the cameras and the acquisition format and decide which is right for you. Don't listen to anyone who tells you that one format is completely "useless" for filmmaking; that's BS. HDV on tape, DVCPROHD on P2, they all have their advantage and disadvantage and may not be right for everybody. Do some research and make that decision for yourself.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
i've done the tests myself. I did them in december with some friends at Todd-AO. HDV did not hold up. not nearly as well as the HVX footage we tested. i would not be inclined to shoot on the format unless I were going for a gritty, dirty, chunky look. even then, i'd like to start clean and make a mess of it as i see fit in post. macroblocking doesn't have an organic grunge quality I would want anyway.ecking said:
jade8472 said:
i'm not disputing it doesn't look good on one's laptop. i'm talking about when these images are twenty feet tall. i'm talking theatrical exhibition. HDV is not going to hold up. now maybe that is part of your film's aesthetic and appropriate to the form of your story. great! but generally speaking, there are better alternatives that don't cost much more... namely... the HVX200.
no said it was useless. who are you "quoting"? it's a great format to develop your filmmaking skills with. andif you want to make a feature shot in HDV you can. in fact, i'm considering an idea where the small form factor of the new HV20 plus a Brevis35 would make for a uniquely styled handheld piece. but then, i revel in breaking the rules. but filmakers like me are an exception. it's a safe assumption that most people here aren't looking to make the next Inland Empire and i offered my advice accordingly.jade8472 said:
niceguy15 said:
no. he shot with the Sony F-900 and F-950.
Last edited:
ernesto
Well-known member
My opinion is that the XH-A1 would be a fine camera for a feature. My reasoning is that many movies that ended up with a wide release were shot on 4:1:1 720x480 DV. So if those movies looked good enough for the movie theater, I don't see why HDV 1080p wouldn't. I don't doubt that the HVX is better, but for the HVX you're going to pay about $5,000 and then about $1,000 for P2 cards, you'll also need a laptop on set and an assistant to take care of the P2 cards. So for the HVX you'll pay about $6,000 + Laptop + Assistant. For the XH-A1 you'll pay $3,250 and tapes cost you less than $10. The HVX is better, but the A1 is more than adequate for the job, so if you have the extra money and resources, go HVX, if not, go A1.
whachusay
Active member
This is a link to a short trailer that was shot on a "HDV" A1.... Looks pretty stellar to me! But that is just my little, little opinion. Either way you go you are getting a great camera! Again my small little opinion....
http://www.stefweb.net/mantoman/Trailer TEST 5.wmv
http://www.stefweb.net/mantoman/Trailer TEST 5.wmv
If you're able to get theatrical exhibition you're going to have to blow up to 35mm film in anycase because most theatres aren't equipped with 1080p projectors. If you can take 720x480 DV footage and blow it up for theatre release then I don't see why HDV should be a problem.[/quote]Zak Forsman said:
Zak Forsman said:
You did. I was paraphrasing a previous quote, "No, the A1 isn't right for filmmaking." It's absolutely ridiculous to say that HDV is unsuitable for making films, if not insulting. Evidentally all the people who are or has made films with the A1, the V1U or the HD110 aren't making "real" films, but are simply playing around.
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
just because you can, doesnt mean it is a suitable substitute for a professional or even prosumer codec. did you see Inland Empire? there is a case where the dv format was intrinsic to the piece. there was unity between form and content. but generally, if you are trying to emulate a studio produced, mainstream film, then you are better off avoiding a consumer grade codec like HDV. at a minimum, you should be shooting DVCPROHD. unless, as I said before, the look of a macroblocking, purple-fringing A1 is unified to the content of the film.jade8472 said:
calling something useless (which i didn't) is much different from saying that a highly compressed codec is generally accepted as unsuitable for making feature films. the discovery channel won't even take it. I'm not saying you can't. that's what I meant by practice. how you took the leap that I was implying that the artistic endeavors of the people using consumer grade equipment are somehow lesser than that of someone with more money to blow suggests that you have no idea who i am and the reputation I have on this board. so i'm not even going to bother with a rebuttal. because I am the guy that would rather shoot a personal, unconventional feature on a Canon HV20 for $30,000 for a niche audience than spend $500,000 trying to chase those mainstream dollars by mimmickiing a more conventional studio picture.jade8472 said:
Last edited:
futureman
Active member
Many films have been shot on the xl-h1, which has the same optical performance as the a1, and released in theaters, it IS good enough.
If you really want the utmost quality get a g1, and do uncompressed output... that is the absolute most quality you can get out of a consumer grade camera, and is far superior to ANY on board codec.
But otherwise HDV is fine, unless you are shooting interlaced and there is a lot of motion in the scene!
If you really want the utmost quality get a g1, and do uncompressed output... that is the absolute most quality you can get out of a consumer grade camera, and is far superior to ANY on board codec.
But otherwise HDV is fine, unless you are shooting interlaced and there is a lot of motion in the scene!
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
again, im not saying it can't be done. in fact, i'm more inclined to say it should be done. but if most of the filmmakers here want to preserve the illusion of having made a $10 million dollar picture (for which they only spent $10,000), then they would do well to avoid the the shortcomings of HDV because when you exhibit theatrically, its going to bite you in the ass unless its part of your intended aesthetic for the picture. i mean, you could rent a Red One for the cost of buying a top of the line HDV camera.futureman said: