How filmlike are the images of the A1?

[Rylan Zolinski]

I got my Xl2 back in October and I am not too pleased with it. I know most of the shooting has to do with the holder of the camera, but many agree that the XL2 isn't too amazing at producing movie like images. But how different is the A1? I am really considering on buying one if it mimics film quite well.

 

[Emanuel]

Follow the threads (related to the new HV20 too) and you might be able to answer to your questions by yourself. Good luck!

Sorry my approach (maybe it isn't what you could expect) but frankly speaking this is the best way to find what you're looking for.

 

[jleo]

Scott Billups On Canon's 24F:

"Billups had special praise for the 24 F feature of the XL H1 as well. “Canon's 24F system produces an output that looks and feels like 24-frame movie film,” he says. “While the technology is a closely guarded Canon secret, the proof is in the image. When digitally projected or printed to film, the image from the XLH1 compares more closely to those of ultra-high-end HD cameras than it does to the growing assortment of consumer HDV camcorders."

Full article: http://videoediting.digitalmedianet.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=43573

 

[Rylan Zolinski]

God damn, this camera is so hot. I am in pre-production for my short film and I think the A1 will suit my needs very well. The XL2 looks way too much like high quality home videos, no matter how much I tweak the image.

 

[KyleProhaska]

I went from an XL2 to the A1 and I can tell you its image looks almost like an HD XL2 image. If you want that film look your going to have to learn how to tweak the in camera settings. There's loads of presets people have made for this thing including many Panalook presets so no worries. Alot of what you'll get in camera, combined with any post color timing and such is going to give you the look you want. Even HVX and DVX users tweak their images man...its something everyone does lol. You'll like the A1.

- Kyle

 

[Huy Vu]

Just check out what Marlon Torres has done on his Junipero project. The first one was from the XL2 and the prequel he's working on is from an A1. From what I understand both were shot with mostly available lights and it looks incredibly cinematic.

 

[Rylan Zolinski]

I went from an XL2 to the A1 and I can tell you its image looks almost like an HD XL2 image. If you want that film look your going to have to learn how to tweak the in camera settings. There's loads of presets people have made for this thing including many Panalook presets so no worries. Alot of what you'll get in camera, combined with any post color timing and such is going to give you the look you want. Even HVX and DVX users tweak their images man...its something everyone does lol. You'll like the A1.

- Kyle

I noticed that the in-camera settings didn't do a whole lot on the XL2 image wise. I did a bunch of tests and with playing around with the colours and gamma and some other things and the outcome each time looked pretty much the same.

Is the A1 settings a little more fine tuned?

 

[mcbrad]

Just check out what Marlon Torres has done on his Junipero project. The first one was from the XL2 and the prequel he's working on is from an A1. From what I understand both were shot with mostly available lights and it looks incredibly cinematic.

I agree here. Marlon has put out some extremely cinematic looking footage. He's showing us what the A1 can really do in good hands (which it seems is what it all comes down to. The camera can look however you want it to look as long as you have the right person behind it.)

 

[marlontorres]

Thanks for the positive feedback guys. Anyway, I love the XH-A1 (yes, more than my XL2) it looks great in-camera and doing some post work just takes it to the next level of "filmlike" images. In fact, my footage isn't video... it's "VILM".

 

[Rylan Zolinski]

Thanks for the positive feedback guys. Anyway, I love the XH-A1 (yes, more than my XL2) it looks great in-camera and doing some post work just takes it to the next level of "filmlike" images. In fact, my footage isn't video... it's "VILM".

So is it exactly like a HD XL2 or is it a completely different camera? Everyone that owns a DVX says that the DVX uses it's "mojo" to create filmic like video. Does the XH A1 seem to have it's own "mojo" as well?

 

[marlontorres]

I dunno about mojo, XH-A1 gives me a great look out of the camera than I use my post production skills to enhance it. I feel like everyone gives too much credit to the camera, it is just a tool, the "film" look is achieved through cinematography and color timing/correction in post.

 

[Huy Vu]

I dunno about mojo, XH-A1 gives me a great look out of the camera than I use my post production skills to enhance it. I feel like everyone gives too much credit to the camera, it is just a tool, the "film" look is achieved through cinematography and color timing/correction in post.

Yup, and the proof is that there's a lot of DVX footage out there that looks nothing like film.

 

[Zach Janky]

Yup, and the proof is that there's a lot of DVX footage out there that looks nothing like film.

There are also footage shot on film that doesn't look like it was shot on film. I got to view an obscure German movie today. The director shot it as his thesis project in a film school in Munich. The cinematography was absolutely horrendous. My friend next to me asked me what it was shot on, and I said video. Everything was flat with no depth. The thing that bugged me though was that the windows didn't blow out at all. I couldn't figure it out because the people in the room of a house would be properly exposed (with flat light most of the time), but there was no clipping of the stuff outside the house, and I could not figure out how they pulled that off with video. Finally, when I saw an out of focus light create a perfect circle (instead of the hexagon that video tends to create), I realized it was indeed film.

With the exception of the latitude that film can get, I am having fewer and fewer arguments of it over video. And that last argument may be obsolete soon as well.

Back to the topic at hand, tonight's experience really got me realizing that there isn't much magic behind film. If used right, it has a look that many of us are going after. But it has to be used right. The same goes for video. Jade mentioned how DVX footage can look nothing like film. I disagree that there is mojo in the camera. I would argue that this mojo that captures these images is in the person using the camera. Although, there are some tools that may come in handy. 24p/f/whatever, and a decent amount of image latitude (which the XL2 and DVX both have). If you want the depth of field, then look into investing into or renting an adapter. Just understand that although you will have these tools at your disposal, they have to be used correctly to get satisfactory results. Don't complain that it doesn't look good when you're using flat lighting across the room, unless that is a look you're going for. There has to be time invested in planning out lights. Personally, I turn off all of the lights in a room when I shoot there and I set up my own lights. I'll use the room's lights if they can be used, but that's iffy. It depends on the situation. If these steps aren't taken into consideration, it won't matter if you shoot on video or film, the images produced will not have the professional look that is wanted. That is assuming the professional look is what is wanted.

And for the record, I have seen XL2 footage projected on a big screen. My friend and I commented on how filmlike it looked. I also noticed that there was consideration taken into the lighting set ups to create this look.