XH-A1 filmmaking

a lot of kids use my school's JVC 100 and make complete crap. I have tested out all the school's equipment but prefer to use my trusty DVX because it isn't shared with a bunch of morons who get their candy bar fingers on it. But the above points are 100% correct and I'd like to echo them. I've seen so much crap that was shot on super 16 (yes that is real film look suckas), HD, HDV, DV, hi8, etc. I have to sit through 60+ student films all on various formats each semester. And there is only 1 or MAYBE in rare cases 2 movies per semester that are any good. So the tools don't make the filmmaker.

Additionally! The education doesn't make the filmmaker. It can help to bring out the inner filmmaker in individuals who have a latent talent and just need a push in the right direction. But most people DO NOT have it. It's like singing. You can practice all you want, but certain people are born with the right pipes, others aren't. With filmmaking it's not exactly your birth right but more like your life living up to shooting your first movie. Certain people have dull lives. They aren't storytellers. They don't speak for the people. No one cares what they have to say, they have no greater contribution to society, no personal drama to explore. But they DO have a nifty new XH-A1 from B&H.

The XH-A1 is a double edged sword. It allows anyone to make an HD film. Including the overwhelming amount of troglodytes who exist in our world. In some long forgotten alternate reality, the best would naturally rise to the top. But now luck, timing, connections, and a bunch of nonmerit based measurements are just as good as talent.

You have to stand out from the legions of crap that have dominated student and indy filmmaking since the advent of video and HD. One way to do that: Don't buy into useless hype. Do you really think your film will be any better at all if its shot on an HVX instead of a XH-A1? Cuz I don't. Hell give me a Sorby VX 5000 and I'll be happy as long as I can kick anyone off my set who says the words: "mise en scene"
 
While I agree with Derrick on most points, I have to disagree about the singing comparison. To be a good singer you do have to be born with the right physical attributes such as vocal cords, resonating chambers, tone, etc. Filmmaking is entirely different. Whether or not a person is a good filmmaker has little to do with whether or not one has an "exciting" life or a "dull" one. By whose standards are we measuring that against? I know of at least 2 people who don't have what one would call valuable life experience or exciting lives but they are very talented writers. Singing is singing but there are so many more aspects to filmmaking such as lighting, cinematography, editing, directing, sound, writing, etc etc. Some people can't write, but they can direct. Some people may not have the talent to be a director but they have a knack for editing. And so on. If you have the passion to be a filmmaker and the dedication to see it through, you can learn. The problem is most people don't listen to their heart or have the discipline to follow their dreams. Then there are those who pursue filmmaking just because it's "cool" or are simply seeking fame and fortune and don't realize that it's very hard work and requires dedication and determination. What matters more than how exciting or dull your life might be, is having PASSION and IMAGINATION. Those are the seeds for talent. If you don't have these, then it may not work for you. I led a very sheltered life as a child but that worked in my favor as I didn't watch much TV...I read books, went to movies. It developed my imagination and made me think for myself. If you wake up every morning and can think of nothing else but making films (or documentaries, whatever) then go for it.

Mark
 
DerrickTempleton said:
a lot of kids use my school's JVC 100 and make complete crap. I have tested out all the school's equipment but prefer to use my trusty DVX because it isn't shared with a bunch of morons who get their candy bar fingers on it. But the above points are 100% correct and I'd like to echo them. I've seen so much crap that was shot on super 16 (yes that is real film look suckas), HD, HDV, DV, hi8, etc. I have to sit through 60+ student films all on various formats each semester. And there is only 1 or MAYBE in rare cases 2 movies per semester that are any good. So the tools don't make the filmmaker.

Additionally! The education doesn't make the filmmaker. It can help to bring out the inner filmmaker in individuals who have a latent talent and just need a push in the right direction. But most people DO NOT have it. It's like singing. You can practice all you want, but certain people are born with the right pipes, others aren't. With filmmaking it's not exactly your birth right but more like your life living up to shooting your first movie. Certain people have dull lives. They aren't storytellers. They don't speak for the people. No one cares what they have to say, they have no greater contribution to society, no personal drama to explore. But they DO have a nifty new XH-A1 from B&H.

The XH-A1 is a double edged sword. It allows anyone to make an HD film. Including the overwhelming amount of troglodytes who exist in our world. In some long forgotten alternate reality, the best would naturally rise to the top. But now luck, timing, connections, and a bunch of nonmerit based measurements are just as good as talent.

You have to stand out from the legions of crap that have dominated student and indy filmmaking since the advent of video and HD. One way to do that: Don't buy into useless hype. Do you really think your film will be any better at all if its shot on an HVX instead of a XH-A1? Cuz I don't. Hell give me a Sorby VX 5000 and I'll be happy as long as I can kick anyone off my set who says the words: "mise en scene"
Click to expand...

As someone who's in school for film I couldn't agree more. I just came from a screening tonight and everything was so pathetically bad I wanted to blow my brains out waiting for it to end.

DirectX said:
While I agree with Derrick on most points, I have to disagree about the singing comparison. To be a good singer you do have to be born with the right physical attributes such as vocal cords, resonating chambers, tone, etc. Filmmaking is entirely different. Whether or not a person is a good filmmaker has little to do with whether or not one has an "exciting" life or a "dull" one. By whose standards are we measuring that against? I know of at least 2 people who don't have what one would call valuable life experience or exciting lives but they are very talented writers. Singing is singing but there are so many more aspects to filmmaking such as lighting, cinematography, editing, directing, sound, writing, etc etc. Some people can't write, but they can direct. Some people may not have the talent to be a director but they have a knack for editing. And so on. If you have the passion to be a filmmaker and the dedication to see it through, you can learn. The problem is most people don't listen to their heart or have the discipline to follow their dreams. Then there are those who pursue filmmaking just because it's "cool" or are simply seeking fame and fortune and don't realize that it's very hard work and requires dedication and determination. What matters more than how exciting or dull your life might be, is having PASSION and IMAGINATION. Those are the seeds for talent. If you don't have these, then it may not work for you. I led a very sheltered life as a child but that worked in my favor as I didn't watch much TV...I read books, went to movies. It developed my imagination and made me think for myself. If you wake up every morning and can think of nothing else but making films (or documentaries, whatever) then go for it.
Click to expand...

While that's partially true, you have to realise that the vast, VAST majority of people do not realize they can only do one small piece of the puzzle. Pretty much everyone these days wants to build the whole puzzle themselves.

That's where this is a double edged sword. Without modern technology would I be the filmmaker I am or even one at all? Realistically? Probably not, I could never get the production value I can now. Would my peers at school? No, it'd be much to expensive and hard and time consuming for most people and they wouldn't waste their time. Look at the employment rates from most film programs. Most come out school with nothing to show to for themselves, not a decent reel, no scripts, no ideas and yet most of them are "directors".

But in the end I'd rather give the tools to everyone just to find that 1-2 people that can make great work then have all the power in the hands of the rich and elite.
 
This was a fun discussion guys. (By the way I made some changes to my former comments as I found I said some things wrong). Either way I'm still shooting SD. I shot my last film on it and ironically no one cared what it was shot on. Hungryflix.com has it as "featured" content. How's that for the non-HD DVX100. No one yet has said "What was this shot on?" A distributor also tried to make me a deal for it (I declined. No money up front).

What I find funny is if someone with a budget under $10,000 comes and ask which HD camera to use to make a film, the answer will always be either the Canon or Sony. The HVX simply eats too much of the budget. The same is true as before HVX + P2 Cards + Space = Big chunk of budget. Even Sony is pushing it, bring out a camera many see as "not as good as the Canon" and not even meeting Canon's price point.

If you already have a rig, buy the Canon A1, simply based on the evidence. The camera gets a great picture, is cheap, you can go to DV tape with it and pretty much use the basic workflow you've been using with minor changes. An lets be real guys how many of us our going to film even to get into a festival? We're shoot HDV to get great quality SD footage unless you're burning an HD-DVD to DVD 9 (which would be able to hold a feature if I'm correct) for playback on an HD TV or computer. For now I think I may get one more movie out of my DVX unless I make a lot of money real soon. Then I'm buying a Sony Z1U (just because I want one), a Canon XL H1 and a Canon G1. I'll rent my Z1u and use it to shoot my night shots for my horror film in 1080i.

-Nate
 
Last edited:
ecking said:
Wow! Why would you need to own 3 cameras? And why would you need a Z1 if you had a G1?
Click to expand...
So I could rent the Z1 out and do two cam shoots with the others. Plus if I shoot a 1080i horror film I'd shoot with the Sony because I like the Sony 1080i look, plus I think the camera itself is hot. I could also do outside night shots with the Sony 1080i and everything else with the Canon at 24f (since I'd have the cameras available).

-Nate
 
niceguy15 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it's a perfectly fine camera. One of the things I like about the A1 is that it's tape based. This is either an often overlooked or generally looked down upon thing compared to the HVX. But personally unless you've got the money for the HVX workflow... tape is still a great and proven way to go.

Once you buy the almost twice as expensive HVX you then have to buy P2 cards, then a P2 store or laptop and enough hard drive space to off load all this footage. Then you have to find a way to archive that raw footage when all is said and done.
I think the HVX is probably a very nice camera and shoots better images then the A1, but for it's price difference it should. I'd be upset if it didn't.

The A1 is a more realistic camera for the aspiring low/no-budget filmmaker. The media is cheap and readily available and easy to shoot with. Last thing I'd want out in the field with only a 3 or 4 man crew is to constantly be swapping out and logging P2 cards. There is a lot of work that goes into making low budget indie films and the less technical things to be concerned with the better. There is alot more then just the camera to be concerned with when you get into the middle of it.
 
I will jump in for the HVX for this comment (I'm an A1 user...money reasons). Yes you have to worry about dumping the footage but once you get used to that its not much of a problem. One thing people do wrong is they treat the P2 as a dumpable tape. Its NOT like that, the difference is whatever you shoot on it can be deleted if its no good. The biggest draw for me honestly probably more than most of its other features was the ability to see what shot I just did instantly and then decide to do it again or delete it off the card. Which means yes you might get 20mins of 720p24 on the 8GB Card or something but by the time you have all the good shots you want, that 20mins can stretch rather far before a dump. If you had a tape you'd have to capture that full 20mins or at least scrub through it to find your shots no matter what was within that time frame, good or bad shots. So when its all said and done, the P2 is much easier to work with. Yes you have to dump the footage but on an Indy shoot where your only keeping most of your good shots, is it really THAT bad?

- Kyle
 
I was on an indie shoot where they rented the HVX200 and had I think 3 P2 cards. Since we had 4 days and 4 days only to shoot, going back and weeding out the bad shots wasn`t an option. When I card was full it was dumped to an on-set editor.

What I don`t get is why no one ever brings up HDV can be recorded to a Firestore uncompressed as well, your not limited ONLY to tape with any tape camera.
 
buijon said:
What I don`t get is why no one ever brings up HDV can be recorded to a Firestore uncompressed as well, your not limited ONLY to tape with any tape camera.
Click to expand...

Just want to clear up that HDV can't be recorded "uncompressed" to a Firestore. You're only going to be able to get the mpeg stream post compression. But it's true, hard drive storage devices like the Firestore is only going to get more dependable and affordable with time, and P2 isn't the only tapeless option out there.
 
buijon said:
I was on an indie shoot where they rented the HVX200 and had I think 3 P2 cards. Since we had 4 days and 4 days only to shoot, going back and weeding out the bad shots wasn`t an option. When I card was full it was dumped to an on-set editor.

What I don`t get is why no one ever brings up HDV can be recorded to a Firestore uncompressed as well, your not limited ONLY to tape with any tape camera.
Click to expand...
I served as DP on a feature last september. we shot on a pair of HVXs and while I would never allow (or advise) someone to delete a take regardless of how bad we thought it was, I was able to quickly delete the little things like false starts in about two seconds.
 
I guess its a matter of familiarity, since it was rented the DP didn`t have experience with it. Also, thanks for clearing up its still compressed in some way on the firestore still.
 
Yeah it's never a good idea to edit in the field. You never know when that shot you didn't like in the field is just what you need for final cut.
 
I am glad to finally see a few people standing up for the A1, about time.

Judging by the number of a1's i saw at NAB, dozens, as apposed to how many i saw at CES, 0, i would venture to guess that the Canon is quickly becoming the number one prosumer HD camera, and that would not be happening if the image was as bad as people on this forum are making it out to be!

On a side note, at NAB, i checked out an arri 35mm camera on an oconnor tripod, with a GIGANTIC Zeiss lens... and 35mm is now starting to haunt my dreams, It was freaking SWEET.
 
futureman said:
I am glad to finally see a few people standing up for the A1, about time.

Judging by the number of a1's i saw at NAB, dozens, as apposed to how many i saw at CES, 0, i would venture to guess that the Canon is quickly becoming the number one prosumer HD camera, and that would not be happening if the image was as bad as people on this forum are making it out to be!
Click to expand...

True that! I get pissed of every time someone mentions the DVX/HVX "mojo". The image on the A1 is excellent but there seems to be an undercurrent lately that insinuates otherwise.
 
After using the HVX and DVX, I must say they have a look that is very individual. If some call it Mojo, then I think they have a leg to stand on. But just because the HVX and DVX have a look that is specific to them, does not mean the A1's image is not excellent. It most certainly is.
The thing I have found from Panasonic footage versus Canon Footage is richness and warmth. The A1 footage I have seen is cold and sterile. It lacks the feeling I have when I shoot something on the HVX. I would like to see some Footage or Untouched Screen grabs that demonstrate the camera's capability to have a rich warmth to it. I understand this is subjective, but that would help me a lot in determining if it could suit my needs as a backup camera.
 
Last edited:
msconce said:
The thing I have found from Panasonic footage versus Canon Footage is richness and warmth. The A1 footage I have seen is cold and sterile. It lacks the feeling I have when I shoot something on the HVX. I would like to see some Footage or Untouched Screen grabs that demonstrate the camera's capability to have a rich warmth to it.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but personally that makes next to no sense to me. Both the HVX(dvx) and the A1 have tons of image tweakability. The A1 can definetly be made to be warm just as the hvx can be made to be cool. Now they may not ever be able to look like each other but that's a whole different beast, however even in that people like Disjecta have come extremely close to making the A1 one look like a dvx colour wise.

There may be many reasons to choose one camera or the other but adjustability of the colours should not be one of them, both have great image controls.
 
It is not warmth as in colors. It is an overall rich feel to the image, that gives life to it. It is hard to explain, but you said just now that they may never be able to look like each other, and I simply agree. I just have a hard time describing what I mean. I believe the A1 has amazing rocking images as does the HVX. The HVX just has a feel in the image that I preffer.
 
msconce said:
The HVX just has a feel in the image that I preffer.
Click to expand...

I wish more HVX users got off their high horse and shared that idea instead of giving everyone the "A1 look blows, end of story." The world would be happier that way.

- Kyle
 
One thing everyone is forgetting is the fast action capabilities of the 2 cameras. For HD-DVD or Blu-Ray release the Panasonic HVX can shoot full progressive 720p60 while the Canon can only shoot interlace 1080i60. Progressive formats are vastly superior to interlace formats. One example of a 720p60 shoot is the American Idol television show shot with the Panasonic Varicam. Now 24p may be the best format for film out but how many Indy movies are going to film out? HD-DVD or Blu-Ray will be the distribution format of choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top