XH-A! & filling my new 1080p LCD TV. Will it do it?

M

minifobman

Member
HI,
I'm looking for someone that shoots with the xha1 and views the movies on a 1080p TV for some in-site before I buy.

I have been looking at the xha1 for a while now. I have bought me a Sony 1080p LCD TV (1080x1920) and I am wondering; since the xha1 does NOT shot in true native 1920x1080, will the shoot come out of the cam and fill the TV correctly at 1:185 ratio?

Also how does the movies look on an 1080p TV.

If not what is suggested that will?

I've been also looking at the HV30 but I love the manual controls of the xha1

Thank,,,,
 
Last edited:
minifobman said:
I have been looking at the xha1 for a while now. I have bought me a Sony 1080p LCD TV (1080x1920) and I am wondering; since the xha1 does NOT shot in true native 1920x1080, will the shoot come out of the cam and fill the TV correctly at 1:185 ratio?
,
Click to expand...

Yes. The TV in widescreen mode will automatically make the footage widescreen.

It's important that you understand the idea of pixel aspect ratio (PAR) when dealing with resolutions. PAR is NOT the same thing as aspect ratio (16:9, 4:3 etc.) and most people are confused between them.

The A1 shoots in HDV format, which is 1440 x 1080 BUT with a PAR of 1.33. This means that the pixels used to make up the image has a length to width ratio of 1.33; thus the pixels that make up the image are not square.

Why is this important? Divide 1440 by 1080 and you get 4:3, so you would expect the result to be fullscreen, but clearly the camera shoots 16:9. This is because aspect ratio are only valid assuming that the pixels are square! When you have a non-square (anamorphic) pixels, as is common with many formats, the calculation have to be changed. An image of 1440 x 1080 with a PAR of 1.33 converts to a 1920 x 1080 image with a PAR of 1 (square pixel). That's how you get a widescreen image even when the camera doesn't capture the full 1920 x 1080 frame. People usually assumes that the camera "stretches out" the image to get 1920 x 1080, when this isn't the full picture. PAR is a legitimate method of compression and so the A1 shoots true 1080p in that sense.

For another, more common example, simply take a look at a standard NTSC SD image. A "widescreen" SD image has a resolution of 720 x 480; but a "fullscreen" SD image is also 720 x 480! And when you divide 720 by 480, you get neither 16:9 nor 4:3! Again, we're assuming that it's square pixel, when a "widescreen" image has a PAR of 1.2 and "fullscreen" has a PAR of .9 .
 
Last edited:
Thanks Huv.
Actually I meant 1:78 (16x9) ratio, not 1:85.
You explanation really helped me there I can completely understand that now. I think lol.

When you say "with the TV in widescreen mode" I am assuming that you DO NOT mean I have to stretch it as you mentioned further down in the post.

Since one does not know the exact ratio or shape of the pixels on the CCDs then one can NOT correctly calculate the "aspect ratio"... Am I right here?

Do you have the XHA1 And an 1080p TV? If so, how do the movies look when the XHA1 is connected straight to the TV and also, how do they look once burnt to DVD or Blu-Ray and viewed on a Blu-Ray player????

I will also like to leave that last question open to anyone that has that setup for their comments as well.

Thanks for the time you put into that post HUV, It is appreciated.
 
Yes, I have an A1 and have hooked it up to a 40'' HDTV. Looks great. Most HDTV have a dynamic mode where it'll recognize whether the signal is fullscreen or widescreen.

The PAR is a feature of the codec. HDV is 1.33, DV is 1.2 for 16:9 and .9 for 4:3, DVCPRO-HD is 1.5 and so on. Cameras that shoot full res like the EX1 just use square pixels.

The conversion is a simple one. You want the pixel to be square. So if I have an HDV image at 1440 x 1080 with anamorphic pixel and I want to make it widescreen with a square pixel, I know that the image aspect ratio has to be 16:9 (or 1.78). Keeping the height the same (1080 since that's the standard) I simply multiply 1080 by 1.78 and get 1920.
 
Thank you I would image the video would be good on a (1080"p") tv but I am wondering how it compares to a Blu-Ray DVD on a 1080"p" TV specifically.... IF it doesn't compare I will look at a cam that will. And I would like advice on that too if anyone has any. Thanks AUV
 
minifobman said:
Thank you I would image the video would be good on a (1080"p") tv but I am wondering how it compares to a Blu-Ray DVD on a 1080"p" TV specifically.... IF it doesn't compare I will look at a cam that will. And I would like advice on that too if anyone has any. Thanks AUV
Click to expand...

A Blue-Ray DVD of what? Oceans 13 looks like crap on BR and a handicam would look better. It's a very subjective question and it's not as simple as "what camera will make me look good".
The A1 is a great camera with great resolution. If the footage looks like crap on a 1080p TV it's the operator not the equipment- I've got an A1 and a 52" HD tv, I know from experience it's not the camera......
 
The codecs used for Bluray discs are much better at preserving quality than HDV. Something shot with the A1 won't look as good as most Blurays, but thats mainly because they're either shot on 35mm film and scanned at much higher resolutions than the A1 can do, or they're shot on digital cameras that cost many times what an A1 costs.

If you're hoping that A1 footage transferred to Bluray will look like the feature films you can buy... well, in most cases it won't, but that doesn't mean the A1 isn't great at shooting HD.
 
Thanks KeeganFlynn,

Some how I knew that was going to be the answer. I watched "I Am Legend" last night on Blu-Ray and if I knew the XHA1 would produce results like that I would buy in a flash.

But really if the Canon lens is so good as everyone says and, the cam records in 1440x1080 and is displayed as a natural 16x9 with out further processing then one would think it would be just as good.

Are any of the cams on the market capable of outputting results to a 1080"p" TV as the Blu-Ray of movie "I Am Legend" as mentioned above? Will the HVX200a do it?

Thanks KeeganFlynn for your honest and on-topic positive response.
 
minifobman said:

But really if the Canon lens is so good as everyone says and, the cam records in 1440x1080 and is displayed as a natural 16x9 with out further processing then one would think it would be just as good.
Click to expand...

There are so many other factors in making the image looks good in Blu-Ray that your question really doesn't make much sense. "I Am Legend" was transferred to Blu-Ray using hundreds of thousands of dollar worth of software and hardware by industry pros. It's not like they turned on the computer, burned a disk and automatically have it look good. The studios spend a ton of money to get their movies transferred to disk, and plenty of them just look bad. So saying that the camera alone is the only determining factor is just incorrect.

Not to mention the A1 is a $3000 camera. You're trying to compare it with a movie that was shot on 35mm films at several times the resolution. Doesn't make sense.
 
I agree with Huy Vu, you won't get close to a quality like I am Legend with any camera below a5 digit price and a VERY good hardware encoder. If you want it to look like that, you've gotta get the money.
 
thanks guys.
i don't really care how much time and money the movie industry spends to create a movie like "I Am Legend" on a Blu-Ray DVD. And to ask for opinions as to how the movie like "I Am Legend" on a Blu-Ray makes a lot of sense to me.

I just wanted to know if I made a Blu-ray DVD using the XHA1 to record with under the best of settings and conditions, if it would look as good as one of the good looking Blu-Rays on the market. I understand that there are several Blu-Rays on the market that have sub-par video but I really don't care about that either.

Anyways I think I get the answer to my original question.
 
minifobman said:
I just wanted to know if I made a Blu-ray DVD using the XHA1 to record with under the best of settings and conditions, if it would look as good as one of the good looking Blu-Rays on the market.
Click to expand...

No, it won't look like anything close to a good looking Blu-Ray disc.
 
If:
You know what you are doing.
Know how to shoot, light, and compose an image.
Know how to encode and create your blu-ray disc to create the highest quality image possible out of your original footage.

Then you will have a very good looking Blu Ray disc that will be high definition, crisp, and sharp.

I think that the question you are asking is misleading to the members of this board.
You can not get 35mm quality out of any of the current HD cameras that are in the market period. 35mm Film has a higher dynamic range, different response to light (gamma curve) and color, and much higher effective resolution than an XH-A1.

Can you get great quality Blu-Rays with an XH-A1? Yes.

Can you compare the footage from an XH-A1 which costs around $3600 with footage from a 35mm camera, who's Plate to connect it to the tripod costs about $3000? No
 
If you make a good film in the technical sense = good lighting, composition, editing, camera blocking, proper focus, etc. then you can get very good results with the A1. In my opinion you can get very close to Hollywood Blu-ray quality. Will you beat their best looking Blu-rays? No, probably not. Now, having said that, what are the best looking Blu-rays? Many people with experience watching Blu-rays or HD DVD's for that matter, will tell you that the best looking image quality will come from a Pixar animated film. Of course these films where made in a different medium, and all digital. Some newer releases are extremely good quality, but a huge reason is that they had good cinematography. My brother owns the I Am Legend Blu-ray and when we watched it via my PS3 on a 37-inch 720p LCD, I saw a number of shots that I thought were within the quality of an A1 or HVX. Of course, as others said, the A1 is at a disadvantage in trying to get the pristine look of a Hollywood blockbuster. You can come very close and maybe equal it sometimes. Also bear in mind that Blu-ray disc image quality is all over the board depending on a particular film's cinematographic style and the quality of the print or remaster job done prior to encoding to Blu-ray (AVC mpeg-4 and VC-1 codecs are the standards as far as I know).

One thing that I recommend doing is going to Blockbuster or Netflix a film called The Signal. It is a newer film shot on the Canon XL-H1, which is basically the A1's big brother. It has the same exact CCD's as the A1, and a similar lense. The Signal filmmakers did use a 35mm DOF adapter for their film, although that doesn't effect the image that much in terms of actual resolution. It might soften the image a bit though, so keep that in mind. I saw The Signal on Blu-ray, and while there were some shots here and there that looked like the focus was a bit off, the shots that were in proper focus were very crisp and very good quality. This film should give you a good idea as to the potential for Blu-ray footage from an A1. It is also a fun and inventive indie horror film if you like that kind of thing.

The Signal - Amazon.com
 
I agree. You can't snap your fingers and have a Hollywood-quality BD in your hands. It doesn't matter if you're using the A1 or the F35, it takes months of preparation, months of polishing, and the talent and skill of a whole group of people. What you're seeing on a BD that looks so good isn't just resolution--it's proper lighting, proper shot composition, proper exposure, and more, all managed by a skilled crew.
That said, it's certainly possible, with time, patience, and discipline, to create something that would approach a Hollywood BD. It would be hard--the A1 simply isn't good enough to create those kinds of images easily, but it's certainly possible to get close.
 
Aroon_Narayanan said:
That said, it's certainly possible, with time, patience, and discipline, to create something that would approach a Hollywood BD. It would be hard--the A1 simply isn't good enough to create those kinds of images easily, but it's certainly possible to get close.
Click to expand...

I would say that most of the pro cameras priced below $10,000 would also have a hard time as well. The lowest priced camera that is available now that can get this level of quality is the RED One. I would say that the best bet us A1 owners have in the near future would be RED's Scarlet.

One thing to consider as well is that as long as you get good quality or relatively close to a Hollywood Blu-ray standard of image quality, that if your films story, content, acting, technical level is good or great, then the audience won't care if it doesn't look as good as a big budget Blu-ray movie. They'll be too wrapped up in the plot to nitpick the image.

Another thing if you are making a film. Most people still have SD DVD and it will be, at least in my opinion, 2-3 years minimum before we will have to distribute our work primarily on Blu-ray. Properly downconverted A1 footage makes a great widescreen DVD, that when played one an upconverting DVD player will look almost HD and can even look better at times than an upconverted Hollywood DVD.
 
Would someone mind telling me on what page in the Hollywood Big Book of Knowledge is the tech specs for the "Hollywood Blu-Ray image quality" standard? .........
 
You cannot use a consumer or prosumer camera and get the same type of image that you would see even on the worst Blu-Ray mastering job. The reason is, as others have stated before, that it is shot on film, has millions of dollars and hundreds of people all working on getting that image. You can make Blu-Ray discs that will keep the quality loss of your HD image to a minimum, but it's never going to look EXACTLY like a Hollywood film.

The two biggest hurdles to overcome in a professional production are exposure and audio. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've seen overexposed shots that make the Zebra beg for mercy, and audio that sounds like it was captured from a $300 home video camcorder's internal mic. If you get clean audio and keep your exposure levels in check, you've done more than 99% of other so-called filmmakers. I'd worry about that and less about how to replicate the look of a multi-million dollar 35mm Hollywood production on Blu-Ray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top