24p - is the XH A1 for me?

This idea is beyond what spielberg does, it also differentiates sitcoms and TV shows from cinema. Now adays, things are different with the hyper shallow depth of field on certain TV dramas, but otherwise, the deeper depth of field is more related to sitcomes and shows of that nature. Another added bonus of being able to completely control your depth of field.

A tool, but not a necessity.

-Jon

thefilmgeek said:
To be honest I just chalk it up to wanting to be 'like hollywood'. It's that professional jealousy people get. They get into a mindset that if they aren't just like the pro's or have something that looks just like what Spielberg does, it's not quite as good. I don't really see where the whole obsession with shallow DoF came from. Yes it can be a great tool, but it's not something that I would feel requires spending 1000+ dollars *just* to get it. And, you can get the same look on the sensor that you mentioned, it just takes a little bit more time setting up lights, and adjusting your f-stop and neutral density filters. :) hehe You being a fanboy of adapters, yes, I seriously doubt we'll ever agree on the topic! However I strongly urge you to try to work with your lighting and lowering your f-stop and using some ND filters, to try to achieve some similiar effects on the 'look' -- you'd be surprised what you can do! :)
Click to expand...
 
thefilmgeek said:
The organic look you're referring to is something you can achieve with proper camera settings, and post color correction (which is always necessary anyway). :) The only thing the 35mm adapter truly brings to the table is the intensely shallow depth of field. If something like that is very important to you, then you can blow the 1000+ bucks to pick up an adapter. But don't spend the money just because you think the color is different, lol.
Click to expand...
Well I have never seen footage from a bare 1/3 or 1/2 (CCD/CMOS) camera using its bare lense with the look and feel of that video with an adapter. In my opinion its the lense thats part of the difference.

And of course CC is always required to achieve a look, I agree on that.
 
the only thing that this particular video has that is giving your the "organic" feeling, is the fact that its a 35mm adapter, he knows how to properly expose his image, and his focus is generally soft. You can achieve this with any adapter, or just add a gausian blur to the stock lens footage.
 
Retrospective said:
lol gausian blur is not the same as a lense bokeh with a good GG.
Click to expand...

The thing is, you'd be surprised how many people who don't use adapters never bother to compose shots properly, adjust their camera settings, or do proper post color correction -- this of course gives most people the impression that without a 35mm adapter, you're just screwed for a good 'look'. It couldn't be farther from the truth. Obviously people who are spending all this money on an adapter are DEAD SET on getting the 'look' they want. You can easily get the 'organic' look with good presets, camera work, and post CC, trust me. :)
 
PaPa said:
This idea is beyond what spielberg does, it also differentiates sitcoms and TV shows from cinema. Now adays, things are different with the hyper shallow depth of field on certain TV dramas, but otherwise, the deeper depth of field is more related to sitcomes and shows of that nature. Another added bonus of being able to completely control your depth of field.

A tool, but not a necessity.

-Jon
Click to expand...

The main difference between 'cinema' and a sitcom are the lighting, and camera angles -- those are what makes the main difference in the 'look'.
 
thefilmgeek said:
So what you're SAYING is... instead of spending time on good proper lighting and setups... you'd rather just snap on the adapter and go? Kind of like what I was referring to earlier about deficiency? Hehe. That's exactly what I meant. An Adapter is a tool, yes, but more of a convenience, to be honest. You can achieve the same 'look' without the adapter, it just takes more work and setup. It also builds a very strong foundation in proper lighting! You won't be spending anymore money on getting the proper setup without the adapter, but yes you may spend a little more time setting up lighting and shots properly. Filmmaking takes work, that's what it's all about, and honestly, that's the challenge and fun of it! Try what I suggested, at least give it a shot... I sincerely think you'd be surprised at your results, and you'd be surprised at how much better at lighting you'll get! (and getting to know your camera better!)
Click to expand...


I've now stated at least twice that I HAVE tried what you suggested. You can't get the exact look. I challenge you to get the look of the SGPro R3 with just lighting, ND, and f-stops. The GG adds a component to the look.

Please don't twist my words. Choosing to go with the "convenient method" does not mean someone doesn't have the skills or has a deficiency. They just chose to go with the most efficient means to an end. In the world of economics, that is the smart way. Even having the skills to do the lighting, etc. I choose to work efficiently. I respect your idealistic view and again, for the third time, agree that those skills are invaluable. If you're shooting just for yourself and can spend all the time you want, good on you. But if you are working within a production budget, you'd better work smart or you won't work very often. :)
 
mvansomeren said:
I've now stated at least twice that I HAVE tried what you suggested. You can't get the exact look. I challenge you to get the look of the SGPro R3 with just lighting, ND, and f-stops. The GG adds a component to the look.

Please don't twist my words. Choosing to go with the "convenient method" does not mean someone doesn't have the skills or has a deficiency. They just chose to go with the most efficient means to an end. In the world of economics, that is the smart way. Even having the skills to do the lighting, etc. I choose to work efficiently. I respect your idealistic view and again, for the third time, agree that those skills are invaluable. If you're shooting just for yourself and can spend all the time you want, good on you. But if you are working within a production budget, you'd better work smart or you won't work very often. :)
Click to expand...

There's where being your own producer comes in handy. :) I have all the time in the world to get it 'right', thankfully. And eventually I will provide you with some footage that will match whatever it is you think the 35mm adapter is getting (sans any ridiculously shallow DoF in close places). That's the beauty of post production (with proper skills of course), you're able to achieve any look you want, if you spend the time doing it.
 
thefilmgeek said:
There's where being your own producer comes in handy. :) I have all the time in the world to get it 'right', thankfully. And eventually I will provide you with some footage that will match whatever it is you think the 35mm adapter is getting (sans any ridiculously shallow DoF in close places). That's the beauty of post production (with proper skills of course), you're able to achieve any look you want, if you spend the time doing it.
Click to expand...

Well you see, the "ridiculously shollow DOF" is part of "the look" which you'll be hard-pressed to achieve just lighting, etc., on a camera like the A1. True, sometimes people go overboard on this, but it is a "creative option". :grin:
 
Retrospective said:
lol gausian blur is not the same as a lense bokeh with a good GG.
Click to expand...

All i am saying, is there is not one shot in that entire video that looks particularly sharp. Personally don't find soft images to be organic in any sense of the word.

This was shot on film, so it is organic. And is a good exmaple of how NOT soft film is.

2008_pineapple_express_001.jpg
 
thefilmgeek said:
The main difference between 'cinema' and a sitcom are the lighting, and camera angles -- those are what makes the main difference in the 'look'.
Click to expand...

You are missing the context of my post. I am speaking strictly about depth of field here. And why some prefer to hyper shallow depth of field versus the deep depth of field because of the "video / film " look.

Obviously lighting and angles make a huge difference, but that is not the topic i am discussing in this situation.
 
PaPa said:
You are missing the context of my post. I am speaking strictly about depth of field here. And why some prefer to hyper shallow depth of field versus the deep depth of field because of the "video / film " look.

Obviously lighting and angles make a huge difference, but that is not the topic i am discussing in this situation.
Click to expand...

I suppose I just don't understand why so many people are obsessed with achieving shallow DoF. What you can get off of the stock camera is plenty for a situation that would call for it. :)
 
You just don't know what you are talking about Filmgeek. Sorry. People are obsessed with 35 mm. adaptors , NOT just for the shallow depth of field, but for the freedom to chose lenses, and get full control. The shallow DOF that you can get if you WANT to with a 35 mm. camera is something that you cant do with a bare video camera. You'd have to back that F'er up about 20 yards to get even close to what you can do with a real set up w/ an adaptor at about 5 feet away. Its ridiculous.
Using 35 mm. lenses makes the filmaking experience, and looks, way closer to the experience, and look of film. Naked video looks like naked video.
On another note, I just got the D90 and that does a great job too.
 
Rick Horton said:
You just don't know what you are talking about Filmgeek. Sorry. People are obsessed with 35 mm. adaptors , NOT just for the shallow depth of field, but for the freedom to chose lenses, and get full control. The shallow DOF that you can get if you WANT to with a 35 mm. camera is something that you cant do with a bare video camera. You'd have to back that F'er up about 20 yards to get even close to what you can do with a real set up w/ an adaptor at about 5 feet away. Its ridiculous.
Using 35 mm. lenses makes the filmaking experience, and looks, way closer to the experience, and look of film. Naked video looks like naked video.
On another note, I just got the D90 and that does a great job too.
Click to expand...

I think what I mean is, most amateur filmmakers are obsessed with achieving the 'film' look, and shallow DoF, and any specific 'look'. They don't realize that things the other factors like lighting, *SOUND!!*, good actors, good story... that's what really makes good cinema. Not a 35mm adapter. ;) Show me a great story any day over some mediocre garbage shot on a Letus. :)
 
As for the whole adapter thing, yes they're great. The thing is you can get shallow DoF on a stock A1 lens. Are you limited compared to an adapter? Yes, but it is a pretty good amount of DoF for a stock video lens on a 1/3 sensor camera. I'd say the A1 has the best stock lens DoF of all the comparable cameras it is competing against, and equal of course to the XL series.

Personally, with the way things are currently developing with the video DSLR's I'd rather wait it out a bit and see what develops. Rumor of a Nikon D400 with 1080p video has cropped up recently, and I'm not surprised. Come this spring and summer it'll be getting close to the time for a D300 replacement.

I'd rather spend the money on a nice DSLR w/movie mode an have a good still camera to boot. That is just me though. Nothing wrong with a 35mm adapter. But now I'd wait a little to see what happens with any new gear.
 
The Canon consumer cameras are different than the XH-A1. The XH-A1 seems to have less interlace artifacts. But once you do a reverse telecine on HV20 etc. footage, the interlace lines are gone anyways.

The HD trailer for Crank 2 is out. Hit Download for the 720p version. The trailer shows no shallow DOF shots, looks like they shot all with stock lens. But it works for this type of movie. Maybe not for Benjamin Button!
 
jleo said:
The Canon consumer cameras are different than the XH-A1. The XH-A1 seems to have less interlace artifacts.
Click to expand...
The comparison is not only against HDV but essentially versus 35Mbps MPEG-2 (EX1/3):

« In 60i mode, I found that the HF11’s 17 Mbit/sec images held up almost as well as the EX1’s 35 Mbit/sec images, while its 24 Mbit/sec pix were visibly less affected by compression artifacts. Likewise, the HF11’s 12 Mbit pix almost equaled the EX1’s 25 Mbit pix, while its 17 Mbit pix were better. AVCHD really is roughly twice as good as MPEG-2 in terms of bit-rate for a given quality of image. »

« In frame-by-frame examination of the clips, the MPEG-2 (at roughly twice the bit-rate of the AVCHD) tended to equal the AVCHD images perhaps 70% of the time; of the remaining 30% where I could point to an unambiguous quality difference, the MPEG-2 images were better perhaps 2/3 of the time, and the AVCHD excelled the other 1/3 of the time. Put another way, AVCHD equalled MPEG-2 70% of the time, surpassed it slightly 10% of the time, and fell slightly beneath its quality 20% of the time, while running at half its bit-rate (17 vs. 35 Mbit/sec, and 12 vs. 25 Mbit/sec). »

« I was able to produce interlaced pictures using the HF11 that were essentially as good, as far as compression is concerned, as interlaced images from the EX1 recorded at twice the bit-rate. (...) Overall? AVCHD is capable of turning out high-quality images, and at least in interlaced modes, the HF11 can record images of comparable quality to HDV and XDCAM EX camcorders. »

« (...) it makes an image that’s about as sharp as a single chip 1920x1080 imager can, with color, detail and dynamic range that are close matches for Canon’s 3-chip cameras. That’s nothing to sneer at. »

Adam Wilt

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_canon_vixia_hf11_avchd_camcorder/P1/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top