24p - is the XH A1 for me?

G

Grix

Member
Hello everyone,

I am thinking about buying an XH A1 very soon but am still trying to figure out if it's the camera for me. I have been looking at some test footage and I really like what I see.

There are two things I want to do with this camera - firstly, I want to make short films and action scenes. Can someone who has a bit of knowledge on this camera tell me if it's up to the job?

Also, I would like to film events with the camera. From what I have seen I would say that it is definitely up to that job.

For the film side of things though, do you guys think that the look of the camera is a bit too digital? I have heard people mention how 24p can replicate the 'film look', is this true? I know the XH A1 can film 24f, is this much different and can you get that 'film look' with an XH A1?

Any other thoughts on the camera would also be much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Part of Crank 2, a big hollywood action movie with Jason Statham, is being filmed with XHA1's so put a check by action scenes and films.

24f is 24p and is one factor of a filmlook but a lot of other factors like lighting, production design and shot selection go into a filmlook.

Read up in the Canon section of the forum and you'll find everything you want to know about the XHA1. It's a great camera and will probably serve you well.

Best,
Andy
 
What 24p will do for you is give you the same type of motion on camera as film, which is shot at 24 frames per second, instead of doing 30 and having it look ultra-realistic. The major factors of giving something a 'film look' is PROPER color correction, proper lighting, and a good eye for shots as the shot selection and camera angle is very important to giving it that cinematic feel. A 35mm adapter will help give you a shallow depth of field, but there really is no reason to use one unless you are very weak with things like lighting and camera angles, to help offset your deficiency as a cameraman and director. (the 35mm adapter will help it look more like film in that respect) Get very good with lighting, camera angles, and know your camera front and back! Also, be sure to throw an S-curve on your gamma in post to crush down the blacks and make it look more cinematic. :)
 
thefilmgeek said:
...A 35mm adapter will help give you a shallow depth of field, but there really is no reason to use one unless you are very weak with things like lighting and camera angles, to help offset your deficiency as a cameraman and director...
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that lighting and camera angles are crucial. I don't agree with the statement that a 35mm adapter's purpose is to "offset your deficiency as a camerman and director". The purpose of an adapter is to simulate the DOF obtained by film cameras. It's a component of the film look. You could light well, have great camera angles, but with deep DOF, in some scenes it can still look like video. IMO The adapter helps complete the illusion of having been shot on film, not cover up for someone's lack of skill.
 
The A1 can't shoot native 24p though! It has interlace chips, so you end up throwing resolution away
 
DanHD said:
The A1 can't shoot native 24p though! It has interlace chips, so you end up throwing resolution away
Click to expand...

Unless you're some sort of tech-obsessed person and literally going through frame by frame and inspecting it, you won't notice any loss at all. The 24f on the XH-A1 is pretty much the exact same thing on any other camera you'll see with it.
 
mvansomeren said:
I absolutely agree that lighting and camera angles are crucial. I don't agree with the statement that a 35mm adapter's purpose is to "offset your deficiency as a camerman and director". The purpose of an adapter is to simulate the DOF obtained by film cameras. It's a component of the film look. You could light well, have great camera angles, but with deep DOF, in some scenes it can still look like video. IMO The adapter helps complete the illusion of having been shot on film, not cover up for someone's lack of skill.
Click to expand...

The film look comes from camera angles, and lighting. A shallow depth of field isn't really all that spectacular. If it's shot very well, and has proper lighting, and good acting, no one will care whether you were using a 35mm adapter, trust me. ;) If someone is basing how good your work is on how shallow a depth of field you can create, then they shouldn't bother watching your movie, or any movie for that point, as they've completely missed the point of cinema.
 
thefilmgeek said:
The film look comes from camera angles, and lighting. A shallow depth of field isn't really all that spectacular. If it's shot very well, and has proper lighting, and good acting, no one will care whether you were using a 35mm adapter, trust me. ;) If someone is basing how good your work is on how shallow a depth of field you can create, then they shouldn't bother watching your movie, or any movie for that point, as they've completely missed the point of cinema.
Click to expand...


I'm not disputing that all of those things are important. My objection was your statement that the use of a 35mm adapter was "to help offset your deficiency as a cameraman and director..."

The adapter is just a tool to try and simulate a certain look... the shallow DOF that one might typically get from a 35mm film camera. Not all films / scenes benefit from shallow DOF. However, there are definately times when it looks better.

I just finished a training video. While we were setting up I tried shooting the talent with and without an adapter. (This was a DIY Mid-Format adapter). Didn't have the monitor hooked up so focus is a bit soft. The Shallow DOF definately helped separate the talent from the background. Sure, I could have used a longer lens and zoomed in to get a similar effect, but there just wasn't enough room to do that. Although we hadn't finished setting up the lighting, the only thing that really changed was shooting with and without the adapter. I like the adapter look better in this example:
 

Attachments

  • Example.jpg
    Example.jpg
    185.8 KB · Views: 0
mvansomeren said:
I'm not disputing that all of those things are important. My objection was your statement that the use of a 35mm adapter was "to help offset your deficiency as a cameraman and director..."

The adapter is just a tool to try and simulate a certain look... the shallow DOF that one might typically get from a 35mm film camera. Not all films / scenes benefit from shallow DOF. However, there are definately times when it looks better.

I just finished a training video. While we were setting up I tried shooting the talent with and without an adapter. (This was a DIY Mid-Format adapter). Didn't have the monitor hooked up so focus is a bit soft. The Shallow DOF definately helped separate the talent from the background. Sure, I could have used a longer lens and zoomed in to get a similar effect, but there just wasn't enough room to do that. Although we hadn't finished setting up the lighting, the only thing that really changed was shooting with and without the adapter. I like the adapter look better in this example:
Click to expand...

I don't think the picture with the adapter really added anything except stopped down light. The softer light helped a ton to make it look much better. The background wasn't really all that distracting. You could have acheived the same effect with a good ND filter (and if you were dead set on whatever shallow DOF you could get, put a couple ND filters on there and crank open the f-stop to as low as it'll go :) )
 
DanHD said:
The A1 can't shoot native 24p though! It has interlace chips, so you end up throwing resolution away
Click to expand...

Do a side by side with the HVX and you'll probably find that the A1 is slightly sharper. 24F looks exactly like 24p. In this case the interlace chip allows the A1 to have more pixels on the sensor but retains comparable sensitivity to the HVX, which has less pixel. This is why you can't just look at the spec and judge a camera, you need to actually have used it.
 
Huy Vu said:
Do a side by side with the HVX and you'll probably find that the A1 is slightly sharper. 24F looks exactly like 24p. In this case the interlace chip allows the A1 to have more pixels on the sensor but retains comparable sensitivity to the HVX, which has less pixel. This is why you can't just look at the spec and judge a camera, you need to actually have used it.
Click to expand...

Quite right, Huy. The A1's resolution is in fact sharper than the HVX's. People are just a big fan of the HVX because of the 4:2:2. :)
 
thefilmgeek said:
I don't think the picture with the adapter really added anything except stopped down light. The softer light helped a ton to make it look much better. The background wasn't really all that distracting. You could have acheived the same effect with a good ND filter (and if you were dead set on whatever shallow DOF you could get, put a couple ND filters on there and crank open the f-stop to as low as it'll go :) )
Click to expand...


I've tried that and the effect is not the same. You simply can't get the same look directly with the 1/3" sensor compared to the larger projected image on the GG. That's just a fact.

It's clear that you feel there is no value in using an adapter and no amount of evidence or convincing will change your view....and that's fine. But there are many that disagree with your point of view. Just because they disagree, doesn't mean they have a "deficiency as a cameraman or director" as you suggested. It just means they are using a tool to get a specific look - their creative vision.

In my opinion, if deep DOF/Deep focus is so great, then every movie/film would look like Citizen Kane. The majority don't. Everyone would be clamoring to get that same look. That is not the case and is certainly evidenced by the quest for adapters, the DIY projects and the amount of companies selling them. There's probably a reason for that. That look - the shallow DOF and "film like bokeh" are in demand. Still, I believe that there's a place for both deep and shallow DOF as creative tools.

I suppose at this point, we should just agree to disagree on the topic. But please don't disparage someone's skill set because they have a different creative view regarding the use of adapters and shallow DOF.
 
mvansomeren said:
I've tried that and the effect is not the same. You simply can't get the same look directly with the 1/3" sensor compared to the larger projected image on the GG. That's just a fact.

It's clear that you feel there is no value in using an adapter and no amount of evidence or convincing will change your view....and that's fine. But there are many that disagree with your point of view. Just because they disagree, doesn't mean they have a "deficiency as a cameraman or director" as you suggested. It just means they are using a tool to get a specific look - their creative vision.

In my opinion, if deep DOF/Deep focus is so great, then every movie/film would look like Citizen Kane. The majority don't. Everyone would be clamoring to get that same look. That is not the case and is certainly evidenced by the quest for adapters, the DIY projects and the amount of companies selling them. There's probably a reason for that. That look - the shallow DOF and "film like bokeh" are in demand. Still, I believe that there's a place for both deep and shallow DOF as creative tools.

I suppose at this point, we should just agree to disagree on the topic. But please don't disparage someone's skill set because they have a different creative view regarding the use of adapters and shallow DOF.
Click to expand...

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! :)
 
I'm not a fanboy, per se. I just see it as a creative tool. I have tried working with lighting, f-stops, ND filters. You can get some of the effect, but there is a limit to what small sensor cameras can accomplish by this method. Also, from a budget standpoint, why wouldn't you make a one time investment $500-$1000 (a lot less for DIY) to achieve an easily repeatable look rather than spending more time and $$ on every shoot trying to achieve it with lighting, settings, etc.? I think it's a no-brainer. One thing I learned early on when I was doing Visual FXs is that "It doesn't have to be...it just has to look like it is". So sure, assuming it was even possible to achieve the exact same look, I can do it the hard way and talk about my increadible skill at lighting and setup, blah, blah, blah, or I can attach my adapter, turn it on and get to shooting. And isn't that the real purpose for all of this...to shoot?

I absolutely agree that having those skills are invaluable. However, in the real world, (i.e., budget, time constraints, etc.) If someone offers me a tool to do the exact same thing that I can do, but in a fraction of the time and a fraction of the cost, um... I'm going that route.
 
Last edited:
mvansomeren said:
I'm not a fanboy, per se. I just see it as a creative tool. I have tried working with lighting, f-stops, ND filters. You can get some of the effect, but there is a limit to what small sensor cameras can accomplish by this method. Also, from a budget standpoint, why wouldn't you make a one time investment $500-$1000 (a lot less for DIY) to achieve an easily repeatable look rather than spending more time and $$ on every shoot trying to achieve it with lighting, settings, etc.? I think it's a no-brainer. One thing I learned early on when I was doing Visual FXs is that It doesn't have to be...it just has to look like it is. So sure, assuming it was even possible to achieve the exact same look, I can do it the hard way and talk about my increadible skill at lighting and setup, blah, blah, blah, or I can attach my adapter, turn it on and get to shooting. And isn't that the real purpose for all of this...to shoot?

I absolutely agree that having those skills are invaluable. However, in the real world, (i.e., budget, time constraints, etc.) If someone offers me a tool to do the exact same thing that I can do, but in a fraction of the time and a fraction of the cost, um... I'm going that route.
Click to expand...

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!)
 
mvansomeren said:
I'm not disputing that all of those things are important. My objection was your statement that the use of a 35mm adapter was "to help offset your deficiency as a cameraman and director..."

The adapter is just a tool to try and simulate a certain look... the shallow DOF that one might typically get from a 35mm film camera. Not all films / scenes benefit from shallow DOF. However, there are definately times when it looks better.

I just finished a training video. While we were setting up I tried shooting the talent with and without an adapter. (This was a DIY Mid-Format adapter). Didn't have the monitor hooked up so focus is a bit soft. The Shallow DOF definately helped separate the talent from the background. Sure, I could have used a longer lens and zoomed in to get a similar effect, but there just wasn't enough room to do that. Although we hadn't finished setting up the lighting, the only thing that really changed was shooting with and without the adapter. I like the adapter look better in this example:
Click to expand...
I do like the still with the adapter compared to the one without.

Adding a 35mm lense gives the soft organic feel without the sharp look of a digital medium.

Here's a perfect film like feel using an adapter http://vimeo.com/1959100

One camera that give's both organic and detail on a footage is Canon's 4D Mark II. So sharp yet so organic...They need to bring that on their Video department, it puts the A1 on shame.
 
Retrospective said:
I do like the still with the adapter compared to the one without.

Adding a 35mm lense gives the soft organic feel without the sharp look of a digital medium.

Here's a perfect film like feel using an adapter http://vimeo.com/1959100

One camera that give's both organic and detail on a footage is Canon's 4D Mark II. So sharp yet so organic...They need to bring that on their Video department, it puts the A1 on shame.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top