HV20 vs. XH A1 Article

You know guys, I have a very important question to ask you. Does your potential audiences (customers) or the judges at film festivals give a damn thing about what type of camera did you used to shoot your footage? Lets see, does a judge at a film festival will be analising shutter speed control, the color capture capabilities of your 6,000 camera, or the tons of extra (sometimes for some filmmakers) useless manual features? or, they will analize the compositions and other artistic aspect of your film as a piece of art? Are the audiences going to analize the nuts and bolts of every technicals aspects of your film at the screening day or they are just going to enjoy it because it is a great story?

Can you see the big picture here? welcome to the future of indie HD filmmaking. From now on it doesnt matter what you use anymore. Film is not for the rich kids who have rich parents or uncles, nor for the yuppies who can afford to pay 4,000 for a camera to play around on weekends.

like some guys that compete in the festivals at this forums. I dont want to point any fingers or start any arguments. But they go out there and rent $10,000 worth of equipment and gear and shoot a crapy lifetime-soup opera and call it a "short film" and submit those things. And people go whoaaa.. nice 35mm adapter, woaaa the 3,000 dollar ligthing kit is great, woaaa that DVX camera capture the color so great, woaaaa the 6,000 steady cam gear looks really professional. lots of B.S. ... tons of it....

On the other hand on this same forum I have seen lots of people here with a lot of talent who made really good shorts with cheaper cameras, ligths and audio equipment. and these guys have such incredible talent that their films even with all that technical limitations are waaaaaay better than the ones shoot with a 5,000 prosumer camera.

For the first time these talented people have the real oportunity to buy a camera like the HV20 and overcome this historical financial discrimination and compete side by side with these other untalented people and do something that is aesthetically and even technically superior.

just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
I agree. It's all democratized now. Technical specs will become increasingly meaningless (as they should) when even the $1K camera can look great on a giant screen.
 
a minor advantage i see as far as the meaningfulness of the camera, is that this is probably the last opportunity to use it as a marketing gimmick, in the same way the hype surrounding features shot on MiniDV (The Celebration, 28 Days Later, Full Frontal) did.
 
I would agree with that 100%. I have said many times on here, and other forums I visit the old saying that "it's the carpenter, not the tools". This applies not only to tech work (the cinematographer, not the camera. The gaffer, not the lights), but also the overall experience. Which film would you rather watch:

1. Good story with good characters, shot on cheap tape or cheap film when tape wasn't around, well shot with mostly natural lighting. (Clerks, El Mariachi, Open Water)

2. Incredibly stupid story with lame characters speaking lame dialog, but shot on 35mm film with a lot of green screen effects and perfeclty lit shots? (The Core, Ballastic, Pearl Harbor)

Oddly enough, the problem may be the viewers in genreal are sold on the latter more freqently, often in advertising, while the former usually gets out via word of mouth, or positive reviews. So people often see the latter. The other problem is that there aren't a lot of films that fit into the former category. People move up in gear when they move up in storytelling skill. But sadly, as you point out, we focus on the technical aspects.

I also feel we focus on the technical aspects because they are more objective to explain and review. They're also easier to teach.

Finally, it's hard, really, really hard, to write a great script, and direct it really well. It's easier (though still hard) to light something very well. It's easier yet to just buy the nicest camera you can buy and play with it and post shots to the internet. So that's what a lot of people do. Not that there's anything wrong with doing so, but the issue lies when people get caught up in to what the quality of that means.
 
yes!!!!

i feel the same way. i have a little bit of technolust - meaning that i think i need to shoot films on 1080p24 - the digital equivalent to 16mm

you need 24p or 25p. this is an aesthetic choice. even before i knew about 60i and 24p, i hated the look of 60i... i could just tell the difference and it never let me get into the story. i think this is more of a subconscious thing and I'm not sure if there are many audience members who care or can tell the difference. but i do.

you need to shoot 1080 HD. when blown up to 35mm this looks beautiful. alot of films are doing this. like "collateral" "starwars" and "Me and You and Everyone We Know" that movie looked beautiful. SD stuff always looks a bit soft.

now we have a camera that records "cinema release quality pictures" - 1080p24 - and only costs $1000. it's the digital equivalent to 16mm film!!!!!!!!!!
 
I agree 100% but there are certain cases when its not true IMO. If you have a POS DV cam and have a great story you may make a good film with it but the tools you have might limit what you can do im some ways. Other than the limitations of some equipment I think you can pretty much do the same thing you could with a HV20 as you could an A1. Some folks who are all jazzed about the RED will probably buy it and turn around and create something crappy....actually im looking forward to seeing something terrible...it will just strengthen the "capenter not the tools" saying even more.

- Kyle
 
Some good points and to be honest, lighting is where its at - from an imagery perspective.
 
ncje said:
Some good points and to be honest, lighting is where its at - from an imagery perspective.
Click to expand...

Exactly...well, and AUDIO too. Lighting and audio! (Audio NOT being imagery of course! :))
 
When using a 35 mm adapter, slight differences in performance by the camera effect the final image quality in huge ways. The low light performance coupled with the lack of dynamic range on the HV20 will only further handicap the process of using an HDV or mini-dv camera with a 35 mm adapter. That's not even to mention the lack of image control and options(sharpness, etc.) that the HV20 has, when you are demanded to adjust settings on the camera's image to compensate when using a 35mm adapter in a host of different situations.
There is alot of image degradation that happens when you use a 35mm adapter, even though the companies say there isn't mch. You lose many light stops, you have to zoom in on an the camera's image ALOT, there are flare issues when sunlight is involved, grain is introduced in low light situations, CA, and the corners of the frame don't always perform as consistently as the center.
I have used a DVX100 and Xh-A1 with a 35mm adapter and it had alot of challenges and doesn't always perform how you want it to. But to use a 35mm adapter with a consumer camera for a serious project? No Thanks. Sounds like a waste of time & money if you ask me. I know the HV20 is an awesome new deal for an HDV camera. I would even love to have one as a b-camera. In the end I just think that certain people are rationalizing that they can finally afford to use a 35mm adapter with a camera, and it will look professional. I think it is alot of well-intentioned, wishful thinking.
 
party pooper. the HV20 has image sharpening. coring and other things can be done in post.
i am well aware that 35mm adapters dirty up the clean crisp image of video. i personally like the look of them. the only problem i have with them is they're crap in low-light. it's a limitation i am willing to deal with. i think i'll just take it off at night if it's that bad or turn on a light.

I believe in you HV20!!!!
 
P.S. I'm working on a way to give the HV20 a pseudo focus wheel.

this camera is turning out to be more modular than i thought possible.

I believe in you HV20!!!!
 
AloysiusK said:
I have used a DVX100 and Xh-A1 with a 35mm adapter and it had alot of challenges and doesn't always perform how you want it to. But to use a 35mm adapter with a consumer camera for a serious project? No Thanks.
Click to expand...
What's the big difference? Okay, the HV20 is less sensitive to light than the DVX100, but real film cameras are even less sensitive, right? Just get more light if you need it. If you can't get more light, then I question seriousness of the project.

If you can do a serious project with the XH-A1 and a 35mm adapter I have no doubt that you can do a serious project with the HV20 and a 35mm adapter. What's the main difference in image quality? Color reproduction? Not all films need vibrant colors. You are just going to get different looks.

I'm not even sure what you mean when you say "serious project". If it is serious enough I don't think I would rely on any HDV camera.
 
Last edited:
I just couldn't imagine that if I spend so much time with preproduction planning to make sure a project is gonna succeed(Casting, Scouting, Scripting, figuring our lighting and what is needed, Getting quality sound, investing in a 35mm adapter, and investing in all of the other equipment that is gonna be needed etc), that I would wanna capture that with one of the lowest common denominators in image quality.
I know minidv and HDV aren't THAT much better, but they have more flexibility and better image quality. Otherwise, everyone would just sell all there HDV and DVX100A's for HV20's. Most people aren't gonna do that, because they know better.
If I had $1000 or how much the HV20 costs and a 35mm adapter for a project, why not rent a higher quality camera that's gonna give you more latitude in the editing stage?
The original Subject to the thread was HV20 vs. XHA1. All I am saying is that if you had to choose between these two options for a project then I would go with XHA1 every single time. I think everybody would. Now the obvious difference is price. So in the end I think alot of people like to own equipment rather than opting to rent from project to project. I am just as suspect in this category, but I am trying to be less of a consumer and more of a renter, because in the end the project is what will be rewarded by having a more practical mindset. There are so many reasons that renting is smarter than owning, but there is for another thread.
 
Norbert, have you used a 35mm adapter for any projects? This isn't a challenge, I am honestly interested to know if you have had to adapt to the procedural differences of operating one. I am finishing editing a short that I was one man crew for, and also used the Redrock M2 on. I found it created new sets of challenges that made my project suffer at times. I really am happy with its performance, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to downgrade to a camera that stiffens the flexibility even further. Evens if it just incremental, it seems the incremental are magnified under 35 mm adapters....quite literally.
 
AloysiusK said:
I know minidv and HDV aren't THAT much better, but they have more flexibility and better image quality.
Click to expand...
Better than what? The XH-A1 records DV and HDV, and so does the HV20.

AloysiusK said:
If I had $1000 or how much the HV20 costs and a 35mm adapter for a project, why not rent a higher quality camera that's gonna give you more latitude in the editing stage?
Click to expand...
I would if I had a budget. I wouldn't rely on any HDV camera if I had already spent a lot of money on everything else. I take it that you mean serious project = big budget.

AloysiusK said:
The original Subject to the thread was HV20 vs. XHA1. All I am saying is that if you had to choose between these two options for a project then I would go with XHA1 every single time.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't. Nothing will justify the so much higher price of the A1 for me right now when the HV20 is on the market. I still don't know what you mean by a serious project but if I had a large budget I wouldn't consider an HDV camera of any kind. I would rent something better for that budget. If I'm to buy a camera I might as well go with the HV20 and a 35mm adapter because that way I can still practice shooting with HD resolution and 35mm lenses as well as doing personal projects with little to no budget.

AloysiusK said:
Norbert, have you used a 35mm adapter for any projects?
Click to expand...
I used a home made adapter with my DVX100 for a short film once. My adapter was far from perfect and so were the images. They suffered from both chromatic and spherical aberration. I have more faith in the commercial adapters (SGpro, Brevis, M2, etc.) because so far I haven't seen any really bad footage from any of them. In other words, not as bad as my homebuilt adapter.
I think everybody knows that all 35mm adapters degrades the image to some degree but that is and has always been the tradeoff if you want short DOF on wider focal lenghts with a video camera. It's simple really. If you like the image you get using an adapter, then it's all good. If you don't like it, then don't use one. It's all about personal preference.

To conclude my meaning, I think HV20 + 35mm adapter can be a good solution for serious projects that has little to no budget at all. No one says that a serious project has to cost lots of money. So again, what do you mean when you say "serious project"? :)
 
Last edited:
Serious meaning unplayful; or something that I care about a great deal to look good.

An example would be if I said "I spent a serious amount of time trying to edit that scene."

I never said that a serious project meant a big budget. You came to that conclusion. Besides, a big budget to one person is a small to another.
There is no real way of measuring.

If the reason you are so defensive is because I said that I think it would be a waste of time and money to do a project with a 35mm adapter/HV20, I did follow
that sentence up with"if you ask me". It's only my opinion based on my experiences and aesthetical tastes. That's all.
 
Last edited:
an update on the HV20

$500 upgrade to HD-SDI
live histogram - via photo mode
full manual control - via exposure lock trick
colour bars - via photo mode
hard stoppable and whippable focus wheel - still working out the kinks but it's looking good.
4:2:2 RAW - via HDMI and blackmagic
XLR ports - via XLR balance box
35mm DOF - via 35mm adapter
 
AloysiusK said:
If the reason you are so defensive is because I said that I think it would be a waste of time and money to do a project with a 35mm adapter/HV20, I did follow
that sentence up with"if you ask me". It's only my opinion based on my experiences and aesthetical tastes. That's all.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to get defensive, I just wanted to point out that I think you can get far with an HV20 if you want to own the camera you make movies with and you don't have much money to put into it. An HV20 is still a lot better than anything else you can get for that kind of money.
If you want something better and you have a perfectly planned shoot, I agree with you that it is better to rent something better.
 
Last edited:
Norbert said:
I didn't mean to get defensive, I just wanted to point out that I think you can get far with an HV20 if you want to own the camera you make movies with and you don't have much money to put into it. An HV20 is still a lot better than anything else you can get for that kind of money.
If you want something better and you have a perfectly planned shoot, I agree with you that it is better to rent something better.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I think is better to own a camera like the HV20 and master it in diferent light conditions and situations than rent a very expensive prosumer camera to play for a day or two. The former is really cost effective with the additional advantage that you are free to experiment all you want with it.
 
For learning, absolutely 100% agreed. For those who are seasoned professional cinematographers with budgets, they frequently don't own anything; technology changes too quickly and costs too much, and they just get to use the latest anyway. David Mullen ASC says "all I own is a lightmeter." Doesn't need to own a camera.

But for those who are in "the video business" working every day, owning their camera is infinitely preferable to renting. And for those who are just starting out and who need practice and experience more than anything, an HV20 or DVX is an absolutely invaluable tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top