New camera for filmmaking

D

David Evans

Well-known member
hi everyone,

I'm new to this forum and I want to buy a (HD?) camera to get in serious independent filmaking. I don't care for video image or television standards, this camera will just be used to make movies. That's my passion, and there are some things that I know are important.

I know that shooting in progressive scan is really important to achieve film like motion. Any special differences between Panasonic original patent for progressive scan and the others that followed it, such as Canon's 24f?

About the DOF, is it as important as we read in the internet? If it is I will certainly try to get the SGblade or something like that. Any ideas of how to film upside down, wich techniques are used? Flip the camera's lcd upside down?

Bottom line, from what I've read, the Canon XH A1, is the favorite, for the money and for the quality. It's exactly on my budget, anyone knows if there is a better camera that suits my needs?

Thanks in advanced!

David
 
I have a Canon XHA1 and I like it. The 24f is the same as 24p on other camers.

35mm adapters are pretty nice and they help with the film look, but having one won't make your film better.
 
David Evans said:
Any ideas of how to film upside down, wich techniques are used?
Click to expand...

Put some industrial strength velcro on your sneakers AND the ceiling. Get yourself and your camera upside down and start filming. Make sure you have a friend to spot you in case you should fall.
 
Drew Ott said:
I have a Canon XHA1 and I like it. The 24f is the same as 24p on other camers.

35mm adapters are pretty nice and they help with the film look, but having one won't make your film better.
Click to expand...


Thanks! I know that there are much more factors that influence the film look. But my question is: will the 35mm mean a significant difference in that objective? I don't know what kind of DOF the A1 alone gets, but maybe the 35mm adapter is really necessary. Is the SGBlade a good one?

Thanks

David
 
Hey David

I am in the same boat as you. I really would like to know if the XH A1 is any better than the XL2 aside from HD.

How many people actually want HD in the short term when most consumers don't have an HD TV set anyway? How can I edit HD with current software?
 
magic88 said:
Hey David

I am in the same boat as you. I really would like to know if the XH A1 is any better than the XL2 aside from HD.

How many people actually want HD in the short term when most consumers don't have an HD TV set anyway? How can I edit HD with current software?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have that same question. Anyway, if film look is all I want, is the A1 the best choice? Well, is Canon my best choice? I've heard that Panasonic is the best for someone looking for film look, somewhat more organic from what I hear. Can anyone help me? I don't really have the oportunity to try different cameras, so I'm relying on other people input. Anyone wish to share?

Thanks!

David
 
David Evans said:
And about my other questions, any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Here's my take on the whole thing. (some rambling, and my thoughts are on the A1, not the latest incarnation)

I'm not as serious as some of the other guys on this board. I see some AMAZING footage by way of 35 mm adapters, grading and cc to acheive some fantastic imagry.

I use my A1 sans adaptor, but absolutely love it. Yesterday, my friends and I went out and shot some portions of a short film that I am working on for fun. This camera performed so well, with minimal tweaking in the field. (shooting in an urban industrial area and at a beach around "magic hour".) Bringing the raw footage back to view on an HD monitor, I was very impressed with what we shot.

I think the A1 rates very high for the fact that:
1. the stock glass is great/the iris ring is very robust for a prosumer camera
2. it has 2 XLR inputs, which is super-important to me
3. It's a very intuitive camera, not hard at all to use.
4. The ability to create custom presets is a major plus.

If your question wasn't covered already, I have not noticed much difference between Panasonic's 24P and Canon's 24F. It's all good.

I'm nostalgic for my DVX100a as I just posted in another thread, but currently am ga-ga for the XH-A1 and will be using it a lot in the foreseeable future.

Hope my info helps in your decision, but I can't help you with any 35mm adapter/monitor questions. This camera rocks for independent filmaking/music videos, that's my opinion.
 
the XH-G1 was used in Rachel Getting Married directed by Jonathan Demme, also the HV20. Article in HDvideoPro Dec 2008
 
Shallow depth of field is just a tool. Look at Citizen Kane, accredited by many sources as being the number one film of all time. It was shot entirely with deep focus, that is, everything was in focus and the depth of field wasn't shallow in the least. Don't let people, or forums, fool you into thinking if you don't have a shallow depth of field you're not going to have anything worthwhile. A 35mm adapter can be useful, but proper lighting and camera angles, and *SOUND* are what really matters. I'd rate a 35mm adapter into about 2% of how a film can be great, and the rest falls onto lighting, angles, and sound. Also...... color correcting is your friend! :) To be perfectly honest, if you aren't able to get a good shot without a 35mm adapter, you won't be able to get a good shot with one. Typically it's a waste of money, unless you have plenty to blow and really want things out of focus, hehe. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top