XH-A1 filmmaking

Guys, look at this:
http://www.themenwhofell.com/MWFTrailerHi.mov

That's shot on a DVX. Standard-def.

All these cameras are capable of great results. Zak's done tests, back to back, and concluded that DVCPRO-HD/HVX is better than HDV. I wouldn't dispute that, I think he's right. But does that mean you can't make a film on a good HDV camcorder? Of course not; it just means the format isn't as good (and, no, it isn't as good, that's easily demonstrated). But is it good enough? Depending on your circumstances, probably.

Look at what Robert Sanders does on an XLH1. Watch what the Canon guys bring to the show in our SpyFest; I have high expectations.

If you're making a film for DVD & web distribution (and face it, 99.999999% of films made will never go further than that) then yes HDV is fine, just like a DVX is still plenty fine for that. If you're making a film for theatrical release, the HDV format isn't going to be as good as DVCPRO-HD, but it's still going to be better than standard-def DV. And standard-def DV was good enough for at least three Oscar nominations in a row in the "Best Documentary" category (PD150 "SuperSize Me"; DVX "MurderBall", DVX "Iraq In Fragments").

Zak's argument is factual, and based on actual tests. But that doesn't mean that "anything less than an HVX is useless" and that's not what he said either.

If you're capable of making an amazing, compelling film, none of these cameras will "get in the way"; they all offer 24fps now, they're all fine. Some are better than others, and some cost more than others, and some have more features than others, etc. They're not "all the same", not by any means. But can they get the job done? Depending on the job, yeah.
 
Most independent reviews indicate that the A1 is very cinematic... and most owners can attest to that. The A1 also brings in more than 800 recorded lines of resolution, which is more than the competition... and is within striking distance of the of the cinealta's 1000 lines of resolution.

Bottom line, the A1 is extremely cinematic, the images it produces look more like film than anything else i have seen...

and as for the RED camera... we can talk about its performance, when someone actually gets their hands on one... circa 2015!

Even the sony fx1, one of the earliest hdv cameras, produces images which rival super 16.
 
Zak Forsman said:
the discovery channel won't even take it.
Click to expand...

It has the same restrictions on the HVX.

Zak Forsman said:
unless, as I said before, the look of a macroblocking, purple-fringing A1 is unified to the content of the film.
Click to expand...

You sure youre referring to the A1 there? A1 does occaisionally get fringing on high contrast backgrounds, not always the same colour. The HVX is pretty consistantly purple under the same circumstances. I have never seen any discernable macroblocking, and I have shot and viewed hours of footage - I go through clips with a fine tooth comb at 200% and havent. Im talking from actual use experience of both cams here. The Sony V1 sure does (again talking from actual use of the camera).

You have to be careful when you condemn HDV as not all HDV is equal.

Zak Forsman said:
how you took the leap that I was implying that the artistic endeavors of the people using consumer grade equipment are somehow lesser than that of someone with more money to blow suggests that you have no idea who i am and the reputation I have on this board.
Click to expand...

By that statement your referring to A1/XLH1 or JVC Hd110 users as users of consumer grade equipment? That is meant as a question for clarification.

My issue is some points are infactual and were not even at the request of the original question. To which my answer would be, work out what features you need, go test drive them and see what fits you better, both will give great results in this class of product.

If people really want to see stuff on a theatre screen go shoot a commercial. Ive had the pleasure of seeing two commercials from the XLh1 on theatre screens and whilst they werent 35mm they were very good.

I think I am fairly impartial as I am a pretty big fan of the HVX.

I would like to know what tests you ran and with which brand of HDV - would be interesting to hear what cams you have experienced and where they fell down. Once again Ill diivulge that i had some major issues with the Sony V1.
 
I rented both, shot shorts with both, and bought the A1. I make films pretty consistently. Since purchasing the A1, I've made six shorts, and I have absolutely NO regrets. I love the lens, and the OIS is amazing. The low light performance has never been an issue, and in the instances where I've used gain over +6, (just for fun ... I've never needed it) the "noise" has been very film like. The camera DOES need to be tweaked out of the box, but once you're there, you've got an image you'll be proud of.

I'm in film school. Two of my classmates have HVX's and I'll proudly put the images I get against their images any day of the week. There really is no comparison and since we've been shooting with hd(ish) cameras, the only student who raised the money to get a new camera got an A1 based on seeing the images of both.

The one place where the HVX really has an advantage (other than multiple frame rates), is in the realm of audio. I'm not 100% satisfied with the mic pres in the A1, and having shot a feature with a DVX, I'm sure the HVX sounds better ... plus HVX audio is uncompressed whereas the HDV audio is.

In terms of HDV compression, I've done a massive amount of testing and it is a much more robust format than people assume. I don't know what camera Zac used but all HDV compression schemes are not created equal.

Additionally, if you're shooting in 24f, which I always am, the HDV compression is less because it's shooting 24 frames per second rather than 60 fields. This info came from the leading Canon guy on the floor of NAB last year and has been confirmed in a number of independent tests.

I am #483 on the RED waiting list, and can't wait for that camera. But it's going to be much more difficult to use. The auto-focus on the A1 (which I only use when I'm running and gunning by pushing the AF button) is amazing. It has never let me down. And the DOF is really lovely at about 4x zoom.

Again, I'm totally happy with this camera and promise that you will be able to get great images with it. I was skeptical about HDV for a number of reasons ... but now I'm a believer.
 
From what I've read the tests indicated that 24F mode loses about 10-15% vertical res, down to about 540 lines.

Zach, I agree with you that DVCPRO is a superior codec to HDV, but that's not the issue. Your original statement implies that anyone who uses HDV to make a film cannot possibly end up with a serious product. Maybe that's not your intention but anyone who read it would think the same thing, and it would give false impressions for people who are new. You're right, I have no idea who you are or what you do, but please refrain from making blanket statements that throw fuel into an already hot fire. It's unfortunate that everytime these HDV vs. DVCPRO thread gets going there's always people on both sides who tries to prove that the one format or the other is useless; and that's just not true. I'm sure you're already aware that there are many other factors involved, and a simple "it's not right for filmmaking" doesn't clarify or add anything to the discussion.
 
deedive said:
zak, which hdv camera did u test against the hvx. did u convert the hdv footage to hdpro before editing or did u edit and do cc in hdv.
Click to expand...

i would like to ask this again.
also would like to point out that if you get a card u can record dvcproHD with a A1 with more rez than a hvx.
 
I think he might be referring to a Kona or Blackmagic card(?)

But I'd just like to say that the A1 trailer for "Man II Man" that whachusay posted looks great, even better than some of the HVX stuff I've seen. Just goes to show that the most important thing isn't the camera but the guy or gal behind it. :)

My opinion on the A1 is that it is certainly a lot more sleek and cool than the HVX200 and the picture is just, based on looking at the LCD and viewfinder, a lot clearer. But is that a good thing for filmmaking? It's definitely subjective, but I like it.

However, as I've said before about myself being faced with the decision between both cameras, I'd still go for the HVX200 simply for the variable frame rates, it's practically required for a lot of the films I want to make, I need slow motion!:laugh:

But getting into B-cam territory, things get ugly. The HV20 would get into the ring as well and then it's just a matter of what do I need, bare minimum for BTS interviews and such?
 
jade8472 said:
From what I've read the tests indicated that 24F mode loses about 10-15% vertical res, down to about 540 lines.

Zach, I agree with you that DVCPRO is a superior codec to HDV, but that's not the issue. Your original statement implies that anyone who uses HDV to make a film cannot possibly end up with a serious product. Maybe that's not your intention but anyone who read it would think the same thing, and it would give false impressions for people who are new. You're right, I have no idea who you are or what you do, but please refrain from making blanket statements that throw fuel into an already hot fire. It's unfortunate that everytime these HDV vs. DVCPRO thread gets going there's always people on both sides who tries to prove that the one format or the other is useless; and that's just not true. I'm sure you're already aware that there are many other factors involved, and a simple "it's not right for filmmaking" doesn't clarify or add anything to the discussion.
Click to expand...
i didn't know there was a fire. i'm genuinely sorry that my point of view gets everyone riled up, but simply ask yourself... how many professional DP's would be thrilled to hear, "hey I want to hire you to shoot my feature, but uh... i'm making you shoot it on a $3500 HD camcorder."

or maybe ask yourself this... when each of you finally get your big break and jerry bruckheimer is producing the feature length version of your spyfest entry... you still going to insist that HDV is good enough? i don't know, maybe i just live in a different world, but how I see it is that your typical mainstream professional filmmaker shoots Panavision or Arri or high end HD. your conventional aspiring filmmaker who is developing their craft will shoot on consumer or prosumer cameras and do their damnedest to emulate the conventional aesthetic of 35mm. and then there's the fringe -- filmmakers, like myself, who could shoot high-end, but opt for low end because it suits their own aesthetic. flash back to the early work of john cassavettes. the work he was doing was nurtured by the more intimate nature of a smaller, less intrusive 16mm camera.

for the last time... i'm not saying a person like myself can't make a beautiful, poignant film on a consumer grade camera -- in fact, i have and i plan to once more. but generally speaking, the filmmakers shooting on an A1 or HVX or DVX or soon, the HV20, are aspiring to a level beyond their means both financially and in skill/knowledge of this visual medium. you (and I) are students -- practicing, learning, every day. so that when spielberg plucks you from obscurity, you'll know what the hell they're doing. for know, i recommend everyone keep their egos in check and be realistic about what where we, as aspiring filmmakers, stand.

ps - i checked out the list of XH-L1 shot films on imdb. i don't think that exactly proves anyone beyond an amateur level has used one to shoot a film yet. keep practicing!!!
 
Last edited:
the test i attended included footage (corrected and uncorrected) shot on a canon xh-a1 to hdv tape. i brought some dvcprohd footage from a film i shot last september with an hvx200 too. the hdv footage was captured with Avid's DNxHD codec, then output to HDCAM SR. this was the proposed workflow a friend of mine expected to use. and this was his test, not mine.

i don't know specifically what projecter was used to project, but it was definitely a christie. our conclusions were very much in line with barry green's own comparison seen in the article he wrote for this site.
 
Zak, I see your point more clearly now. But the same can be said of the HVX, "You wanted me to DP your film using a $6000 camera?!!!." DVCPRO-HD or not, it's still a prosumer camera. Obviously if we all have a ton of money at our disposal none of us would choose the A1 or even the HVX; we all be shooting on real film or going for CineAlta or Varicam; but that's in a perfect world.
 
Zak, I agree there is no fire here, just interesting discussion. Regarding your comment about professional DP's not wanting to shoot on a $3500 camcorder, I respectfully submit for your (and everyone elses) consideration:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0413466/

You probably know Steve Gainer. It truly is the talent behind the camera, not the camera. And of course, STORY trumps everything else.
 
Well Zac, you seem to be changing your tune a bit! Yeah, if anybody here had actual studio bucks do you think we would be shooting with these consumer cams...NO, even the Varicam is unacceptable by studio standards.

And bringing up the discovery channel, is absolute rubbish, they will not accept ANY camera shy of $50,000... including your beloved HVX

The reason everyone has gotten upset over your posts ZAC, is because you have come off like a fanboy, making ungrounded accusations, and it would appear that you yourself have not so much as googled this issue!

The HVX is a great camera, if it had been the same price as the Canon, i would have bought it, but the Canon is an excellent camera too... and anything that can be done with one model can be done with the other too!

So Zac, i suppose you are going to say that the Playstation 3 is "like totally better than that crap 360" or that "the wii graphics are totally as good as the ps3" or that "macs are way better than PC's"...ETC.

Check your ego at the door, and remember; unlike the video game console forums; there are actually adults reading your posts here!
 
Last edited:
i haven't changed my tune. and don't know how many times i need to repeat myself. considering the "audience" here is generally made up of low budget filmmakers aspiring to be professional studio directors, i don't think suggesting that the HDV format is best for developing your skills is particularly "out there". a fanboy? of what? the HVX200? all I suggested was that the DVCPRO codec was the the lowest quality I would deem acceptable for someone aspiring to theatrical exhibition. because the truth is that im an agnostic when it comes to platforms and cameras. i'll shoot on a fisher-price pixelvision if it's right for the story.

and futureman, you have now navigated an interesting discussion into the realm of personal attacks. why?
 
futureman, please don't make this personal. Personal attacks are against the rules.

futureman said:
And bringing up the discovery channel, is absolute rubbish, they will not accept ANY camera shy of $50,000... including your beloved HVX
Click to expand...
Can't tell you how many DC shows are shot on cams like the PD150, the FX1, the Z1U . . . and I've seen footage from the DVX on there, too (even on Discovery HD, thank you very much). Heck, pay attention to the some of the shows (like Mythbusters, to cite a recent example), and you'll find footage from 1-chip consumer cams on there.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Plenty enough people on this board have done actual shooting for DC shows and can tell you first hand.
 
Yeah, i have seen the consumer cams on those shows as well, as B roll... there are several z1u's on dirty jobs!

Also, i happen to know for a fact that discovery has aired entire shows shot on consumer grade cams... they were just never informed of this fact, the quality is the same... it is a tradition thing
 
Zak Forsman said:
all I suggested was that the DVCPRO codec was the the lowest quality I would deem acceptable for someone aspiring to theatrical exhibition.
Click to expand...

If you have said exactly that in the first place, this discussion would probably have remained much more civil.

You could have said, "I've done tests and I've concluded that if you're planning to exhibit your film in theatre the A1 is not the way to go because etc."

Instead you made one statement that lumps "filmmaking" into theatrical exhibition, straight to DVD, web video etc. which would seems to suggest that HDV in general is unsuitable for all of these. I know now that this was not your intention, but please understand that it came across as flamebait and that's what we're responding too.
 
jade8472 said:
If you have said exactly that in the first place, this discussion would probably have remained much more civil.

You could have said, "I've done tests and I've concluded that if you're planning to exhibit your film in theatre the A1 is not the way to go because etc."
Click to expand...
hey, i thought it was civil until very recently. don't blame me for someone else's lack of tact. i don't troll these boards looking for arguments. i revel in the dvxuser spirit of community. :)

jade8472 said:
Instead you made one statement that lumps "filmmaking" into theatrical exhibition, straight to DVD, web video etc. which would seems to suggest that HDV in general is unsuitable for all of these. I know now that this was not your intention, but please understand that it came across as flamebait and that's what we're responding too.
Click to expand...
i'm sorry you thought it was flamebait. people looking for something to fight about took an assertion, that the A1 is more suited to practicing your craft than making an actual motion picture like the ones made by their favorite filmmaker, as an opportunity to express an opinion defined by their own notions of acceptible image quality.

and I'm sure that theatrical exhibition is what all aspiring feature filmmakers dream of, right? of course it is. but most aren't good enough at what they do to secure distribution. so they go to self-distributed DVDs, or web distribution. hell, most aren't even making features. they develop their craft making shorts because they're not, forgive me for using a J.R. Hudsonism (where is he by the way?), "ready for prime time". same for the equipment that they use. HDV is an ideal trade-off for the aspiring filmmaker. it can be very cinematic, but there are very real limitations that the pros many of you admire wouldn't think twice about. there's no reason to be offended when someone points out that the tools you're using are a little limited in potential if your goal is to be on par with a 35mm studio picture.

in my opinion, "cinema quality HDV" is an oxymoron.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top