XH-A1 vs. DSLR

[Almohada]

Hey guys, I'm in pre-production on a film right now. We're going to shoot it with the XH-A1 because that's what we have. No budget for renting anything - although we might have access to a 5D, but you guys already know the deal with DSLRs and Almohada. The entire film takes place at NIGHT so I'm wondering how these two cameras compare in low-light. I mean, I know we can manually adjust exposure and everything to remove grain, but that means we need lots more lighting. Someone said the XH-A1 is very outdated but do you think it's still good enough for a short film? I watched tons of footage on Vimeo and I think it's still a great camera. If it's lit well and the exposure knocked down to get rid of grain I think it should be fine. Also I NEED to use a wide angle lens for a couple scenes. I have the Raynox 6600 (52mm) and the XH-A1 has 72mm threads. I guess if I get a step-up I will get the Raynox in the shot... guess I need to find a new wide angle :hv20-smilie36:

I know I have more questions about the XH-A1. I should have written them down. Anyways I'll post my questions here when I remember...

Thanks

[drapeama]

XH-A1 : 3x CCDs = no jello effect/rolling shutter.
5D: Probably better low-light sensivity, use of the lenses DOF, as it's a feature the 12mins limit doesn't really apply, unless there's looonnng takes.

All-in-all I would prefer to work with a real camcorder...and a + that it has 3xCCDs over CMOS sensor. I'd say check with the XH-A1, test it in low-light then you'll be set to know what to use. With some work lights, you can always save your shots, and they're 10$ each...sandblast the glass or paint it with high-temp paint and it should work like a charm.

[mark84j]

I love my XH-A1. I also own a 60D, but I'm starting to flat-out hate the look of DSLR 24p.

DSLR 24 just resembles a fast slideshow when compared to a REAL camcorder that is specifically for film. In fact, I'm almost considering selling my 60D.

[Almohada]

Mark... Mark84j. Yes I HATE that look too. I don't know what it is exactly but I hate the overall dslr footage. Sure great DOF but big deal the footage is ugly and fake.

Yeah I heard great things about the XH. I guess I'll do a test shoot soon!

Thanks for your help

[antman]

The xha1 out resolves the 5d, But the 5d uses aliasing to make it look as it has more res than it actually does. The biproduct is moire, aliasing on straight lines, ect...

Each cam is just a tool, the 5d, destroys the xha1 in low light, you cant even compare the two, it's that drastic. I would use both, they both have strengthes the other doesn't. I still have 2 xha1's and I love um, still. The way to go is use a citidisk, or firestore, save a ton of time in post.

If you look at this, you will get an idea how they can cut together, because this is xha1, and dslr intercut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q273wmdzOR8

Why not use the xha1, for your master, and audio, then use the 5d to go in for coverage, and multi angles? This way you have the best of both worlds, plus Shallow dof, is the best way to make the audience see what you want them to see without a choice. It's the best tool aside from low light the 5d offers.

I honestly like the look of a dof adapter, I think they produce a very organic, filmic look that the dslr's cant match, well, they can, but it takes a lot of work, and adding grain.

As far as people saying the xha1 is outdated, well.. their stupid, there's no such thing as outdated when it comes to creativity, aghain, it's the right tool for the job. If you have any other questions feel free to ask, I have used both cams exclusivly for amny different shoots.

[peterarcson]

DSLR are not dedicated video cameras, missing some critical ports, like XLR for sound. No way of monitoring sound in camera, 12 minute limit of recording. I have XF100 and 7D and grab XF100 much more frequently. At this moment you are much better off buying AF100 or new large sensor Sony if shallow DOF is what you are looking for. But they are dedicated movie cameras, with TC and AF100 even had HD-SDI. As far as DSLR- by the time you buy all the extras to make it work you are going to spend another 1-2K and you still end up with ergonomically inferior half ass set-up.

[mark84j]

The xha1 out resolves the 5d, But the 5d uses aliasing to make it look as it has more res than it actually does. The biproduct is moire, aliasing on straight lines, ect...

Each cam is just a tool, the 5d, destroys the xha1 in low light, you cant even compare the two, it's that drastic. I would use both, they both have strengthes the other doesn't. I still have 2 xha1's and I love um, still. The way to go is use a citidisk, or firestore, save a ton of time in post.

If you look at this, you will get an idea how they can cut together, because this is xha1, and dslr intercut.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q273wmdzOR8

Why not use the xha1, for your master, and audio, then use the 5d to go in for coverage, and multi angles? This way you have the best of both worlds, plus Shallow dof, is the best way to make the audience see what you want them to see without a choice. It's the best tool aside from low light the 5d offers.

I honestly like the look of a dof adapter, I think they produce a very organic, filmic look that the dslr's cant match, well, they can, but it takes a lot of work, and adding grain.

As far as people saying the xha1 is outdated, well.. their stupid, there's no such thing as outdated when it comes to creativity, aghain, it's the right tool for the job. If you have any other questions feel free to ask, I have used both cams exclusivly for amny different shoots.

Will a citidisk or firestore give you uncompressed footage?

[AJUK]

Mark... Mark84j. Yes I HATE that look too. I don't know what it is exactly but I hate the overall dslr footage.

Sounds like you answered your own question there :)

Go with the XH-A1, it's a great camera, I used to have one myself. The DSLR's completely outdo it for low-light, but other than that and the shallow DOF, you won't see a difference.

[Almohada]

Thanks guys.

The film takes place entirely at night, so I think as long as we have a huge arsenal of lights and I light the puppy like a Christmas tree we should be fine. The main shots I'm worried about are a couple interior car scenes and exterior house scenes. I don't have huge 2k's or whatever, only a small light kit but I'm going to try and get as many lights as I can find.

Another question, what's the Mac FCP workflow for the XH-A1? Does it shoot in TRUE 24p? Or do I have to do that remove pulldown crap like the HV20/30? Might just shoot in 30 if I have to do that pulldown stuff. Never done it with my HV and never want to do it. If you know of any links for a detailed workflow let me know.

[Dr. Benway]

DSLR are not dedicated video cameras, missing some critical ports, like XLR for sound. No way of monitoring sound in camera...

No big deal.

[peterarcson]

Will a citidisk or firestore give you uncompressed footage?
no it is compressed (HDV) with a lot of garbage in it. I used to record with JVC GY-HD 110 and Firestore. The footage can't match new XF100. Most likely Atomos Ninja would give very good results.

[Braceface]

Go with a HDSLR. Better for low light conditions. Looks better. One thing that confuses the heck out of me is that since I started filming I realized a LONG time ago that Camera audio ports of any kind are always inferior to recording externally with a good field recorder. I use an 8 track Fostex field recorder that runs on AC or batteries and its so much better than trying to use a video camera to do a recording studio's job. So, yeah. The HDSLR doesn't have XLRs but thats never been a factor for me. I'd not use any camera's audio anyhow except for a guide track. Its not shallow DOF that attracts me to HDSLRs, its the overall control of the lenses, period. And the sensors ability to gather all of that light is a HUGE deal, even in daytime. No camera is outdated. I mean, some are bad for some things compared to others, and for a night time movie it could be wise to go with the clear winner in that area. That way you'll save trouble with all of that light, and you can focus on directing more.

[mark84j]

No, it does NOT look better, sir. DSLR footage is garbage compared to devices made for film.

[Almohada]

No, it does NOT look better, sir. DSLR footage is garbage compared to devices made for film.

*bows down*

[peterarcson]

Go with a HDSLR. Better for low light conditions. Looks better. One thing that confuses the heck out of me is that since I started filming I realized a LONG time ago that Camera audio ports of any kind are always inferior to recording externally with a good field recorder. I use an 8 track Fostex field recorder that runs on AC or batteries and its so much better than trying to use a video camera to do a recording studio's job. So, yeah. The HDSLR doesn't have XLRs but thats never been a factor for me. I'd not use any camera's audio anyhow except for a guide track. Its not shallow DOF that attracts me to HDSLRs, its the overall control of the lenses, period. And the sensors ability to gather all of that light is a HUGE deal, even in daytime. No camera is outdated. I mean, some are bad for some things compared to others, and for a night time movie it could be wise to go with the clear winner in that area. That way you'll save trouble with all of that light, and you can focus on directing more.
I respectfully disagree. Newer cameras have 16 bit LPCM sound. You can hook up field mixer and have as many microphones hooked up as you wish. I would also disagree with the statement that DSLR footage looks better. Glass yes, but I don't think it looks any better then RED or Alexa. As the matter of fact most of 2/3" chip cameras look way better. They also render motion better. Besides lack of XLR they also lack several other key features, like zebra, monitoring ability, TC, and the list goes on. They also record 4:2:0 and you have no ability to record to external device to increase the quality.

[Almohada]

Yeah the XH is the way to go. That's what we have and since the budget went down the drain, that's the only thing we're going to have...

Any answers on the workflow and wide angle?

[Braceface]

No, it does NOT look better, sir. DSLR footage is garbage compared to devices made for film.

thats vague. Do you mean "film cameras"? Or video cameras? There are so many things you could mean, but either way "garbage" is a dumb term to throw in when talking about the quality of video from an HDSLR. It just depends on the circumstances. In low light go with the XH, I don't care. Do whatever you want. Its not my film. I'm giving my opinion. Nothing more than that.

[mark84j]

Hey, so am I.

DSLRs have become so commonplace that every time you see footage... you know exactly what camera it was shot on. And when I say the footage looks like garbage, I mean it doesn't look like it was filmed on a camcorder.

A Canon 5D shoots amazingly sharp video, but Canon DSLRs are slideshows at 24p, while the XHA1 shoots true 24f that is IMO film quality. No matter what setting you film with, a device as prestigious as the 5D will always have choppy video.

[Braceface]

Just so you are aware, real film is slideshows at 24p

[mark84j]

I'm aware of that. I'm referring to the DSLR look... it's choppy and stuttery.

[Almohada]

I'm aware of that. I'm referring to the DSLR look... it's choppy and stuttery.

and looks FAKE.

[Bif]

Actually what you see in theatres is 48fps. With modern projection equipment each frame is projected twice to smooth out the "flicker" effect of 24fps. Some can see it and others can't, it even gives some folks headaches.

This effect is why some like mark84j see DSLR 24p as a "fast slideshow". Many "see" 24fps from digital video as "stuttery". 24fps is an "archaic" holdover from the time when that frame rate was the best and most economical compromise between film consumption and a frame rate at which persistence of vision would still work.

In saying DSLRs are so commonplace each time they see something done with them they can tell exactly what it was shot with, they are not looking at the fact that a lot of what they see is done by folks who have no idea of doing much with post processing.

I pointed Almohada to footage shot by Shane Hurlbut (one the piece on Navy Seal SAR training) so he's had a look at what a pro can do with 5D MkII and 7D footage. He still "hates" DSLR footage, and that's his perogative.

You can lead a horse to water....

....Get him to float on his back and you've got something!

Bruce Foreman

[Braceface]

What looks fake? Can you please back that up with something. The HDSLR footage doesn't look fake to me in the slightest. It looks great. They have to be treated like film cameras, not video cameras. They are more similar to film cameras. I've seen far less appealing footage on the Canon camcorder/videocams over all their years than the HDSLR footage shot only in the few years they've existed.

[Braceface]

There is not an HDSLR look. You aren't making sense now. You can make footage look so many ways using so many lenses, compared to the XH.

[Braceface]

I'm aware of that. I'm referring to the DSLR look... it's choppy and stuttery.
Again. Just like film, its 24p frames of photographs playing in sequence. It looks MORE like film than video. If its choppy, it was done wrong. Its not the camera. Its the operator. HDSLR users must treat the cam more like a film cam. If a videocamera operator cant make the adjustments, or doesn't want to, then he shouldn't use an HDSLR in the first place. You can't whip pan with them, just like real film. The movements have to be "weighted" and slower, like real film cameras. But thats not a problem unless you favor the video "feel".
When I started out using the HV20, I quickly realised that 24 frames was what I wanted to do with it. The next revelation was that a 35mm. adaptor like Letus was the next logical step to get closer to the feel and look of film. That was only the beginning. Then I learned how to light for a film look, move the camera for a film look, edit, color, grade, pace, etc.... to get a film look. And by film look I meant the look that you see in a theater watching a well directed, beautiful film. Its not "just" the camera. In fact, shooting HDSLR or 35mm adaptor helps the operator learn how to shoot nicer looking "film looking" footage because it forces the operator to work like its a film camera. THAT is where the differences are as I've experienced it. With HDSLRs the main departure from film is that they gather light SO great. So you have a lot of people NOT lighting the same way they did when they had to properly light on a real film set. The unusual result is a more natural look, not a more fake one but we aren't used to that yet. We see it as unnatural because we haven't gotten used to the look. BUT, you can "always" turn down the ISO and light for film if you want. Then the result will be the look you are used to.

[Bif]

I'm aware of that. I'm referring to the DSLR look... it's choppy and stuttery.

To YOU it looks "choppy and stuttery". This is because "persistence of vision", what makes motion picture work, can be perceived differently by different individuals. It's not anybody's fault, but more than a few people can perceive the "flicker" effect of some of the slower frame rates. I've even seen some comments in these forums from individuals who don't like to work in 24fps because of this, and most of the women in my family used to be subject to headaches after coming out of a movie until modern equipment began projecting each frame twice to smooth this effect out.

The motion picture film is still exposed at 24fps but what we're seeing is now 48fps in the theatre, motion blur is still the same, all we're missing is the "flicker".

Some people can see this flicker at 24fps, I'm one of the many who cannot see it. But I used to work with 8mm film and at the frame rate of 18fps I remember seeing a definite flicker effect.

So I work largely in 29.97 progressive because I don't want that small percentage who see 24fps "flicker" to perceive my work as "choppy and stuttery". So far I've seen no comments of such.



Again. Just like film, its 24p frames of photographs playing in sequence. It looks MORE like film than video. If its choppy, it was done wrong. Its not the camera. Its the operator.

See my comments above. It's neither the camera nor the operator. Some people are just more susceptible to seeing (or almost seeing) the flicker effect of the slower frame rate. My wife has always been sensitive to headache from watching a movie in the theatre for a couple of hours, one of the neurologists she's seen had seen medical papers covering the effects of motion picture projection. She cannot quite "see" the flickering but is affected by it nonetheless. In recent years because modern projection equipment "smoothes it out" by projecting each frame twice she seems to be much less affected.

24fps is no longer needed like it used to be. It's an "archaic" holdover from the film days when the rate at which film was "consumed" was a very important economic consideration (price film and processing costs nowadays!). Many in the industry are looking forward to video being done at 60p as a norm someday, and not for slow motion.

I often render my video out at 1280x720 60p (one of the render settings offered in my NLE) for the "smoothing" effect of the faster viewed frame rate.




HDSLR users must treat the cam more like a film cam. If a videocamera operator cant make the adjustments, or doesn't want to, then he shouldn't use an HDSLR in the first place. You can't whip pan with them, just like real film. The movements have to be "weighted" and slower, like real film cameras.

Some really good points here. One of the things I'd also add is that the folks who spent some years behind an SLR (be it film or digital) were the ones who had the easiest time adapting to the video DSLR.

I really don't have a "dog in this hunt". I don't care what gear they use on their film. Each one of us will use the gear we feel the most comfortable with or what our budget allows and that's the way it ought to be.

Bruce Foreman

[peterarcson]

I am not talking how the footage looks, but how the camera operates. Like I stated before- there are several things missing when shooting with DSLR, Can you shoot- sure, however not without some workarounds. When you consider the true cost of having a full DSLR setup, might as well just buy an AF100 (just saw on ebay for 4k with 16 hours on it). Btw comparing XH1 and DSLR is like comparing apples and oranges- XH1 is an ENG camera, DSLR is not.

[Almohada]

Here are a couple questions again for those who own an XHA1:

Would 52mm wide angle on 72mm step up work?
Any workflow suggestions?
Can I use two XLR mics - one left channel, one right? I believe I can link or unlink them when capturing in FCP...

[cgbier]

72 to 52 is step down. You'll have some nice, artistic vignetting. Bit the bullet and by a 72mm WA lens. The Canon one is made for this cam!

[cgbier]

you can use two mics with out a problem. Yep, channel one is left, channel two is right.

Workflow? It is an HDV cam. Workflow is the same as with an HV.

[Almohada]

72 to 52 is step down

oops. Yes, step down. OK so if I use my 52mm Raynox on it, zoom in where I don't get any more vignetting, do you think it will still be wider than the stock lens? It's not my cam so I don't want to shell out a hundred+ bucks for a lens that I won't use - ya know what I mean? I wish someone who has these pieces can try and let me know how it works out.


Workflow? It is an HDV cam. Workflow is the same as with an HV.

Yeah I was just wondering about the frame rate issue. Couldn't find too much info about it for my specific questions. For example, the workflow is the same as the HV, but from what I read it shoots in true 24p so that means I DON'T have to remove pulldown? Do I capture using the HDV 24 or HDV60i preset?

Sorry for asking all these questions, I need to know this cam in and out within a few weeks... it's not even mine and don't have access to it now so that makes it much harder.

Thanks so much for your help, CG.

[cgbier]

52mm? Won't work. You zoom in too far that the purpose of a WA is gone - you can shoot naked with a better picture quality.

Capture into a 24p timeline if you shoot 24p.

[Almohada]

Capture into a 24p timeline if you shoot 24p.

So it is true 24p. Finally no pulldown removal!!! (it's not like I've ever done it anyways, I would've needed to for a film of this caliber, though)

Thanks again for all your help.

[Bif]

I am not talking how the footage looks, but how the camera operates. Like I stated before- there are several things missing when shooting with DSLR, Can you shoot- sure, however not without some workarounds. When you consider the true cost of having a full DSLR setup, might as well just buy an AF100 (just saw on ebay for 4k with 16 hours on it). Btw comparing XH1 and DSLR is like comparing apples and oranges- XH1 is an ENG camera, DSLR is not.

The camera does what the operator has the skills to make it do. Concerning "DSLR is not (an ENG camera)", tell that to Dan Chung, a journalist who frequently uses DSLR to make visually stunning documentaries in China and other worldwide locations, much of the time having to use ENG approach to keep up with events.

A comment found on a site that had one of his efforts in Uganda:

Dan’s taking this camera off the shelf and out into the world where it can shine light on issues that need to be seen and heard. The intrinsically high production quality imagery the 5dmarkii is producing can only further justify what an invaluable tool this camera is when placed in the right hands. What’s most amazing to me is the intimacy Chung is capturing in his subjects whilst running and gunning.

And another (News video shot on 5DmkII - The Economic crisis hits China):

If all news only looked this good! Something about the filmic black crush of the 5dmarkii that takes what typical ENG Digibeta would capture and turns it into docu-gold.

Dan Chung is not the only one. You guys can "pontificate" all you want about what is suitable for what, but the "REAL PROS" are out there producing professional results with whatever the heck is put in their hands.

I've said before "I don't have a dog in this hunt". I use what I use (actually both conventional video cameras and DSLRs) and others can have their preferences. But it flat bothers me to see IGNORANCE and PREJUDICE pushed as "truth".

Those who are looking to learn here just may believe it.

Bruce Foreman

[azmyth]

WoW... I'm not sure how to respond to some of the posts in this thread.

I'm with Bruce, use the right tool for the job. I own an HV40 and a Canon DSLR. I LOVE how my DSLR footage looks in comparison, and I LOVE being able to shoot with very little light. Want a lesson in madness, try to shoot a horror movie with an HV40 or similar camera.. you better be packing some kind of light kit.. we had 4 300w CFL softboxes, 2 500w tungstens, 2 800w redheads, and a half a dozen 500-1000w shop lights and we still didn't have enough light in some cases.

I went out to the location to shoot some broll with my t2i, in the same location we filmed one of the original scenes. I shot with only the lighting that was there, and my footage was 10x better and cleaner than the original stuff, where we had 3 500w shop lights and 2 300w cfl's pumped into it. Had I had the T2i when I started, it would have cut production time almost in half, because lighting is the single most time consuming process of the entire film. I'd still use my HV40 for some shots, mostly during the day or on a jib.

I like how some of these guys are saying that the XHA1 is made for "film", its a digital video camera.. its made for "video", thus it will look like "Video", because it is a "video" camera. It will look great regardless which camera you use, I just think some people need to stop with all the ragging on DSLR's with false statements. Every "Joe" I've shown the footage to, has stated how much better to them it looks than my HV40 does.. it was an upgrade for me. Your mileage may vary.. I say stop fussing about what camera you use, and just make a movie and use the tool thats right for the job. Sometimes its a DSLR, sometimes its a video camera.

[Braceface]

Bingo

[Almohada]

I like how some of these guys are saying that the XHA1 is made for "film", its a digital video camera.. its made for "video", thus it will look like "Video", because it is a "video" camera.

I like how some of these guys are saying that DSLRs are made for "video", it's a digital still camera... it's made for "photography", thus it will look like "photography", because it's a "photo" camera.

[azmyth]

I like how some of these guys are saying that DSLRs are made for "video", it's a digital still camera... it's made for "photography", thus it will look like "photography", because it's a "photo" camera.

The difference is.. is that noone on here suggesting DSLR's have said that its the end all be all. Its "tool". If you want your feature to look like film, rent a film camera and shoot on film. Thats as simple as it gets. We haven't suggested that the XHA1 is a bad camera, its a great camera. I'd shoot with it in a heartbeat if I owned one, and if I had a GOOD light kit I'd use it over my DSLR any day of the week.. but it comes down to what I need most, and as brace mentioned.. I don't record audio to my camera ever.. so.. don't need XLR inputs.. but because of the type of stuff I shoot.. the low light capabilities of the DSLR just cannot be denied. In some stuff I don't even need to bring in lights at all. With the XHA1 especially with any kind of depth of field adapter... even for indoor stuff your gonna need a crap ton of lights.

If I had access to both, I'd use the XHA1 for the daytime shoots, and anything you don't need shallow dept of field on.. and use the 5D on all the night stuff, or anything with lower light.

Or, get a crap ton of lights and shoot on the XHA1 exclusively. It will look good no matter which one you use, thats the point I'm making.

Noone who uses a DSLR denies that video is not its main design function, it just happens to do a fairly bang up job of it. If its enough for the season finale of House, a crap ton of feature films and shorts popping up everywhere, and Phillip Bloom and Shane Hurlbut.. its good enough for me.

I have an actress friend who has been in several features over the past 6 months, and a TV show pilot.. all of them were shot on DSLR. I asked her how she liked it compared to traditional big video cameras and she said "Its alot quicker.. less lights, less set up time... can get the camera in places you can't get a big video camera". She knows nothing about the tech side of it, and she felt it made her job easier as an actress because she was able to spend more actual time "acting" instead of waiting for crew to set up a zillion lights.

it all goes back to having the right tool for the right job. I think you can't go wrong with either.

[Bif]

I like how some of these guys are saying that DSLRs are made for "video", it's a digital still camera... it's made for "photography", thus it will look like "photography", because it's a "photo" camera.

Seems like you just can't "let go" of it, can you?

People in the imaging industry have been saying for almost 2 decades that the line between still imagery and motion picture have been "blurring". Well both still imagery and motion picture are "photography" and the line between the two is now more "blurred" than ever before. Both must be used according to the principles of BASIC PHOTOGRAPHY so both must look like good photography (unless the objective and purpose is to make it look otherwise).

Either type of camera will produce whatever the operator (or production crew) has the imagination and SKILLS to make it achieve the visual concept required.

Look, no one here has criticized your choice of gear for your project. In fact all the comments that reference the XHA1 have stated it is an excellent performing piece of equipment. If you have the skills, it flat doesn't matter what you use.

"Nuff" said?

Bruce Foreman

[Almohada]

I don't know why it got out of hand. I just needed to decide which one to use and I had a few questions about the XH. I haven't shot with a DSLR before so whatever I said about them is just from my observations. You never know, one day I might get a chance to use one and fall in love with the look. Maybe it's just the youtube or vimeo compression or the added color correction. Maybe I need to see raw footage. Anyways, I don't have time to experiment with that now, I just need to focus on my shoot now that I have those XH questions answered.

Yeah I have a small light kit - but it's not enough. I don't mind shooting with the XH and taking time to light the scenes. That's what makes it fun, at least for me. I'm going to pick up a few more lights soon.

[Bif]

I like how some of these guys are saying that the XHA1 is made for "film", its a digital video camera.. its made for "video", thus it will look like "Video", because it is a "video" camera.

Unless "film making" skills, expertise, and techniques are properly utilized in which case it can look like "film". There is no one "thing" you can point to that will automatically make a project look like "film". Filmlike lighting will help, filmlike camera technique will help, filmlike "vision" will help, many things will help but no one setting or application by itself will do it.

That's what makes so many of these arguments pointless. The "true believers" that one type of camera or another is suitable or unsuitable are ignoring the fact that true PROS are out there proving the "true believers'" arguments "hold no water".

Bruce Foreman

P.S. I take it your camera is now "well"?

[Bif]

I don't know why it got out of hand. I just needed to decide which one to use and I had a few questions about the XH.

Maybe we can chalk it up to the "typed" word. No facial expressions or body language to help interpret.

Decisions on what to use can be difficult enough, but what we have access to is what we use.




I haven't shot with a DSLR before so whatever I said about them is just from my observations. You never know, one day I might get a chance to use one and fall in love with the look.

That may come, best not to "push" it. Those who have the easiest time adapting are the ones who shot a lot with SLRs either as a job or "addictive" hobby. A couple more years and we may see affordable camcorders with larger sensors and adaptability to existing lenses.



Maybe it's just the youtube or vimeo compression or the added color correction. Maybe I need to see raw footage. Anyways, I don't have time to experiment with that now, I just need to focus on my shoot now that I have those XH questions answered.

That compression will do it. Best examples will be the downloadable files from "plus" members like Philip Bloom, Dan Chung, and Shane Hurlbut. "Plus" members videos are generally left as uploaded and not compressed, I have to delete all of mine from before I paid for "plus" upgrade as several have been reprocessed and recompressed more than once. Some just flat look awful (shot with non DSLRs too).

Good luck on your project.



Yeah I have a small light kit - but it's not enough. I don't mind shooting with the XH and taking time to light the scenes. That's what makes it fun, at least for me. I'm going to pick up a few more lights soon.

Small light kits can work if you don't try to make it cover too large an area. What kind of film will you be trying to work on? Narrative, music documentary? (You did say almost entirely at night).

Bruce Foreman

[HueyNRolf]

Did you consider shooting in daylight and doing a day for night effect in post?

[azmyth]

Bruce my camera is "Well" thanks lol.
I've been meaning to post some new test footage with it, just haven't gotten around to it.. right now I'm enjoying the madness of mixing dialog on a feature film.. grr. Almo, best advice i can give is use your "pro" lights to light your scene.. and use 1000 and 500w shop lights to provide big patches of light if you just need to illuminate so the camera can "see".

[Almohada]

What kind of film will you be trying to work on?

Short narrative. Entire thing at night.


Did you consider shooting in daylight and doing a day for night effect in post?

It won't work and besides I think it's too risky. Much easier for me to shoot at night than blow the whole thing if it doesn't work out in post.


Almo, best advice i can give is use your "pro" lights to light your scene.. and use 1000 and 500w shop lights to provide big patches of light if you just need to illuminate so the camera can "see".

Yeah I'm going to have to get some of those shop lights I think. I'm still waiting on locations so I don't know what I should prepare. I still didn't mess with the XH but I think I'm just going to turn the exposure down until I don't get any grain, then start adding lights. I'm going to check for XHA1 online tutorials right now...

[azmyth]

I mean you can rent some 1 and 2k fresnel's if its just a short, but we lit a bunch of areas outside at night and it was not easy. The hardest part isn't lighting the scenes, its getting enough light in so you can see. In one scene outside near a wooded area, we had that place lit up like it was daytime to our eyes, and it still looked super dark on the camera. On my feature, we have some scenes that are a bit grainy.. just had to roll with it.. it doesn't look bad, most of the time it worked out so it seems like an aesthetic choice vs. we didn't have enough light.

[Almohada]

Damn. Yeah, it's going to be hard but what can I do. Yeah the scene I'm most worried about is a house exterior. We do not have a permit so I also need to find a location which is well hidden so I can use all that lighting and preferably a house with a street light in front. I just need to light the house so it's barely visible and you can tell that it is a house. I'm also thinking to do some up-lighting against the house or up-light surrounding trees to give it a nice touch. Depends on the location, though. It will be fun no matter what.

[Bif]

Short narrative. Entire thing at night.

A few years ago the only lighting I had was studio strobe. For a few outdoor scenes at night involving a "flashback" to a VietNam combat experience I lit my actor with hardware store 11" clamp on reflector floods with 60Watt bulbs. I used one fairly close in to him from an angle about 100 degrees from the camera axis and it worked perfect. Low key enough to not "overlight" him and the dramatic effect was just right for the sequence. It was directional enough so that with a rolled up black paper tube "snoot" the beam spread was controlled.

I did it in my back yard and didn't have to light anything else, with the background totally dark I was able to luma key in some explosions and shell bursts.

With a limited light kit you can work in close to your acting talent and have enough light to use. But I don't think it's a good idea to try to light people with "shop" lights, too "harsh" and really too bright. Like others have suggested those may be best used to light areas.



Yeah I'm going to have to get some of those shop lights I think. I'm still waiting on locations so I don't know what I should prepare. I still didn't mess with the XH but I think I'm just going to turn the exposure down until I don't get any grain, then start adding lights. I'm going to check for XHA1 online tutorials right now...

One technique that may help if you get a bit of noise in dark areas is to try "crushing" the blacks just a little in post. It will help to run some exposure tests using your locations. If this kills noise only in the darkest parts of the frame, try combining it with a slight increase in contrast in post. If it works it can add to dramatic effect.

And I just got this LED light in, haven't had a chance to fully test it yet but it is amazingly bright for the price. I use 6 AA rechargeable cells in it.

http://www.amazon.com/LED-CN-160-Dimmable-Camcorder-Panasonic/dp/B004TJ6JH6/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1311834539&sr=8-11

Bruce Foreman

[Bif]

Bruce my camera is "Well" thanks lol.
I've been meaning to post some new test footage with it, just haven't gotten around to it.. right now I'm enjoying the madness of mixing dialog on a feature film.. grr.

Glad it's working.

Gotta shut this down, doggone cat is trying to "enforce" a bedtime curfew on me. Kids are grown, wife doesn't fuss at me but the cat that moved in with us 3 years ago sure does.

Bruce Foreman

[Almohada]

Thanks Bif! Actually that exterior scene will just be wide shot of the house. There's some stuff going on outside but I'm not going to get that detailed. So there won't be any close-ups at all. Yeah I'm planning to do some test shoots with the camera. I just watched some tutorials online, I guess I will pump up the shutter speed or use the f-stop ring to get rid of grain.

Thanks for reminding me about that LED light, I'm going to need one of those for the interior car scenes.

Hey does anyone know at what shutter speed the footage starts to get choppy? I never what to go over that...

[Braceface]

Car Headlights may work! I've done that. Get a few friends' cars out there and test. And if you shoot at a little before dusk instead of night, you can MAKE a shade lens to put in front of each shot and line it with the horizon and SHOOT DAY FOR NIGHT. All you need is tinted glass. Avoid certain shots that wont work. Work to the strengths and FORGET about what you cant do. With all of the combinations we've given you, you should be ok.

[Bif]

Thanks Bif! Actually that exterior scene will just be wide shot of the house. There's some stuff going on outside but I'm not going to get that detailed. So there won't be any close-ups at all.

Suggestion: Whether you plan to use them or not, consider shooting quite a few closeups. Having them available can literally save you where your other scenes get a bit longish/laggy. One or two second closeup "cutaways" can step up the editing pace and keep the viewer from "lingering" too long on some scenes. My biggest "lament" when I hit the editing process is "Why the heck didn't I shoot more closeups for "cutaways".



Yeah I'm planning to do some test shoots with the camera. I just watched some tutorials online, I guess I will pump up the shutter speed or use the f-stop ring to get rid of grain.

Plenty of "test" footage (short takes, though) will help more than anything else, come back, capture the takes and start "playing" with them on a timeline. I'd do some of this as soon as I got my hands on the camera. The "familiarization" you get on the camera in this process will pay off big time when you actually start filming for production. So the benefits are twofold.



Thanks for reminding me about that LED light, I'm going to need one of those for the interior car scenes.

It's got a VERY effective dimmer! So it should be very flexible. Only question in my mind is how accurate the tungsten balance filter (orangeish) is with the camera set to tungsten white balance. I'll try to test that tonight and report what I find on it. If it's not that accurate, I'd go for daylight WB as long as the LED was the predominant light and let outside street tungsten stuff go amber/golden and not worry about it.

Street lighting in a lot of areas is now sodium vapor which is "nasty" to try to balance on.



Hey does anyone know at what shutter speed the footage starts to get choppy? I never what to go over that...

This depends on what kind of motion you have in the scene. I've used 1/125th with no problems, on one project I had no ND filters and couldn't get the shutter down below 1/250th. There was some action but no "choppy" rendition. If there had been someone running that would possibly have been a problem.

I just reviewed Dan Chung's 5D MkII footage on the re-enactment of battle between Mao Tze Dong's communist forces and the Nationalist forces on the 60th anniversary of communist victory. A lot of the action did look VERY choppy, but for the first couple of years the 5D MkII had no manual control in video mode, it was full auto. All he had to work with was 30p (non standard, standard is 29.97fps) and whatever the camera set for shutter, aperture, and ISO.

So in bright daylight he was stuck with high shutter speeds (I'm guessing 1/500th or higher) and the motion of troops running in some scenes is quite choppy.

After that camera had been out about 2 years Canon come out with a firmware upgrade that added manual control and common frame rates.

Now if most of what you're doing is at night, I'd recommend 1/60th to reduce any flickering or "banding" that could come from artificial lighting. The line frequency in our country is 60Hz and if the shutter speed is not some multiple of that you could see some problems. 1/60th would give a motion blur effect that is not far off from the 1/48th sec the 180 degree rotating shutter used to give on film cameras.

If you needed more exposure and didn't have much fast motion to deal with, you could use 1/30th which is consider a .5 multiple of 60Hz (another thing to try in your testing).

Bruce Foreman

[Bif]

About the LED light...

It's got a VERY effective dimmer! So it should be very flexible. Only question in my mind is how accurate the tungsten balance filter (orangeish) is with the camera set to tungsten white balance. I'll try to test that tonight and report what I find on it. If it's not that accurate, I'd go for daylight WB as long as the LED was the predominant light and let outside street tungsten stuff go amber/golden and not worry about it.

Street lighting in a lot of areas is now sodium vapor which is "nasty" to try to balance on.


I ran a quick test on this LED light and the filter supposed to change the light to 3200K. As I've read in a few posts the results are a bit "greenish" with WB set to Tungsten and the "orange" filter over the light. I put the clips on the timeline of the NLE I use (Avid Pinnacle Studio 15 Ultimate Collection) and in video effects selected "Color Correction".

This lets me work with Brightness & Contrast, Hue and Saturation, Intensity (Gain, Gamma, Black level), and then Gain, Gamma, and Black level in each of the color channels. Reducing the Gain in the Green channel a very small bit added just enough Magenta to make skin tones look normal, so if you have tungsten street lights, vehicle lights, and some porch lights in the background (plus someone's headlights partially illuminating a house as Braceface suggested) the slight amount of magenta correction for skin tones shouldn't hurt a thing.

If you're dealing with sodium vapor streetlights doing some illumination the slight uncorrected green cast might not matter although I would correct it some anyway.

Using the light with WB set to daylight and no orange filter skin tones looked pretty much OK.

So now you know a bit more about these inexpensive LED lights than you did before. I'm thinking of ordering a second one so I can set up key and fill if needed.

Bruce Foreman

[Almohada]

Thanks, Bif. Definitely going to pick one up and experiment with it! Will probably do need to color correct those exterior house shots, depending on the street light - if there is one at all.

[peterarcson]

The camera does what the operator has the skills to make it do. Concerning "DSLR is not (an ENG camera)", tell that to Dan Chung, a journalist who frequently uses DSLR to make visually stunning documentaries in China and other worldwide locations, much of the time having to use ENG approach to keep up with events.

A comment found on a site that had one of his efforts in Uganda:

Dan’s taking this camera off the shelf and out into the world where it can shine light on issues that need to be seen and heard. The intrinsically high production quality imagery the 5dmarkii is producing can only further justify what an invaluable tool this camera is when placed in the right hands. What’s most amazing to me is the intimacy Chung is capturing in his subjects whilst running and gunning.

And another (News video shot on 5DmkII - The Economic crisis hits China):

If all news only looked this good! Something about the filmic black crush of the 5dmarkii that takes what typical ENG Digibeta would capture and turns it into docu-gold.

Dan Chung is not the only one. You guys can "pontificate" all you want about what is suitable for what, but the "REAL PROS" are out there producing professional results with whatever the heck is put in their hands.

I've said before "I don't have a dog in this hunt". I use what I use (actually both conventional video cameras and DSLRs) and others can have their preferences. But it flat bothers me to see IGNORANCE and PREJUDICE pushed as "truth".

Those who are looking to learn here just may believe it.

Bruce Foreman
What you are saying is simply not rue. there might be a photog here and there shooting with DSLR, but for 99% of programming in HD such footage will be rejected just on technical issues. what is required by vast majority of networks and broadcast is i-frame (like DVCPRO HD, IVC-Intara) @100 Mb/s minimum or mpeg2 50Mb/s 422. DSLR have too low of a bite rate of mpeg 4, with 420 color. if you are established and the network is interested in the material you might try to pitch it, for 99.9% of others i say good luck shooting with dslr and the trying to sell it.

[Dr. Benway]

What you are saying is simply not rue.... 99% of programming in HD such footage will be rejected just on technical issues... others i say good luck shooting with dslr and the trying to sell it.

DSLR's all over the show here in Thailand, in conjunction with a plethora of Sony, Panny, Canon AVCHD and HDV 'camcorders'.

[cgbier]

There are many levels of broadcast - our local station is even happy with Hi8 or VHS-C, for PBS you need at least an EX-1 (per their redbook).

[Dr. Benway]

Hilarious watching the interlacing though. Some guys have learned the correct camera or post settings though, but those interlacing lines... jeez!

[Almohada]

Ok, this is pissing me off... I don't know which way to go.

I've been reading on different forums and some people say this method could work: Out from XH-A1 using yellow RCA cable, into this converter cable and plug it into the monitor's VGA port.

http://www.amazon.com/TV-out-VGA-S-Video-Cable-Adapter/dp/B000P3UB24


OR I can do this method: BNC out from XH-A1, BNC into this converter, VGA out and into monitor

http://cgi.ebay.com/CCTV-Composite-S-Video-VGA-BNC-VGA-Converter-Adapter-/290586632681?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43a85021e9#ht_5841wt_1115


I think the BNC method is safer. The RCA cable has gotten mixed reviews and I'm afraid it won't work with my monitor. Plus I'd rather use a nice heavy duty BNC cable as opposed to a short thin RCA which could get trampled over on set.

[Almohada]

So should I go RCA or BNC?

[Almohada]

Alright guys, I need to order this today. I'm leaning towards BNC...
Give me your opinions

[antman]

what is it you need to order? Monitor?

There's not much I don't know about the XHA1, AND XHA1'S. I have both, and have done a good amount of shooting on them. As far as getting a good filmic look, your going to want to approach you custom settings the ay you would on pretty much any cam, So forget the scene files, make your own flat picture profile, it will give you at least another stop in latitude, and you will start to see detail in the shadows where as if you were to use a setting like OUTSIDEN, DVXMATCH,NATURALLO. You wouldn't see. So just go in to pic settings, and adjust to the flattest picture you can dial in, then tweak from there. It took me a good day to get a profile that I think is great for color grading with the most latitude you can possibly get out on an xha1.

As far as monitoring your image, I would go with the craig 15" monitor, it has component in and can run off a 12 volt battery. And it's high def 720p. You cant find a better monitor with the same options for the price anywhere. If you run composite out, your only getting an sd signal, I mean thats fine for a directors monitor, but who ever is pulling focus will want a good sharp monitor. you can find them on ebay, or at Cvs pharmacy for around 100 bucks.

[Almohada]

A new monitor is "out of the budget." There isn't a focus puller - the camera op will be doing that looking at the LCD. I need a directors monitor -- I already have a 21" computer monitor BUT with VGA and DVI inputs. So, I need to know which route to take.

BNC to VGA ---OR--- composite (yellow RCA) to VGA????????

The BNC to VGA converter is $22 bucks while the RCA to VGA wire is only a few bucks... BUT I've read that the RCA to VGA wire doesn't always work. So I'm thinking to get the BNC converter. I posted links to these above...

[antman]

Thats correct, I tried the component to vga cable, and had no luck.

So your shooting straight xha1, no dof adapter, that makes it a bit easier to not have to deal with a 1st Ac. this will save some time. As far as low light, Azymth shot his feature on a stock hv40, So you really cant compare it to the xha1, the A1, is much better in low light than the hv40, But you will still need some lights, your plan to grab some work lights should be fine. Just pick your locations wisely, ad try to find them with some ambient light to create added depth to the scene.

You ca get some nice dof out of the A1, just zoom in an move back. Even though it has a small sensor, it has a killer L SERIES LENS. I t's prone to a little chromatic aberation, but nothing I would worry about. If you have any question feel free to pm me. Like I said, I know that cam pretty well. good luck with your film:)

[Almohada]

Thanks antman!

Alright, so I'm going to grab that BNC to VGA converter and probably a 50 foot BNC cable (why not?). I hope it works!!!!!

[Almohada]

I'm really worried about the converter's output:

Supported VGA output resolution: 800 x 600@60HZ, 800 X 600@75HZ, 1024 x 768@60HZ, 1280 x 1024@HZ.

[Almohada]

Alright I think I need something like this....

http://cgi.ebay.com/1080P-RGB-YPbPr-Component-VGA-Audio-Video-Converter-/200477246021?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2ead600245#ht_3042wt_995


It says it supports High Definition output, 1080p. $38 is going to break the bank... I guess it's still cheaper than buying a new monitor PLUS I get to preview in HD.

[Almohada]

What do you guys think about the converter in the last post?

[Bif]

If it does what the description and photos show, it should work. Component out from camcorder to the three inputs on the converter and one of the outputs to the monitor.

If you have enough "manpower" to horse the monitor into the needed position it should help. Also regarding the cost, you should be able to use that setup with most any other camcorder including the HV series.

One time I gave a program presentation on digital retouching before I had a projector (it was that presentation that made me go out and buy one!). I "lugged" in a 21.6" Samsung monitor and figured the club members would cluster around where they could see.

Nope.

They sat all around the room and I don't know if any of them got any of the visual material. So I bought a digital projector and brought the Conch Valley Photography Club into the digital age.

Anyway, I think that converter should work and I believe you'll get more use out of it later.

Bruce Foreman

[Almohada]

Alright, I think I'm going to go for it. There's no other way. I'm also going to get a long VGA cable instead of an RGB and coupler cable.

Well I'd use it for my HV but I already have an HDMI out to DVI cable that I use with this same monitor. But I guess I have another option now!

By the way I made a stand for my LCD monitor. I'll probably start a thread

[Almohada]

Alright, just picked it up and a 50 ft. VGA cable. The VGA was much cheaper than an RGB + coupler. I wanted to do the RGB so I can leave the converter box right next to the monitor and not tangling wires around the camera, but we have a tight budget so we'll have to deal with all the wires near the camera!

Thanks for all your help everyone.

[Almohada]

Hey guys, big problem....I tested out the XH-A1 today. Very, very nice camera. BUT the Component cable is missing!!!!!!!!!!!! We need one like this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/410327-REG/Canon_0976B001_D_Terminal_to_Component_Video.html

$42.95 ???? Why????? WHY????????

Does anyone have an extra cable lying around that I can borrow for a week or two? I'll ship it right back after the shoot. Please!

[Almohada]

Anyone? Please!

[BarteS]

Perhaps Seo can help you out? He's just back in the USA. :) I sent him the link to your request.

[Almohada]

Thanks!!!!

Yeah I just spent 50+ bucks on that stupid converter and cable. I found someone selling a pro Sony field monitor for that much!!! If I knew the wire was unavailable I would've just used BNC to a new monitor...

Please!!! The shoot will only be 2 or 3 days, and I might do a test shoot to make sure everything works so I'll only need it for about a week. I'll pay for shipping, it should only be a dollar or two

[Bif]

If I had one, I'd send it to you.

I just don't have anything that uses that kind of component cable in my inventory.

If there's any chance you pick up a used XH A1 down the road you might as well order the cable you need.

Or maybe the camera owner would buy it from you for about $30 or so. That way it wouldn't cost you that much. Or you could "ebay" it when done.

Bruce Foreman

[BarteS]

Thanks!!!!

Yeah I just spent 50+ bucks on that stupid converter and cable. I found someone selling a pro Sony field monitor for that much!!! If I knew the wire was unavailable I would've just used BNC to a new monitor...

Please!!! The shoot will only be 2 or 3 days, and I might do a test shoot to make sure everything works so I'll only need it for about a week. I'll pay for shipping, it should only be a dollar or twoSorry, Seo said he has the same situation, he left the cable (and something else) in China... Good luck.

[Almohada]

Damn.

Well the eBay thing is not a bad idea, never thought of that.

Hopefully someone on here could help.

[Almohada]

OK I think the one on B&H is the cheapest one on the web...

Not sure what to do anymore. I can't even shoot this thing anymore

[Almohada]

I'm sure there are at least 100 XH-A1 users on here.... please. Credit in "special thanks" section + reimbursement for rental/shipping costs of the wire.

[Almohada]

Alright I'm going to have to buy it tomorrow if nobody has one..........

[Almohada]

Alright, we're shooting in exactly one week. Nobody posted here so I guess B&H is the only way to go. I hope they accept paypal. And it better be on my doorstep by Tuesday.

Edit: Great, I don't even have enough for that wire. Need 7 cents. Oh well, I'm going to call off the whole thing

[Bif]

Make a go of it with what you have. Many have managed to work a project without an HD monitor, you should be able to also. Doesn't the XH-A1 have focus peaking or some focus assist feature like that?

It's just going to take more attention on the camera operator's part to insure framing and focus is what you need those to be, there's no sense in calling off a project because of one wire. Get out there and do some testing, more than one test session, find out what you can really do and what results you can expect. If results of tests aren't what you need, analyze as best you can what you need to do to change it and get out there and test that change.

Focus will sometimes be easier on closeups and you need to make sure you have enough working light on the actors to be able to see that well enough. If you continue to have problems have someone shine a bright flashlight on faces or clothing detail WHILE YOU FOCUS ONLY prior to filming a "take".

There are workarounds.

I don't know anything about the XH-A1 but night stuff I've tested with the Canon HF100s actually looked pretty good and the autofocus on that cam functioned very well at night (manual focus on that camera is a stupid joystick function and difficult to work with).

But don't shut it down over lack of one cable. Warn your crew you are working under less than ideal conditions and there may be some reshoots necessary. Go for it!

Bruce Foreman

[Veteran]

What you are saying is simply not rue. there might be a photog here and there shooting with DSLR, but for 99% of programming in HD such footage will be rejected just on technical issues. what is required by vast majority of networks and broadcast is i-frame (like DVCPRO HD, IVC-Intara) @100 Mb/s minimum or mpeg2 50Mb/s 422. DSLR have too low of a bite rate of mpeg 4, with 420 color. if you are established and the network is interested in the material you might try to pitch it, for 99.9% of others i say good luck shooting with dslr and the trying to sell it.

I work in broadcast and you'd be surprised what is accepted. I'm currently cutting a show on MuchMusic (Canada) called #Trending...its basically alot of stuff submitted from peoples..*gasp*...YOUTUBE channels!. Quite a bit is def shot on a dslr and makes it to air with no worries. At the end of the day if the content is there almost every broadcaster will overlook that sort of thing. As long as the final render going to broadcast of all the materials is mpeg2 50mb/s...

Although I will admit the BBC is probably (from what I hear from others in the biz) the most stringent about those standards...

- V

[Almohada]

Hey everyone, Shigeta let me borrow the XH-A1 wire. Thanks Shigeta!!!!!!!!!!!

Now... how the heck do I mount this converter box on or near the XH-A1?????

12829

By the way the converter is not very good. I don't care so much about the resolution... but the color. Ohhh myyyy. The colors are AWFUL. I was testing it with my HV20... I used my HDMI to DVI... then I plugged this converter in using component out from the HV and it was horrible. I tweaked the settings for 20 minutes and finally got the colors almost right. The HV20 LCD/ HDMI out is a little bit brighter and colorful. Anyways there's nothing I can do about that now. Gotta work with what I have, right?

[mark84j]

Are you saying the color/video from the XH-A1 is awful? Cuz if you are.....

[Almohada]

Hell no!!! I have barely tried that camera yet. It's the CONVERTER that's a problem. Awful colors...

[Almohada]

Hey guys anyone know if you can capture a tape shot on the XH-A1 using an HV20?

[antman]

Hey guys anyone know if you can capture a tape shot on the XH-A1 using an HV20?

sure can, I used my daughters hv30 as a deck today as a matter of fact. works great, and you ont have to worry about pulldown removal as the A1 takes care of it in 24f. hows the shoot going?

[Almohada]

sure can, I used my daughters hv30 as a deck today as a matter of fact. works great, and you ont have to worry about pulldown removal as the A1 takes care of it in 24f. hows the shoot going?

Cool, thanks!! Shoot starts in a few days, just going to test out the camera some more tonight. From what I learned, I just need to make sure it's on -3 gain, AGC off, and shutter speed no less than 1/48

[Almohada]

Guys what, my shoot went well... you know why? Cause I said screw the converter and I bought a new monitor. It worked fine when I set it to standard color and not user preset, but then I didn't want to deal with the million wires going everywhere to the converter and back to the monitor.

[mark84j]

Guys what, my shoot went well... you know why? Cause I said screw the converter and I bought a new monitor. It worked fine when I set it to standard color and not user preset, but then I didn't want to deal with the million wires going everywhere to the converter and back to the monitor.

Can't wait to see some footage my friend!

[Almohada]

Can't wait to see some footage my friend!

I don't know why but in camera LCD and external monitor when shooting, footage was beautiful... but when I captured everything was much darker. Don't know if it's just my computer monitors but maybe I should calibrate them so I can do accurate color correction. Also in some of the shots there were a few dead pixels... then they went away. It was weird.

[Bif]

Quick inexpensive monitor calibration:

mpix.com has a calibration kit for $3.00 + $5.95 shipping (their standard shipping fee for all orders), you create an account online, find the calibration kit and order it using a credit card.

The kit consists of a CD with some images on it, and prints they have made from those images. You display the images from the CD onscreen (on your monitor using either PhotoShop or something like the free image viewer from faststone.org), hold the prints up in good light by the monitor and adjust the monitor until you are as close as you can get to the prints.

mpix.com used to be a pro color lab serving select studios and were known as Miller's Professional Color Service. They turned me down because my studio with only $60,000 annual lab volume did not meet their volume standards. When digital took over and pro color labs started going under, Miller's had to come down off their "high" horse. Now it doesn't matter how small you are, they'll serve you.

Beauty is...They have not dropped their standards so if you can get your monitor to match their images you've just calibrated your monitor to one of the best color labs in the country.

Should be accurate enough for video.

I just got my kit but haven't done the calibration yet. I'm fairly close anyway since I've been getting excellent color prints from them.

Bruce Foreman

[mark84j]

I don't know why but in camera LCD and external monitor when shooting, footage was beautiful... but when I captured everything was much darker. Don't know if it's just my computer monitors but maybe I should calibrate them so I can do accurate color correction. Also in some of the shots there were a few dead pixels... then they went away. It was weird.

Damn you either have the worst luck with this project, or you bought this camera from a toilet store haha!

[Almohada]

Damn you either have the worst luck with this project, or you bought this camera from a toilet store haha!

Yeah after I captured the footage is very very dark. Ridiculously dark. Dead pixels show up in one or two scenes then they're gone... very bright white hot pixel very noticeable. There are 4 on the screen but only 2 or 3 stand out