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 Someone said the XH-A1 is very outdated but do you think it's still good enough for a short film?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

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.