Should I dump (sell on ebay) my Canon XH-A1 (1440x1080i) ?

Joe999

Joe999

I bought a Canon XH-A1 last year, thought it was kick arse, but I must of gotten lost in the specs for it and I thought it was full HD. It is not. It is only 1440x1080i. :grumpy: Well geez now even the little hand held consumer camcorders offer full HD, 1920x1080. I am speculating that Canon will likely soon come with something like a XH-whatevertheywillcallit that will be full HD; at that time I suspect the XH-A1 value will plummet. So I am asking for opinions-- should I sell my XH-A1 now, hoping to soon buy a full HD camcorder of similar capabilities as the XH-A1 (but with full HD) soon, Canon or otherwise? (for example, I see in the new issue of VideoMaker magazine Sony has a full HD camcorder that looks oddly very very similar to my Canon XH-A1). And I am shopping anyhow for a consumer small handheld full HD for compactness for travel, etc.; perhaps that could suffice until a full HD prosumer camcorder is priced similar to the Canon XH-A1 now. My needs for the near future are simply to fill several shorts this year, primiarly outdoors in natural light. Any thoughts and advice appreciated. :huh:
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I don't know where you get your information, Joe, but the HDV 1080i specification calls for a 1440x1080 sampling matrix with a 1.33/1 pixel aspect ratio. AFAIK, all of the consumer 1080i HDV camcorders sample at 1440x1080. The only thing that would be 1920x1080 would be a true HD camera (not HDV), which you won't find at the consumer level.

If you know of an HDV model that samples at 1920x1080, please list the mfgr and model#.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Rather than arguing about 1440 vs. 1920 horizontal resolution, I'd like to turn to "effective resolution". I've got two DV camcorders. One is the Prosumer Panasonic with a decent Leica dicomar lens and the other is a consumer DV camcorder. Both have exactly the same specifications, but the Leica lens resolves significantly more detail and produces a much better image (less distortion).

I don't have a consumer HDV camcorder to compare to my Canon XH A1, but I doubt a cheap lens is going to resolve as much detail, or produce an image with low chromatic distortion. I've been a photographer for over 20 years, and one thing I learned about lenses is; you get what you pay for. I've got Nikon lenses that will resolve image detail down to the pixel level on a 10MP iimage, and I've got some less expensive zoom lenses that you couldn't get a razor sharp image out of if your life depended on it.

Based on your logic, I should get rid of my Nikon D70s and shoot with a pocket camera that has more pixel resolution, because I'd get better pictures. I challenge anyone to send me a photo taken with a consumer digital camera that will stand up to my 6MP Nikon D70s with a professional lens.

There is a lot more to a quality image than the number of pixels.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Loud Orange Cat said:
The cheapest 'true' 1920x1080 self-contained camera system is the Panasonic AJ-HPX3000. At $48K, it's *NOT* a consumer model.

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webap...116556&catGroupId=34401&surfModel=AJ-HPX3000G
Click to expand...

That depends upon how wealthy a consumer you are!!:lol:

On this same topic, I recently sold my GL-2 package on e-bay. While the camera helped me make a feature and a couple of shorts, I realized that soon I would need HDV, or I would be behind the trends, so I figured that I'd get the cash for the GL-2, and in a few months buy a HDV.

So I think it's a good idea to sell as soon as you can, and buy as late as you can...the thing is I was looking at buying YOUR Canon, and now you've got me wondering if there's something better?!?:rolleyes:

Chris
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So what is up with the new line of consumer camcorders that claim they are "Full HD", "1920x1080" such as the Canon HG-10:
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/HDV/HG10/index.shtml
and others
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=173
I guess I am confused. I would think the 1920x1080 would be capturing 1920x1080 pixels, whereas my Canon XH-A1 is only able to capture 1440x1080.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=175&modelid=14061#ModelTechSpecsAct
What am I not understanding here (I do not mean this sarcastically at all, I really want to undestand this issue)? Can someone please explain this to me? Greatly appreciated.

oakstreetphotovideo said:
I don't know where you get your information, Joe, but the HDV 1080i specification calls for a 1440x1080 sampling matrix with a 1.33/1 pixel aspect ratio. AFAIK, all of the consumer 1080i HDV camcorders sample at 1440x1080. The only thing that would be 1920x1080 would be a true HD camera (not HDV), which you won't find at the consumer level.

If you know of an HDV model that samples at 1920x1080, please list the mfgr and model#.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sorry, those are AVCHD, not HDV and do not record to tape. I was on a different page, thinking you were going to switch to a consumer HDV camcorder. The AVCHD (MPEG-4) compression is still foreign to me, in that I've not worked with it. I would be concerned about lens quality on any consumer camera (the glass is one of the most expensive parts of a good camera). I also prefer tape acquisition, as I keep my original records "forever". I just keep buying more tapes.

In a nutshell, I was correct when I said that "HDV 1080i is 1440x1080", but you did not say your new camera was going to be HDV, so I was wrong in correcting you. I'm sure the newer technologies and newer cameras give more bang for the buck, but please be wary of consumer cameras, if quality is important. I love my Canon XH A1. I've spent hours getting the settings just the way I like them, and I've learned in the process how to control many aspects of the video image that I haven't been able to alter on previous cameras I've used.

Finally, I couldn't be without the balanced audio inputs.

Sorry to have muddied the waters. I should read more carefully.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
anything that records to tape will not be "full hd".

In order to record "full HD", you'll need tons of storage space on your edit bay. If you make the slight jump from the a1 to the g1, you'll get the pre-compression video feed out to an external recorder (more extra cost). By the time you get done covering all of the extra costs associated with trying to get "full HD" and the ability to capture and edit it, you may want to just look at getting a RED. I've estimated that I could put together a package for about $35,000 including software and hardware upgrades to get a RED and have it be usable.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So how can those consumer camcorders advertise that they record "Full HD 1920x1080", at a cost of about $1000? Is Canon (and Sony and JVC and others) blatantly lying to consumers, or how are they getting away with such a claim?

knightly said:
anything that records to tape will not be "full hd". In order to record "full HD", you'll need tons of storage space on your edit bay. If you make the slight jump from the a1 to the g1, you'll get the pre-compression video feed out to an external recorder (more extra cost). By the time you get done covering all of the extra costs associated with trying to get "full HD" and the ability to capture and edit it, you may want to just look at getting a RED. I've estimated that I could put together a package for about $35,000 including software and hardware upgrades to get a RED and have it be usable.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
My HV20 records 1920x1080p24p . I wouldn't get too worked up about whether its 1440x1080 or 1920. The varicam has been making beautiful movies at 720p for a decade now, which is less res than 1440x1080 by far. More important than the extra res is good lighting, good angles, good direction, good acting, a good script, and good sound, etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Any opinions on this new camcorder: Sony PMW-EX1 "The worlds's first Full HD handheld camcorder under $7800" (from page 3 full page ad in the new edition of Videomaker magazine).
http://bssc.sel.sony.com/BroadcastandBusiness/markets/10014/xdcamEX_index.shtml
It looks pretty impressive. When I first saw the ad I almost thought it was my Canon XH-A1, similar size and profile to an extent. It advertises "...with trhee half-inch 1920x1080 CMOS sensors and full 1920x1080 recording." And it is pure solid state (no tape, no drive)--which actually worries me a bit, I do like the idea of swapping out a tape, but then again maybe gamma rays might deteriorate the footage on a tape over time anyhow, I don't know; with BluRay burners getting cheaper we might end up archiving optically to bluray discs?

Yeah the RED sure looks awesome, I drool over getting a RED!

knightly said:
... By the time you get done covering all of the extra costs associated with trying to get "full HD" and the ability to capture and edit it, you may want to just look at getting a RED. I've estimated that I could put together a package for about $35,000 including software and hardware upgrades to get a RED and have it be usable.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
How much footage can it hold before you have to dump it off to a laptop (or worse a desktop) on set? It's one thing to be able to invest bunches of money on cards/tapes to expand you shooting time, entirely another to have to bring a laptop on a shoot with you. I do a variety of different types of shooting, I wouldn't be able to shoot a concert or a wedding with something that required me to change out flash cards every 10-20 minutes.

btw, the way any camera can advertise FullHD is to have a point in the workflow where you can capture the data stream before it hits the compression. So even a lower end camera that doesn't compress straight off the chip and offers a port that you can connect to a firestore or a laptop can advertise full HD. You just will never see Full HD on a minidv tape, the minidv/hdv spec says that it's compressed onto the tape.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Joe,

I have been going through some of the same questioning you have today and concluded the xh a1 is still hdv and will suffice for indie shorts and feature length. I actually want to work with this camera and show folks what I can do within lower budget parameters and switching to a new camera when I've been getting to know this one (like the Oakstreet dude) is not exciting to me. That said, having the burrito for a $1000 B camera may be just fine--but I don't know until I look at the output in varying light situations.

I think the other thing you have to remember is this: how does the final output look? Have you put up your footage and given it the eye test? Does it look good? Does it look acceptable to whatever standard you are holding it? Will a potential investor find it acceptable or unbearable to look at?

Have you outputted it to blu-ray and compared it against another commercial blu-ray (which isn't a fair comparison because more than likely they were using film [and then converted to digital, 2, 4, or 16k] or a non-consumer hd rig) to see if it looks acceptable to you? Also, did they use high end software for color correcting, compositing, etc. and that affects the overall look and noise level of the final footage. I've viewed my footage on my 1080p Panasonic plasma and its freakin awesome--better than anything I've ever seen--so that sort of qualifies as a blu-ray or hd player playing from the tape.

Also keep in mind that the lens that is on the xh a1 (20 optical zoom) is very very good and canon's technology for any other camera in the price range kick azz in low light as far as everything I've read and the footage I've shot and observed. I couldn't be more please with the xh a1 but like you, felt annoyed with the fact that I thought I had a 1920 x 1080 camera--poo on you Canon for touting your still image resolution in your marketing fooling even us "smart" guys into thinking it was 1920 instead of 1440. Even in the menu system I was duped.

If the quality of the consumer avchd camera's was comparable to the xh a1, they wouldn't be $1000--that said, I would assume the quality is superior to anything else in its class as canon almost always does this to the competition--packages better tech in their equipment at various price points and markets--and canon knows the $1000 price point. The footage even from the hv10 and hv20 is incredible--I suspect the burrito is going to be awesome for a $1000 camera. I also suspect that anything shot outside in good lighting with the burrito is going to be acceptable--low light, TBD. I was thinking that closeups with B $1000 camera may be acceptable. Don't know until I try.

I think you need to do a variety of shooting in a variety of circumstances and lighting conditions and then burn it to blu-ray and judge it yourself--start with playing from your own camera on your tv--and if you want to see it on a plasma or LCD, I am sure you can find "someone" to look at your footage on a variety of hd tv's. Maybe someone on the forum who has a blu-ray burner and the same camera can help us out. Otherwise, how else are you going to know? It's all speculation and voodoo until you test it (or someone chimes in)--and that is still subjective on their part.


__________________
www.tonyferguson.net
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
AG says "burn it to blu-ray"

Does that mean that the final product will look different from HD in blu-ray or are we just talking formats, like beta and vhs back in the day?

I have no idea what blu-ray is or why it is such a big deal, I'd love some enlightenment....:huh:

-- spinner :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Blu-Ray burners burn to bluray optical discs, HD burners to HD discs. I am not really sure myself if the discs are purely for large storage (25-50GB or so) or I should think there are proprietary codecs involved in storing the info on the discs. The BR v HD war continues, but BR appears to be winning out, and on 60 minutes last night it was revealed that BR is likely the winner, that the major studios are giving up on HD and going with Blu Ray for releasing their movies in high def format. Glad I bought a Samsung Blu-Ray player; but that said it seems buggy and I am actually tempted to pull my DVD player out of storage.

spinner said:
AG says "burn it to blu-ray" Does that mean that the final product will look different from HD in blu-ray or are we just talking formats, like beta and vhs back in the day? I have no idea what blu-ray is or why it is such a big deal, I'd love some enlightenment....:huh:
-- spinner :cool:
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are the two competing formats for high definition DVDs. They are, for all practical purposes, the same thing, using competing technologies. HD-DVD retains backward compatibility with standard DVDs, and each has it's own "features", but in the end, either of them can store several hours of high definition content (feature length movie + extras).

The suggestion to burn to Blu-Ray was essentially advice to view the final output, as the consumer or end-user would see it, and decide if the quality is acceptable. e.g. Is 1440x1080 enough resolution to provide a clear, crisp viewing experience, or is 1920x1080 necessary for quality output?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm struggling to find out what you want to know?

Its like asking, can I make an acceptable movie on a GL2 or a DVX100?

The answer is, yes, it has been done, and it has a lot less to do with the camera than the lighting, angles, acting, etc. not to mention the prowess of the operator of the camera.

It has been said that if I gave you a Genesis or RED to make your movie, if you point it at a subject and press record, you're going to end up with shaky 4k that looks like shit. End of story.

What you need to do is take the camera, put it on a tripod, jib or steadycam, dial in the camera's settings for color, gamma, etc, focus correctly, expose correctly, have pretty lighting, pretty sets, pretty actors, etc etc etc.

If you're asking whether its good enough for the Discovery Channel, they've already said they don't take HDV as a source. If you're asking whether its good enough to play at some film festivals, it is WELL beyond good enough. If you're asking whether its the best format to output to 35mm for national theatrical release, no HD is not the best format to use for that purpose, and in that case you might want to shoot 4k. But then again the difference in price to shoot 4k and HDV is STAGGERING. So, what do you want to do with it? If you want the best camera on earth to make movies with, just go buy a RED or rent a Genesis or shoot 35mm or 70mm. If you want to make high quality movies for film festivals or DVD, there is absolutely nothing wrong with HDV, in particular the A1. Hell, I remember when the FX1 and Z1 came out all the panasonic and canon fanboys saying "Don't buy it!" meanwhile we are YEARS later and to be honest for the price range, there isn't a LOT better of options available. The technology has gotten a little better but thats it. The FX1 and Z1 still take beautiful 1080i (1440x1080 @ 1.333 pixel ratio), the same as the day they came out, and they still have better low light capability than pretty much all CMOS sensor cameras.

So what I'm saying is pay less attention to the spec charts and more attention to the image and what you can do with it.

But if the object is to just compete with the Jones' or to spend as much money as possible for a camera to do the same thing you could have done with just about any camera, then go ahead.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top