Hi, I'm about to buy a cam to produce an ultra low budget film and I really want 16x9. I'm very much interested by the A1, but how come there's almost no difference in price between the XL2 and the A1? Barely 300 bucks?
Larry

They provide different feature sets besides native 16x9. In essense, apples to oranges.

Well, One difference is the detachable lenses which I think makes a huge difference to some cinematographers. While it is only SD this is still a big feature to have IMO.

I think if you will be doing a lot of "cinema" shooting, the XL-2 would be the best bet for the price. As Josh said, the interchangeable lenses are huge benefit.
It may only be SD, but the images it produces are wonderful.

There are only 2 lenses available other than the standard--a wide angle zoom and a manual lens, which is nice. If you get an adapter to use still camera lenses, they're not really too useful except in instances where you might need a really long one. A 50mm, for example, would act like about a 350mm lens on a 1/3" chip camera.

With Sony's 1/3" chip interchangeable lens prototype they had at IBC, that will make 3 different 1/3" chip cameras with interchangeable lenses--the Canons, the JVC and soon the Sony. So maybe more lenses designed for these cameras might not be far behind.

To answer the original questions, the XH-A1 is about $2000 cheaper than it's closest competition.

When you say you are doing a film, does this mean it will be shown in theaters, either digitally or transferred to film? If so, the XH-A1 is the best bet in my opinion.

If the film is for internet delivery only, I suppose a SD camera would be fine. However, for DVD now or for HD DVD in the future, I would still choose the XH-A1 in this price range.

If you are looking for something cheaper, you could do a very nice job in 24p (24f) with the HV20, again, considering your delivery.

Anyone who buys an SD camera for the ability to change lenses should consider whether this feature is actually going to be used and whether it will add anything that couldn't be accomplished with the XH-A1.

Ok, all good points.
Jack, I'm going to shoot a film and I have no idea what will happen to it. Of course I don't have a distribution deal. I was just wondering why a 5 years old cam, the XL2 shooting SD is the same price as a 2007 HDV cam shooting progressive. I guess I got some answers.
From what I understand, tell me if I"m wrong, but the A1 is NOT really, fully progressive. The Xl2 is. COuld that be the justification, in addition to the fact that the Xl2 has interchangeable lenses?
As for the XL2 being capable of shooting beautiful images, sure, but no more than the DVX100B. OK, the Xl2 is 16x9 native, but so is the A1. I think somebody might have something here, the A1 might be underpriced.
Larry

The XL2 boasts shoulder-mounted design, it comes with a PHENOMINAL lens (20X) and, frankly, probably cost more to manufacture than the A1... times have changed, profit margins haven't. Hell, GL2 still costs $2200.

The XL2 is not five years old... more like coming up on three.

Ok, all good points.
From what I understand, tell me if I"m wrong, but the A1 is NOT really, fully progressive.

24f is the exact same as 24p (also 30f and 30p)...

The XL2 is not five years old... more like coming up on three.

Yup, camera was announced in July, I ordered from ZGC and got one out of their first batch of inventory on September 10th, 2004.

-gb-

Hi, I'm about to buy a cam to produce an ultra low budget film and I really want 16x9. I'm very much interested by the A1, but how come there's almost no difference in price between the XL2 and the A1? Barely 300 bucks?
Larry
Actually, including rebates, there appears to only be $50 difference:
XL2
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/339002-REG/Canon_9549A001_XL_2_1_3_Inch_3_CCD_Widescreen.html
XH-A1
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/447098-REG/Canon_1191B001_XH_A1_3CCD_HDV_Camcorder.html

They both have native 16:9.

They both have 20x lenses, and both are good (though the XL2 is removable).

The XL2 has native progressive chips, but in SD, and I believe the progessive scan modes of the XH-A1 give true progressive scan frames (though the issue
of how diminished the resolution is over full HD is debated hotly).

The XH-A1 has a picture that is more controllable I believe.

The XH-A1 is HD, which at this point has many adavantages, I believe, and HD DVD is just around the corner, I believe. Even in SD delivery, the consensus seems to be that HD downconverted is superior to SD cameras.

The XH-A1 may have more options for creative use and mounting due to it's slightly lighter weight and form factor. For example, can be used on a Merlin, whereas the XL2 can really work well there. The XH-A1 is easier to mount on cars. The XH-A1 is not a shoulder mount camera, but there are many mounts available. The XH-A1 is fairly wide and has a low cost excellent wide angle adapter available.

I believe the XL2 is difficult to focus manually. The XH-A1 has outstanding iris, zoom and focus controls on the barrel of the lens.

I have an XH-A1 and am inpressed with it. I really think it's a better choice today than the XL2.

I also have and HD-110 which is true progressive and has removable lenses. But we're talking about a lot more money than the XH-A!, especially if you get a better lens than the stock lens.

The Canon 24f has proven itself to be good quality, and I don't think the XH-A1 can be beaten in anything close to its price.

<end of commericial>

Jack,
basically from what you say there's no point in getting a Xl2? I might have to agree with this.

If you people will, would you mind pointing me in the directions of articles that talk about the progressive capability of the A1?

This is what I've read elsewhere: " Canon's 24F "fakes" progressive scan by slightly offsetting the vertical readout of the green CCD from those of the blue and red, generating a frame with 1.5x the lines of the 540-line field, or 810 lines, albeit ones using spatial rather than temporal interlace. As a result, the quality question arises: Do Canon's pseudo-progressive frames look the same as a true progressive frame or does one see artifacts?"

What do you think about this?

I owned an XL2 which I sold to buy an XHA1...

Both are great and I wish I still owned my XL2. It had a 'wow' factor when you pulled it out. Looked very pro. I liked the focusing and zooming more than the XHA1 and I thought that the manual 16X lens for the XL2 was one of the best video lenses ever made for a 1/3 camera. Period.

Great cam, not that old, too expensive, but still a decent tool in one's arsenal.

There are no artifacts from Canon's 24F mode, and you can see lots of clips on line to verify that. It's a true 24 frames per second, no pulldown. It's not fake--they simply get there in a different way. There is some resolution loss, but the initial resolution is so high that you can afford the loss and still look great. I think it's more important to look at footage than speculate about how they achieve 24p.

Bill I agree, but in the remote possibility of a film out, I just want to be sure this is true progressive.

I shoot 24f, capture in FCP with the 1080P24 setting, edit in a 23.98 timeline, export a QT and it stays 24p all the way. No artifacts, no pulldown. You can set an in and out point one second apart and count the frames and there are 24 of them--24 discrete frames, one after another, no interlace artifacts, no interlace at all, purely progressive.

Best thing for you to do would be borrow or rent a camera, shoot a test, edit it, and send it to a lab for transfer. Most places will do a silent one or two minute clip for around $250 or so and apply that to your final bill if you do the full transfer with them.

In order to capture and edit HDV at 24p in FCP, you must have at least 5.1.2. I don't know about other systems at this point.

Thanks Bill.
Transfer to film is very remote at this point. I'm going to try to borrow a cam and see how the 24F is handled by Vegas.

It might be a good idea to check with others using Vegas about how to capture and edit the footage there. I don't know anything about it, but I know with FCP a few people had initial trouble getting settings to match properly so there wouldnt' be any rendering required. FCP was the first one to handle the Canon's 24p footage, and I think Avid doesn now too, but I haven't heard about Vegas.

If you people will, would you mind pointing me in the directions of articles that talk about the progressive capability of the A1?

This is what I've read elsewhere: " Canon's 24F "fakes" progressive scan by slightly offsetting the vertical readout of the green CCD from those of the blue and red, generating a frame with 1.5x the lines of the 540-line field, or 810 lines, albeit ones using spatial rather than temporal interlace. As a result, the quality question arises: Do Canon's pseudo-progressive frames look the same as a true progressive frame or does one see artifacts?"

What do you think about this?
Here is a new article that mentions the 24F on the Canon XL-H1, which is done the same way as on the XH-A1:
http://blog.broadcastengineering.com/briefingroom/2007/08/28/scott-billups-tests-canon%e2%80%99s-xl-h1-for-motion-picture-production/#more-138

The author is a very respected reviewer. In the article he says that he hightly praises the 24F of Canon which he says is the closest to as any of the progressive 24p modes on the current lower cost HDV cameras (lower cost meaning lower than the large Sony and Pansonic HD cameras currently used in major motion picture production).

Actually, here's what he said:

"Billups had special praise for the 24 F feature of the XL H1 as well. “Canon’s 24F system produces an output that looks and feels like 24-frame movie film,” he says. “While the technology is a closely guarded Canon secret, the proof is in the image. When digitally projected or printed to film, the image from the XLH1 compares more closely to those of ultra-high-end HD cameras than it does to the growing assortment of consumer HDV camcorders."

This article is a good outline of the XH-A1 features, with comparisons made to the XL-H1, XH-G1, XL2 and GL2. Well worth reading to get a good feel for the XH-A1 and how it sits in the Canon line-up:
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxh/xhfaq.php

Nice links, thanks a lot.
Larry