Your right, quite stupid I haven't considered that. But it will still mean for me I will deliver on a blu-ray if I use the camera but need to do an extra convertion to SD. Only if the client requests a SD version from the start I will use a SD camera for it because that seems the most logical step for me in terms of workflow. Eventhough they say an HD camera is still a bit sharper after downconverting I really like what my dvx100 is capable of.


Don't think youtube is suitable for HD but Vimeo is and there I really do see the difference, also nobody has dialup anymore here in Belgium and even the slowest internet broadbandconnection is capable of handling these Vimeo movies. Only problem is that we do have a limitation on bandwith so a client might just look at one or 2 demo's, think that displaying a smallsize demo in SD as well on the site would solve that problem.

I'll have to check out this vimeo. If you get a HD camera then always shoot with it because even if you capture to sd i find the quality to be better than an older sd camera. The workflow I would suggest is shoot in HD and edit it. Then you can export it to what ever format the customer requests. When you know they only want sd then shoot in sd mode because the process of downconverting is very time consuming. Once you work with HD you'll understand, so if the client isn't paying you extra then save yourself the trouble.

After more then 1.5 year, I can only confirm that the A1 is an excellent camera. It's not surely not the swiss knife for a Steven Spielberg, but a perfect companion for every advanced amateur and, I assume, small pro performing production work.

In a volatile environment, there's probably no issue at all with tapeless workflow.

In any situation where there is a more profound desire to keep footage available over the years: in a tape-oriented workflow there's one VERY BIG ADVANTAGE: you have the original copy of your footage instead. I can recapture footage from tapes of 10 years old (recently did so), flawness, no issues, immediately.

In a tapeless workflow, how are you going to accomplish the same? Via back-up tapes (again tapes, thus?). This is not only a very expensive solution (surely for an amateur, paying with already a leg to buy a camera) both hardware and software - after some years over change of systems you will probably discover it's impossible to read the back-up tape format. Also copies to disks and disks and disks is... at the end of the day unworkable.

To my feeling... there is always too much focus on tech-specs, and I can understand technology must evolve, but in many cases, it is more the commercial story that is pushed. Sometimes a bit too hard. AVCHD is a bit this type of story - it was there before you could even buy a decent NLE to edit it.

More than once I've seen very creative people making impressive short movies with incredibly cheap camera's, while others fail to produce any acceptable shot with a prosumer cam. Keep that in mind, it's more important than any discussion about a slightly higher bit-rate or more advanced codec. Whatever choice you make.

In a tapeless workflow, how are you going to accomplish the same? Via back-up tapes (again tapes, thus?). This is not only a very expensive solution (surely for an amateur, paying with already a leg to buy a camera) both hardware and software - after some years over change of systems you will probably discover it's impossible to read the back-up tape format. Also copies to disks and disks and disks is... at the end of the day unworkable.

I think the idea of "tapeless" is a misnomer. Very few people are really running tapeless. The common tapeless scenario is pushing tape to the very end of the workflow, instead of the very front. Each has it's benefits. I have no need to hand off a raw copy of my work, so getting it into the editor as quickly as possible is of GREAT benefit to me. I can see the same situation for nightly news, and similar work. If you are pushing tape until the end of the process, you can queue up perhaps a week of material, and write out to one master tape. I do this for multiday shoots.

But your logic here doesn't fly to me. What difference is there in the person who acquires on tape or backs up to tape when the march of progress is what we are considering. I have no more problem reading in VHS, or miniDV tapes now than I did 5 years ago. Fifty years from now I won't be able to read either. We'll be able to say the same thing then about bluray, XDCam, DCVAM, DVCProHD tape, etc.

My primary workflow now is truly tapeless end to end, and I love it. Acquire on Firestore or SxS, ingest, edit, deliver on DVD/Blu-Ray, archive to DVD/BluRay. Not everyone can do it, but releasing myself from the bounds of both codec AND tape format has been VERY liberating. Part of the reason solid state recording is so wonderful is that it prevents locking you into ANY codec OR proprietary format.

I think the idea of "tapeless" is a misnomer. Very few people are really running tapeless. The common tapeless scenario is pushing tape to the very end of the workflow, instead of the very front. Each has it's benefits. I have no need to hand off a raw copy of my work, so getting it into the editor as quickly as possible is of GREAT benefit to me. I can see the same situation for nightly news, and similar work. If you are pushing tape until the end of the process, you can queue up perhaps a week of material, and write out to one master tape. I do this for multiday shoots.



Ofcourse in a pro-cam & NLE world the according cost to implement a tape-less workflow is probably a non issue. I'm not even fighting this idea - don't misunderstand me, I would probably go the same way. (One discussion is how to keep up with the continuity of archive systems over the years, different archive softwares, operating systems and versions... a less easy story than most people know. To compare this with video tapes, how long are we using DV now? HDV? )

But for the non-pro, let us say advanced amateur/consumer, it's a different story. No tapes, thus you don't have a fallback copy. Any crash will kill your footage instantaneously if you don't make a copy, because, ofcourse you will always reuse your memory cards.

How many of this type of consumers have a real tape-driven archive system in their PC? Or will even save copies from their PC HDD to terrabits of secondary/archive HDD's?

In my case, for the time being, I appreciate to have a DV/HDV tape archive. I know it sounds a bit old fashioned, but at least, I'm sure I can restore whatever I want, even over a few years. Ofcourse, then end is predictable, I understand. But this is basically true for ANY digital system or storage standard.

In my case, for the time being, I appreciate to have a DV/HDV tape archive. I know it sounds a bit old fashioned, but at least, I'm sure I can restore whatever I want, even over a few years. Ofcourse, then end is predictable, I understand. But this is basically true for ANY digital system or storage standard.

I earn my living protecting data. And not video data. We moved away from tapeless for that also because it just wasn't feasible anymore.

BUT, there is nothing saying that the consumer can't make a tape backup of their materials. I have a shelf-full of mini-DV and fullsize DV or DVCam tapes of archived materials. I just had to reingest a short from 2003. I had it on full-size DV.

But, I think today, the better choice is to archive to something like Blu-Ray. At least that is what we have gone to instead of full-size DV. The 25/50GB it offers is a nice size to back off materials. I view it like optical tape. But it's not susceptible to water damage, warping, mildew, magnetic fields (like those unshielded speakers in so many NLE arrangements), etc.

I went to a store a few day's ago that had one xh-a1 in stock and they let me look at it and try it out, now the camera was lying unprotected on a shelf in the store and I'm a bit worried that if i'd buy it they sell me the display model.
Since I don't want a used camera that has been collecting dust, is there a way to check the hours it has been running on a XH-A1?

Dear Noa,

Sorry, no, the XH A1 does not have an "hours" meter.

I doubt that they recorded much, if at all.

Dear Noa,

Sorry, no, the XH A1 does not have an "hours" meter.

I doubt that they recorded much, if at all.

Thanks for the answer, I just placed the order and requested to the store to order it directly from canon and not give me a showroom model.

I would like to thank everybody for taking the time to reply as it has really helped me in making a choice.

I went to a store a few day's ago that had one xh-a1 in stock and they let me look at it and try it out, now the camera was lying unprotected on a shelf in the store and I'm a bit worried that if i'd buy it they sell me the display model.
Since I don't want a used camera that has been collecting dust, is there a way to check the hours it has been running on a XH-A1?

Just tell them you don't want that one. If its the only one they have they can special order one. Write down the serial number from the first camera if it worries you.

<EDIT>Never mind, looks like you beat me to it ;)

Just tell them you don't want that one. If its the only one they have they can special order one. Write down the serial number from the first camera if it worries you.

<EDIT>Never mind, looks like you beat me to it ;)

I contacted the store and they said that they now only had one camera in stock which was reserved for another customer that would buy it tomorrow. But I made it clear for them that for me this was a used camera and only would accept an unopened box.
A store must have a model on display but it could be in their shelf for a month and tested by several customers, I don't understand why they still sell those at full price, the camera I saw was not protected in any way from dust.
It's like when you buy a car, you can make a testdrive but they sell those cars at a reduced cost after a while, I would expect the same for a camera actually.

I made it clear for them that for me this was a used camera and only would accept an unopened box.

Note that unless they've changed policy, Canon doesn't seal their XH-A1 boxes.

Noa,

Man did your question open a can of worms! Glad you got to a point where you are confident in making a decision--the A1 is a beautiful camera at its price point (and is available NOW).

I apologise in advance if this seems to be raking over the coals, but Scarlet IS going to change the face of videography (I'll try to avoid the hype of "revolutionise" and "paradigm shift", although I personally reckon they're apt).

Certainly any resolution beyond "HD" (ie 1080p) is (arguably) underutilised/un-utilisable for weddings etc, however greater-than-HD (ie 2k+) CERTAINLY results in way more beautiful images when they are down resolved to 1080p. Also note that Scarlet not only resolves at 3k, but is a 2/3" censor (whereas the A1 is a 1/3" sensor) so you innately have a much narrower depth of field, resulting in more filmic images (to create a smaller DOF with the A1s you can of course use adapters which allow the use of 35mm (or equivalent) lenses (look to the beautiful work of Stephen Dempsey on this site for an example).

I have 2 G1s and love them but when Scarlet is released it's going to be difficult to argue to keep them, given one G1 is then same price as 3 Scarlets, here in Oz anyway. Having said that the post-production path is more intricate with redcode and to archive footage that is shot on compact flash cards in a secure, reliable manner requires another capital investment (whether it's big RAIDs, LTO tape etc).

Until Scarlet arrives I just have to continue my love affair with our G1s...

I apologise in advance if this seems to be raking over the coals, but Scarlet IS going to change the face of videography (I'll try to avoid the hype of "revolutionise" and "paradigm shift", although I personally reckon they're apt).

Hi jim, I'm still not convinced that it will be a "regular" weddingevent camera, the options needed for this camera are very expensive and I still wonder how it handles in run and gun situations as I can't see any controls on the logical places. It might be that it will change the way have been thinking about the way a camera should look like but once it hits the market we will get more and more users sharing their opinions and only then we will know what it's all about.

Everybody talks about the fact how cheap it is and out of the box it appears you can go right ahead with it but as far as I can tell it has only the bare essentials and all the goodies making it an better camera to work with will make your bank account a lot lighter.

If it proves to be the holy grail it is still not too late to upgrade in about 2 years when I made enough money with the XH-A1 to pay for the options as well :) For regular clients the "old" hdv codec should perform more then OK as I don't think it will get much better then what it is now.

Who knows the Scarlet will put all other competitors to shame which will result in lowering their prices or push their technologie to the same level as Scarlet but at the same price of a XH-A1? :)

Note that unless they've changed policy, Canon doesn't seal their XH-A1 boxes.

Then I can only hope they took my advise :)

Hey Noa,

We're of course only goofing around here, as Scarlet doesn't even exist yet, and you've made (a very considered) decision t go with an A1 (and I'm sure you won't be disappointed). As I've said I'm a Canon guy myself but I do feel obliged to say that Scarlet doesn't need anything extra BUT for compact flash cards. Your 2 year plan sounds great to me--broadcast HD sux right now (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/how_important_is_resolution/) so HD is a superb medium, but if you're wanting to future-proof what you shoot now, >2K is the go.

I really look forward to seeing some of your footage Noa, from the beautiful flat countries...

broadcast HD sux right now

I did see a comparison at a store selling lcd's and I saw big differences between a regular tv signal, a dvd, a hd broadcast and a blu-ray movie that was playing. The guy from the store really took the time just to show me the difference in image quality on different sets of hd ready and full hd. From what I saw there HD broadcast and the blu ray movie that was superior in image quality to what I see with my regular dvd's at my clients who own lcd's so I couldn't understand how Adam (from the link you gave) almost couldn't see the difference. Well, I did and it was a big difference.
Ofcourse he was right that resolution is just a small part of the experience but I don't agree with him that you hardly notice. You notice it the most when you go fully wide with an sd camera, everything which is a bit further from a lens looses detail, eye's from people become black dots f.i. This also has to do with the fact that I'm currently using a 4:3 camera which looses resolution trying to imitate a 16:9 camera. On big lcd's that resolution loss becomes more apparent.

We do have mountains you know :)

What I'm saying about the web is in order to see the quality of HD it needs to be fairly large with not much compression. That makes the movie take a long time to download. If I have to wait more than a minute for it to load I'm out of there. Do you think you could tell the difference between a youtube movie shot in hd vs sd?

If you cant see the difference you really should give the game away. Are you making money from your work? I cant believe anyone shoots in SD anymore and it's a crime to shoot SD for someones wedding and not at least offer them a HD version later. It may be different here in Australia because I notice we still get "Judge Judy" etc in 4.3. I dont know of any programs here shot in 4.3.
HD down converted to SD is so much better and later on all our work will be offered in HD. I edit TV commercials for a living and shoot HD always. Once edited I down convert to SD for broadcast. The difference is amazing. Not that it matters but I use the jVC HD111. HD is so important to my business. I offer it to clients and get the job. I don't charge extra and offer clients HD at SD rates. It's a shame not to.

I cant believe anyone shoots in SD anymore and it's a crime to shoot SD for someones wedding and not at least offer them a HD version later.

Well, I got the xh-a1 yesterday and did some test shooting today, I used my vx2100 to compare because it doesn't perform as good as my dvx100 when it comes to sharpness. I wanted to see how big the difference would be after I downconverted the hd footage. So I shot in HD, edited in HD and then converted to Avi and let Encore handle the encoding process automatically as I usually do.

I have to admit that you clearly see the difference when the lens was completely wide, the VX couldn't hold any details on objects that were further away while the XH-a1 did. Only when I zoomed in the difference became less noticeable.

When I was editing the HD footage in premiere it was impressive to see how clear my preview was, in no way my sd footage could compare with that, I guess that on a blu-ray and when looked on a lcd the image quality should be comparable.

Does that mean my vx2100 has to go? Yes, does it mean my dvx100b has to go? no. The pana performs better then my Sony and eventhough it can't compete with downconverted HD material the difference is not that big, the pana gives me nice colors and an acceptable sharp image, also on large lcd tv's and it is better when it comes to ease of handling. I found the Canon to be a quite complicated camera and the instruction manual didn't make it much easier. The Pana was much easier for me to learn how to operate.

I don't charge extra and offer clients HD at SD rates.
I could raise my prizes and tell my clients the same as you do, they never know if they haven't seen my prizes before but I intentionally will keep a price difference. Fot those who have a Lcd tv I plan to show them the difference between SD and HD and let them decide if they want to pay more for HD. there is much more to a weddingvideo f.i. then just getting the sharpest picture possible and there are still many clients that don't care about HD, if they can save money with it they will. If I work with SD my workflow is faster and not using a blu-ray disk and hd cassettes makes it cheaper as well so I have a reason to have different prizes. If they choose for HD I will deliver a blu-ray disk and a few regular dvd's but at a higher price.

The Scarlet looks interesting, but if it's anything like the other Red cameras then I get the impression you will be needing a full 35mm/16mm style camera crew to go along with it. It just doesn't seem like the run-and-gun proposition that the A1 is. I think the previous comments about the costs will prove to be right on the money as well. It really does looka s though a Scarlet with a good set of options (as opposed to the stripped down basic version) will cost a LOT more than $3000. I look forward to being proven wrong though :)

In the meantime the real answer to the question "Is the A1 really worth it?" is absolutley a resounding YAY, YAY and thrice YAY. I cannot recommend this camcorder enough. I love mine and I have nothing but good things to say about it. Tape is cheap and reliable, and CF are expensive and risky. It's a no brainer really.

In the meantime the real answer to the question "Is the A1 really worth it?" is absolutley a resounding YAY, YAY and thrice YAY.

I'm taking the camera out for a test soon with another videographer, actually as a second camera operator but mainly to try the camera out at conditions typical for weddings. I'd like to try out different settings and presets and I am very curious about the performance in low light conditions.
It's funny that with a HD cam you feel like starting over again, f.i. just the type of tape to choose, it toke me quite some reading on forums to decide which to use, the Panasonic AY-DVM 63AMQ seemed to be the best, and in my region cheapest, choice.
I also always used a cheap sony minidv handycam to rewind and capture my tapes but I noticed that that doesn't work anymore for hdv tapes? At least not with the tape canon supplied with the camera, I wasn't expecting that either.

I also always used a cheap sony minidv handycam to rewind and capture my tapes but I noticed that that doesn't work anymore for hdv tapes? At least not with the tape canon supplied with the camera, I wasn't expecting that either.

The problem isn't the tape, its the HDV material on the tape. A DV cam isn't going to have a clue what to do with the HDV data on the tape.

Best bet for a "deck" camcorder is the HV20/30. Plays back all of the XH-A1's frame modes and works as a nice B cam as well. If you work mostly in 1080i then any brand HDV cam will work as a VTR.

Best bet for a "deck" camcorder is the HV20/30.

Thanks for the info, I have one sd camera for sale right now and when that goes I most likely will get a smaller hd cam as backup and as deck as you suggested. Too bad I couldn't continue using my small minidv cam, on the other hand it was useless as a backup camera because the image quality was not that good. Think a HV30 should be a bit better investment because it not only could function as a deck but could match the XH-a1 footage in good light conditions.

Some people have said the XH-A1 is more prosumer than pro. I don't get this. They can't possibly have used one. I have the EX1 as well, and the XH-A1/G1 has a comparable feature set, comparable image controls, comparable build quality, comparable image quality. Maybe they would argue the EX1 is prosumer as well, although most seem to put it in the pro/semipro category (if these "categories" are anything more than arbitrary).

Perhaps it comes down to the HDV codec not getting the full respect it is owed in the Canon XH-A1/G1 and XL-H1/A products.

You can take an HV10/20/30 and put it on a tripod in good light, and you might get an image comparable, but in the details it doesn't hold up. I know because I own the HV10. Great little HDV cam. But I can still see the degradation caused by the bayer filter, the sometimes neon look to the colors. I can always spot the better shadow detail and purity of the XH-A1 image.

The main problem at first glance when comparing the XH-A1 to the consumer cams, is the conservative default settings, so bland as to lack any sort of pop. Once you discover the potential of customer presets, like VividRGB or Panalook2, or come up with your own variations, what it can do cannot be appreciated.

XDCam has been deemed suitable for broadcast by most outlets, whereas no HDV has. I think that makes a heck of a difference to people trying to get their footage on TV. Additionally, with an SDI port, the EX1 can output on a codec identical to $150k cameras. That also makes a difference.

But with no interchangeable lenses, no ability to sync timecode, etc., the EX1 would be hard to classify as a professional camera. It's just a good prosumer camera, and I don't think it was ever positioned as anything else.


Perhaps it comes down to the HDV codec not getting the full respect it is owed in the Canon XH-A1/G1 and XL-H1/A products.

XDCam has been deemed suitable for broadcast by most outlets, whereas no HDV has. I think that makes a heck of a difference to people trying to get their footage on TV. Additionally, with an SDI port, the EX1 can output on a codec identical to $150k cameras. That also makes a difference.

But with no interchangeable lenses, no ability to sync timecode, etc., the EX1 would be hard to classify as a professional camera. It's just a good prosumer camera, and I don't think it was ever positioned as anything else.


HDV is accepted for HD broadcast with some restrictions. It's already been used in too many professional collaborations to mention.

Well yes, but those restrictions can be quite severe. By the same token, DV has been used in a great many broadcasts too. XDCam is usually accepted without the limitations placed on HDV.

HDV is accepted for HD broadcast with some restrictions. It's already been used in too many professional collaborations to mention.

Well yes, but those restrictions can be quite severe. By the same token, DV has been used in a great many broadcasts too. XDCam is usually accepted without the limitations placed on HDV.

That's fair, but broadcast restrictions from BBC or DiscoveryHD aren't enough to take it out of the realm of professional use, or put into the hands of consumers. Broadcast networks, event videographers and electronic news gatherers all have their reasons.

If anything seems apparent, is that HDV is disappearing from consumer/home use products, and reappearing as a tool used by professionals not needing or wanting to embrace AVCHD, DVCPRO or XDCAM tapeless workflows. A recent example of this trend is the new Sony Z7, with 3 1/3 inch sensors, HDV and interchangeable lenses.

I think it would be a trivial matter to transcode HDV to XDCAM-HD or XDCAM 4:2:2 or 35 mbps HQ. I believe it would also hold up to scrutiny, (at least if I did it.)

Depending on what your doing its absolutely worth it. I'm shooting a feature with it right now along with a Letus Extreme and let me tell you.....its impressed me. The price of this camera vs. what you get out of it is incredible. I saw our newly cut trailer in full HD on a 52in Panasonic Plasma today and yes...the camera is worth it. I'm glad I went with it for this project so far, tape is downside but the image is excellent.

Next project a better camera but for this budget that we've been working with, the A1 is a miracle.

Visit StandingFirmMovie.com to see our trailer...or the Sample forum here to see more stuff.

It seems more and more those broadcast restrictions are disappearing and don't seem to be a big issue with this camera. Here is a good example.

http://blog.digitalcontentproducer.com/briefingroom/2008/07/22/canon-usa-xh-g1-hd-camcorders-help-revolutionize-the-look-of-an-acclaimed-daytime-drama/

I remember reading that article when it first surfaced, & was really surprised it mentioned they are currently shooting SD. Maybe I have something off kilter with my A1 because I'm not that impressed with the SD quality. On mine I see too much aliasing. It looks very similar to the first couple of seasons on the Curb Your Enthusiasm DVD's. :-\

In regards to RED's wavelet compression scheme, yes, it can look fantastic. But I've not heard whether Scarlet is indeed going to offer the same RED Raw codec out of Scarlet, or if they are going to do something else.


Jim has confirmed several times that Scarlet will have the exact same 288 mbps REDCODE. It will also have 800mbps 120 FPS mode and some sort of RGB codec.

Bill, check that link to the TV series. The stuff looks great in SD. I've shot quite a bit for two other documentary producers in SD with my XH A1 and it looked great. One was shown theatrically and the XH A1 footage looked significantly better than footage from any of the other SD cameras used (XL2 and DSR250 for the most part).

I think that "broadcast quality" issue is a non-issue. You give them an HDCAM master and who knows or cares what it was shot with. While some channels may claim to have certain standards, you'll also see shows obviously shot with lesser cameras if you watch long enough. If it's professionally produced and the video and audio are within broadcast standards, ie., no blown out whites, no overpeaked audio, etc., then it's going to be accepted if the concept and production values are up there. Some of the best looking "films" I've seen at some festivals in the past couple of years have been shot with the Z1. The new Crank 2 has a combination of XHA1 and consumercam HDV footage. I've seen "28 Days Later" on either HBO or Showtime, and they didn't reject it because of all the XL1 footage. I've seen documentaries on both Showtime and HBO shot with PD150s and DVX100s. A camera is no different from a hammer and saw in the hands of a carpenter. Give a good carpenter those tools and he can build you a house; somebody else wouldn't be able to cut a board straight or hammer in a nail without bending it.

I'm happy with my XH-A1 as far.

I'm using a 120 gig CitiDisk rather than tape, it records as m2t files which is a pain in the neck for FCP but for Adobe works fine.