im sorry if thats has already been discussed elsewhere i looked and couldnt find it

is the difference really worth it from xl2 to H1

im planning on shooting a full length film that already has gotten interest based on its write up... i currently own an XL1 that has served me very well

the film will be shot interily on minidv tapes and then later converted to 35m for the theaters...

only last choice is the camera...

is it really worth the extra money to go up to H1

thanks MEKHAEL

If you really think that it is going to end up on 35mm then hell yes. The difference in resolution alone is huge. Add to that I honestly feel the H1 performs much better than the XL2 in low light and in latitude, even in SD mode.

If 35mm is your "for sure" target then I'd say go for it.

Anyone else?

Mekhael,

I asked myself the same question before buying the H1, and for me I was concerned about the longevity of SD. I wanted a camera that would still be reasonably relevant in 5 years. No one can predict the future but I feel very good about choosing the H1. If I had already had an XL2, I wouldn't rush to upgrade, but I didn't have one.

What you do have to realize though is that if and when you upgrade to HD, the cost of the camera is just the beginning. You will surely need to upgrade your computer, and then you'll start thinking about a Wafian recorder, and a 7" HD viewfinder, 35mm adapter, and a cool mattebox (with follow focus of course). Then you'll be anticipating the release of new HD len$e$. Not to mention you'll begin dreaming about codecs, bitrates and how to economically get a signal out of the SDI port.

Having said all that, once you see the jaw-dropping footage this camera is capable of, you know why you did it.

As Marty said, IF film-out is the end game, I can't imagine going through the entire process and cost of shooting a film, and not shooting on at least HDV.

If cost is really a big factor, you should take a good look at the other HDV cams.

Good Luck!

I had the same choice to make between the XL2 and H1, and decided on the XL2, and think it was a wise choice in the end (for my intended goals and sales of completed videos)... However, if money is not taken into the equation (and plenty of cash would need to be at hand if you take into consideration the need to update your working & Post systems for HD, and the considerable extra costs for 35mm film conversions) - then I'd definitely say go for the H1.

Your going to invest a lot of time, money and effort into your production. Including the time and effort of your actors, extras and crew. You want all the resolution you can get as reward for those efforts.

I don't shoot for 35mm, but do corporate video. I use and XL1s for internal training stuff, which gets posted on the web or goes out on CD, it's good enough. However, when it's a job for a large audience or greatest exposure, we'll contract out someone with better cameras. In most cases, regardless of the goal, when you wrap things up and head over to the edit bay, what's on that tape is what you'll have to live with.

Get the right tool for the right job.

only last choice is the camera...

If the only decision left is the camera, then get the XL2. HD stands for High Debt, and moving to HD requires a lot more than just a new camera. If you do decide to get the XL H1, make sure and plan a detailed budget for all the components, software, and upgrades you will need.

Read the Adobe Premiere forums and you will see lots of tears from users who can't afford to purchase a simple codec because they blew all their money on a camera. They failed to identify what they would need and failed to prepare a budget. You may need a faster computer with multi-processors, you may need RAID, you may need an HD field monitor, you may need new utilities and software. Make sure you identify everything you will need before moving to HD.

Best,
Christopher

Christopher is right, the first choice should be your workflow, and your budget will determine how far you can go.

It's like buying a big SUV so you can look cool driving around town, then realize you can't afford all the gas it guzzles, and wind up leaving parked in the garage.
That you should have bought the 6 cyclinder economy model and still get to where your going for less.

I've been contemplating the H1 to replace my XL1s, but can afford two Sony Z1U's instead. I'd still be miles better than SD, and not broke.

Again, the right tool for the job.

If the only decision left is the camera, then get the XL2. HD stands for High Debt, and moving to HD requires a lot more than just a new camera. If you do decide to get the XL H1, make sure and plan a detailed budget for all the components, software, and upgrades you will need.

Of course you can buy an HD camera and either run it in SD mode for now or downsample HD to SD during capture to the computer, thus eliminating the need to upgrade other components before you can afford to do so.

The XL2 is one of the few SD cameras still worth considering buying, but it too is headed for obsolescence once HD becomes the norm.

I guess I can't help but feel that if the work being shot has got a good chance to go to 35mm print then I would think working in some form of HD would be important. As far as costs...well....if the content you are shooting is really that good that it would be considered for a filmout I'd think that you have a good deal of money wrapped up in the project anyway....in theory. I guess I am assuming that if the project is serious enough for possible 35mm prints then a decent chunk of change is already being spent on talent, DP, lights and equipment and all that crap just to make the work look professional even on SD let alone HD.

I guess you will need to make your decision based on your own unique financial criteria.

Of course you can buy an HD camera and either run it in SD mode for now or downsample HD to SD during capture to the computer, thus eliminating the need to upgrade other components before you can afford to do so.

The XL2 is one of the few SD cameras still worth considering buying, but it too is headed for obsolescence once HD becomes the norm.

Thank god, a voice of reason to cut through the FUD of HD. One does not necessarily need all the luxuries of HD peripherals to shoot and edit an HD project.

The H1 has analog SD ouputs for field monitoring on legacy SD monitors.

The H1 uses Firewire ports for easy ingest into exisiting and/or older editing systems.

DV and DVCPro are readily available "offline" codecs on older systems.

Here's something I've never understood. You're going to spend thousands of dollars on your production. You're going to sweat and bleed to get everything and everyone marshalled to your locations. You're going to bend over backwards to create great lighting. You're going to rehearse your actors and perfects the drama.

And then you're going to cheap out on the camera that RECORDS the fruits of your labors?

Of course you can buy an HD camera and either run it in SD mode for now or downsample HD to SD during capture to the computer,

Sure, he *could* do this, and I know it's just me, but I grow weary from handing out all the Kleenex on the various forums I participate to those who purchased an HD camera and can't use HD or 24F or some other feature because they did not budget for everythiing they needed to use the camera. Wish I had a way to turn all those tears into cash; I'd be rich. :)

Best,
Christopher

Here's something I've never understood. You're going to spend thousands of dollars on your production. You're going to sweat and bleed to get everything and everyone marshalled to your locations. You're going to bend over backwards to create great lighting. You're going to rehearse your actors and perfects the drama.

And then you're going to cheap out on the camera that RECORDS the fruits of your labors?

That's what I was trying to say above. Assuming that you are going to invest in all of the things you mentioned, wouldn't it make sense to go HD....especially given the original post mentioned a 35mm conversion for theaters?

Christopher is correct about needing more than a camera - it does add up - but, fact is, much of those other "needs" are things you're going to have to acquire in the near future anyway... Having the camera does let you learn, at your own pace, the idiosycracies of HDV in general, and of the Canon in particular, before you "need" it... And do your work in the interim in SD...

There is another factor to consider besides film Xfer - if you are interested in festivals, many of the prestigious ones will now only accept HDCAM as a projection format (besides 35mm and 16mm film of course)...

Although I personally haven't done an HDV transfer to HDCAM yet I will be in the near future and I assume, and would certainly hope, that the quality is going to be there when I do...

thanks to all you guys for taking the time to help with this

ive written out a script and have most of the actors and what not in place... i have been aproahced by a few people now in the related industry of the film and they have basically said if the content and quality merrits the big screen that they would be interested in the project and having it converted to 35 so it could be shown....
the obviuos is that i dont wanna do this twice, its gonna be hard enough to do it the first time...

i will admit that i am far behind the rest of you in the camera knowledge department, im alot more of the point and shoot with an artisitc vision kinda of guy, i watch movies to learn study camera motion etc...

the reality of the situation is leaning me towards to the XL2... having the 24p option and the true 16:9 are the 2 things i was really after... i then started reading about the 1080 of HD but i had no idea about all the bells and whistles one needed to add before really maximizing the true usses of this camera

thank you again to all of you who took the time to answer to this thread i deffinatly got the answeres i needed hopefully others who have the same questions as me will learn from this aswell

take care
MEKHAEL

Mekhael, you are going to BUY a camera- which means you are going to keep it and use it in the future. Well, I would suggest you buy the h1. Why?

The H1 is a Xl2, but with the extra of being also the XL3 (the 3 goes for the HD part).

With the H1 you can do everything you could do with the XL2, but with higher resolution CCD's, which reflect ond better SD images, as well as more picture control, and a better stock lens (that was developed to resolve HD, compared to the normal XL2 one). So do yourself a favour and, since you have the cash, get the best possible solution. You won't regret it one bit.

Mekhael,

The XL2 is a fantastic camera, and for someone who lacks experience like you mentioned you do you are probably better off with the XL2, it is a much more forgiving camera and it is much easier to eyeball the look of your footage with the viewfinder whereas the XL-H1, while capable of producing absolutely stunning footage i find to be a rather tempermental camera that is considerably more difficult to find the sweet spot with, the XL2 however is a fantastic camera to work on and much better for what you see is what you get type of work.

I'd spin it a little differently. IMO, the H1 is a better, improved version of an XL camera. Shooting the same scene under the same circumstances, I'd take the H1 every time. I would say, though, that if you decide to shoot SD, the H1 is still the better camera but then its substantial extra cost is probably not worth it for what I'm assuming is a very-low/no budget film.

The only thing that's more difficult with the H1 is that the sharpness of HD video is just not as forgiving as SD. Of all the extra stuff, the only thing that's ESSENTIAL to do your project in HD beyond what you'd need anyway to shoot your film with the XL2 is a fast computer so editing doesn't put you in the looney bin. Things like an HD production monitor definitely would help you get it right on the first take, and nobody with the budget for it would do without it, but at low/no budget you could get by.

Speaking of budgets, no money = no movie. Make sure you've actually written out a beginning-to-end budget for both SD and HD workflows and include a pad for the unforeseen things that inevitably will happen. If an H1 and a fast computer will break the bank, your decision is made: SD or find investors. If the extra cost for an H1 turns out to be a small fraction of your total budget and you can afford it, go for it...I'm with the guys that say if you're going to all this work to create a feature length motion picture for possible 35mm / theatrical release, originating on HD is far preferable.

I agree with what Pete said above. If you take out the HD portion of the XL-H1 I still believe it is indeed a better camera than XL2. Better images, better color, more control over images, more features even for SD (focus distance readout, flangeback adjustment, incremental white balance and a wheel for the iris instead of a switch) and much better in low light than XL2. The only thing that I don't like is the slight delay or ghosting in the viewfinder that appears sometimes. But in 16x9 mode the Viewfinder is about 2x bigger than the XL2 VF.

I personally never found the XL2 to be a forgiving camera. The "DVX"....yes. The XL2...not so much. The H1 seems to be a perfet medium. The resolution and clarity of an HD image with ease of use much closer to the DVX.....still not point and shoot but much more forgiving than the XL2. IMHO.

I still don't see how it's at all forgiving, i could do no wrong on my XL2 but i've stumbled once or twice using the H1, any time i'm at work and using a monitor isn't practical i am clinching my jaw, the viewfinder has no relation to reality and is wholly unacceptable for professional use, i realize that it is considerably larger but i'd still plug in the xl2 viewfinder to the H1 if i could!

also, yes the H1 has far more adjustments to make but for a beginner that's just all the more opportunity to screw up. I use both cameras and since i got the H1 in december i have used my XL2 only a few times but every time i do i think "wow this is a great camera" whereas with the H1 I use it every single week usually for 12 hours a day and i still don't always know exactly what i'm getting until i see it on playback, i never had that with the XL2. I think it might have been Steve Rosen awhile back that posted something along the lines of, "I was always in awe of the XL2's film like images and I don't feel that way about the H1" i'd have to concur for the most part, but that said HD resolution is totally worth the trouble if you know what you're doing and have a nice selection of white and black promists.

I just wouldn't reccomend the H1 to a beginner at all, it's a pretty damned sophisticated piece of equipment that you need to understand to get the most out of. the Xl2 is as well but i'd say there's a much shorter learning curve with it. and the DVX is a no-brainer camera, too bad everything you shoot will always look like it was shot on a DVX!

as for a 35mm film-out yes you would be MUCH better off with an H1 but honestly, everyone that has ever made an independent movie has worked under the assumption that they are brilliant and their film will be a hit at sundance, but around 4500 features are submitted every year and 12 go into competition so even the one percenters don't get in. so in all likelihood, while it's great to hope for a film-out one day, the odds aren't very good.

It wasn't me that said that, Jon, but there is some truth to it.. SD *is* more forgiving that HDV, and the XL2 is a terrific camera (once you get past the iris control toggle, which I hated)...

HDV is definitely easier to screw up - the exposure seems more critical, and since you don't want to fool with it alot in post, that can be a problem.

I'm also experiencing a little setback in using it for SD. My plan has been to shoot everything in HDV and down-convert either through the Sony deck or in software (FCP) for SD projects so that I have everything backed up in HDV... My initial tests in December showed good quality..

This week, however, I have been intercutting footage (interlaced) from my old XL2 with recent footage shot on the H1 .. and the XL2 stuff looks crisper to me, with noticably less aliasing (although the H1 stuff looks terrific in HD).

I have tried every method, including using Compressor (which is by far the worst) and I'm just not that happy with the result.. Anyone else experiencing this?

This week, however, I have been intercutting footage (interlaced) from my old XL2 with recent footage shot on the H1 .. and the XL2 stuff looks crisper to me, with noticably less aliasing (although the H1 stuff looks terrific in HD).

Hmm... that doesn't sound good. I have an XL2 and was planning to pair one up with the H1 for multicam SD shoots.

I noticed on the H1 brochure that in the camera is listed as shooting SD at 24f, rather than 24p. Does this mean that even in SD mode, the camera does not capture progressive in the same way as the XL2 (and will therefor lose some horizontal rez)?

I don't think the human eye can detect any visual difference between 24P from the XL2 and 24F from the XL H1 in standard definition. Try not to get hung up on methodology or numbers... all that counts is what's on the screen. 24P and 24F in standard definition are indistinguishable.

Yeah, I don't know just how the SD frame modes are processed, but starting with over 1.5 miiiiilllllllllion (puts pinky finger to corner of mouth) photosites on the XL H1's CCD compared to the 460k effective pixels of the XL2, it is difficult to see how the SD would show excessive aliasing or otherwise look bad in an apples-to-apples comparision. Steve, I wonder if some other confounding issue is at work...back focus, different presets, or some such? Of course, if you meant that you started with HDV and then down-converted in post, there's a lot of other potential causes. But I'm just guessing and speculating; I have to disclose that I have not yet shot a single frame in SD on my H1's.

I don't think the human eye can detect any visual difference between 24P from the XL2 and 24F from the XL H1 in standard definition. Try not to get hung up on methodology or numbers... all that counts is what's on the screen. 24P and 24F in standard definition are indistinguishable.

Thanks Chris, you are always such a gentleman - eloquent, generous and informative.

This week, however, I have been intercutting footage (interlaced) from my old XL2 with recent footage shot on the H1 .. and the XL2 stuff looks crisper to me, with noticably less aliasing (although the H1 stuff looks terrific in HD).

I can second what Steve says. Recently I edited three wildlife programs in SD format shot with XL2 (PAL) in 25P mode (VDETAIL set to NORMAL) and XL H1 (PAL) in 25F mode. In total I had about 100 hours of material.

Although the XL H1 HDV image is just marvellous, what ever I did or tried (i.e., used the XL H1 directly to down convert, or converted the HDV image to CF AVI and then to DV-AVI) the XL2 DV image was crisper/sharper than the down to DV converted XL H1 image. The difference is not that big meaning most people would not notice anything. But still, if I still shot in DV format I would probably prefer XL2 instead of XL H1.

Be aware, the XL2 PAL version yields 576 lines in 25P mode which is more than half of 1080 lines. Thus, there is a difference between the XL2 PAL and NTSC models.

The difference is not that big meaning most people would not notice anything.To me, this is the key point; what difference does it make. Thanks,

back to an earlier point. why do yu think you have to buy either of these cameras? IF you truely have a fixed amount of time to shoot, (four weeks?) and you have a limited amount of funding why blow it all on buying a camera? you can rent either one far cheeper for four weeks. Plus differant lenses, filters, real support. I think the options for either of these cameras is really what makes it one of the best indie camera.

To me, this is the key point; what difference does it make. Thanks,

Yes, I agree, this is a sensible conclusion. Even professional colleagues have not noticed that I mixed XL2 25p and XL H1 25f footages.