Canon XH-A1 really worth it?

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Pete Cofran

Keep in mind wedding clients have to consider their family and friends. What is he going to say everyone who wants to see the video who doesn't have hd must drop $1,200+? Thats why you'll need to do a SD and a HD version.

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.

Originally Posted by Pete Cofran

Do you think you could tell the difference between a youtube movie shot in hd vs sd?

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.

[Perrone Ford]

I've shot the same footage in SD (DVX) and HD with downconvert. No comparison. I stripped my DVX and moved everything over to the HD camera. Rendering will take more time, but I'm willing to wait.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

I've shot the same footage in SD (DVX) and HD with downconvert. No comparison. I stripped my DVX and moved everything over to the HD camera. Rendering will take more time, but I'm willing to wait.

Is the difference really that big in image quality? And does it matter if you look on an older tv or on a lcd?

Since I have not been able to compare I will find out soon enough I guess and also might have to reconsider my opinion on SD camera's.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

Is the difference really that big in image quality? And does it matter if you look on an older tv or on a lcd?

Since I have not been able to compare I will find out soon enough I guess and also might have to reconsider my opinion on SD camera's.

It was that big a difference to me. The first time I did a 1080 downconvert to SD and put it on a dvd, I brought it home to view. It was stunning. Like watching HD on a small screen. The dvx never looked that good.

[John Estcourt]

sorry to say but it makes my old vx2100/pd170 footage look quite ..er..sad!

[Pete Cofrancesco]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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.

[Dirk Bouwen]

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.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Dirk Bouwen

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.

[Dirk Bouwen]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

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.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Dirk Bouwen

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.

[Noa Put]

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?

[Dan Keaton]

Dear Noa,

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

I doubt that they recorded much, if at all.

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Dan Keaton

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.

[Philip Williams]

Originally Posted by Noa Put

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 ;)

[Noa Put]

Originally Posted by Philip Williams

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.