XL2 or XHA1 for this situation?
 

I am starting work on a film project and am looking at two packages at the same price, there is an XL2 package which includes a high quality wide angle and telephoto lens, and there is an XHA1 which is just the camera.

I would be getting a merlin steadicam as well

This is for a creative film project. The appeal of the XL2 package is that the different lens could give lots of different creative options. The XHA1 however is near HD and 'newer' and I heard works better with steadicam? ... so they would be around the same price, which is more ideal? Thanks for any tips!

The xh-a1 is an HD camera, not "near" HD. In terms of shaprness compared to a xl2 it's superior but depends on your deliveryformat. If that would be dvd then it would be a close match but in HD on a full hd tv or if you want to deliver to the web the xl2 can't keep up.

Since the xl2 is on your list I expect that HD is not a "must", one benefit the xh-a1 would have then is that you import your hdv footage in a dv project enabling you to do pan, tilt and zoom motions and still have the same resolution as you would have with a xl2. Especially with "creative" projects that might be a benefit.

Thanks for the reply,

do you think the wide angle / telephoto lens makes the XL2 better for a creative movie project?

I heard that the XHA1 is better for hand held style / steadicam movies though, which is what mine will primarily be.

but there is also the issue of size, the size of the HD video would probably be much higher and require stronger resources to edit than the DV footage. I am using a macbook pro with 2 GB ram..., is that something to consider as well?

Most cameras can take wide-angle adapter lenses, that while they technically may not be as good as dedicated optics, still produce quite good images.

Editing HDV isn't that big a jump over editing DV. It's when you get into AVCHD ( which utilizes much higher compression ), that you will definitely need a kick-ass computer.

If you could live with AVCHD compression, I would also look at the Panasonic AG-HMC150 camera, which is in the same price range as the Canon cameras you are already considering.

If you plan to use a Merlin, you want the XH-A1. The XH-A1 is still near the top range of the Merlin, but it works well.

With the XH-A1 you can shoot HDV and then capture (letting the camera downcovert) in SD, so your editor is not a factor in the choice. And you will have HD footage if you want it. The XH-A1 can also shoot in SD, but in my opinion it's better to shoot HDV and downcovert out of the camera if you want a full SD workflow.

The XH-A1 is the best of it's class (the opinion of many) and it has an excellent lens. It is quite wide on its own and is 20x telephoto. The Canon wide angle converter (fully zoom thru) is excellent and gives an even wider angle. The lightweight .6x Century wide angle adapter (partially zoom thru) is also an excellent addition and is light enough to use when the camera is on a Merlin.

You don't want an outdated SD camera with a number of problems of its own.

The XH-A1 has many, many users, and any kind of practical advice and help you need is just around the corner.

For what you are doing, without a doubt, in my opinion, you want the XH-A1.

I have to second what Jack has said. the xha1 is a better choice and even if you are using sd at the moment hd is the future and the camer's life will be longer.

I still use my xl2 in low light for sd projects!!! changable lenses is great but they cost a lot of money too!!

I tried using an XL1s on a glidecam and found it nearly impossible to manage, I don't know if it would be any different with a steadicam.
The A1 was a big improvement over the XL1s I thought.

Crank 2, recently in theaters, was shot with the XH-A1

I can't see how footage delivered to the web needs to be HD; or why a top-grade SD cam such as an XL2 'can't keep up'.

If the end product is to be shown only on top-class HD screens or broadcast in HD, then of course go for the HDV model with fixed lens, but otherwise there wouldn't be any difference and the XL2 package would offer far more flexibilty.

double post

You don't need a top class HD screen to see the difference between SD and HD footage on the internet, just a plain lcd screen. If transcoded right SD can't compare to HD, mainly when it comes to sharpness of your image. xl2 footage can't give that "looking through a window" experience, even if it is top-grade SD.

Unless you are using a pretty old monitor, your computer screen is at least capable of fully displaying 720p.

That said, services like Vimeo do compress the heck out of HD, to the point that image quality is actually somewhat comparable to very high quality SD. (Last I knew, they compressed HD to 1600kbps VP6.) Compare the best image quality you see on Vimeo, to what you get from a well mastered DVD, of a high quality movie from a major motion picture studio, played on your computer. Of course, if you log onto Vimeo and download the originally uploaded video files, they can blow away SD (good ones).

Very true.

if someone can show me xl2 footage on the net that looks like h264 transcoded hd footage then I might believe this.

I don't think I've ever seen XL2 footage (and knew the source). Compare what you see on Vimeo though, to a good DVD movie, and there just isn't a whale of a lot of difference in quality (or effective resolution after compressing the video so hard). Vimeo uses VP6, but if you crush 720p footage (not to mention 1080p) at the same bitrate as Vimeo uses, with H.264, that will very noticeably degrade the image also. Try taking some HD footage, and transcode it with H.264 at 1.6mbps, and see the results.

Robert, My comment was based on Tony's reaction who responded to what i said that "if you want to deliver to the web the Xl2 can't keep up".

I still want to see xl2 footage that can match footage coming from a, let's say, EX1. I also never said anything about vimeo or comparing to dvd, my comparison is only based on webdelivery. That also can be your own server which does not have the limitations that vimeo might have.

If Tony can show me xl2 footage on the internet that looks as good as ex1 footage, then I will believe him but I doubt that he will find a video that has this "looking through glass" look to it. And then i don't want to see completely zoomed in footage which sometimes is used to make SD footage look sharper, no, just footage with lot's of small detail and with the lens wide.

It would be sort of interesting to see how 24p footage from an XL2, uprezed to 720p (a high quality up-conversion, not a crappy one), would look on Vimeo. I bet it wouldn't look a whale of a lot worse than quite a bit of the footage you see on Vimeo that was originally shot in HD (with an EX1 or otherwise), especially if there is significant motion.

The whole thing about footage on the web, is that you do need to take into account that it is often heavily compressed, especially HD footage (with considerable image degradation as a result).

Is an XL2 going to produce the kind of crisp picture an EX1 can deliver (assuming it's not stomped on by compression like we commonly see on the web)? No way. Of course not. Even well shot footage (in good light) from an HF100 will knock the snot out of footage from an XL2 for crispness.

That would be easy to find out, if I find the time; I also have a dvx100b and if I would film in 4:3 and 25p and upconvert and compare that to footage shot with my xh-a1 in 16:9 and 25f that would be a fair comparison, no? A dvx100b is resolutionwise not as good as a xl2 in squeezed (16:9) mode but in 4:3 it is. I"m actually curious as well to see how far you can push SD material quality wise for webdelivery. I"ll try to make some time available the next days and point both camera's to the same direction, let's see what comes out.

To make it work well, you'd have to add black bars to the DVX footage, after uprezzing to 960x720, to letterbox it (160x720 on each side of the uprezzed 4:3 frame). You need to send them 1:1 PAR 16:9 DAR footage (1280x720), otherwise I'm pretty sure Vimeo will stretch it out (and that will degrade the image). When you upload to Vimeo, send them H.264 source at at least 5Mbps. Disregard their suggestion to have 30 frame keyframe intervals. There's no point. It won't help a bit for speeding seeks after they re-encode it anyway. Use 300 frame keyframe intervals instead, for better image quality (from more efficient compression).

Having owned both I would say get the A1. The wide angle for the XL2 always seemed a bit soft to me. The resale value will be better if you decide to get rid of it later on.

It's a superb camera. In my opinion it's the best in it's class.

I agree. The XL2 w/ the stock lens was some of the sharpest footage I've seen out of an SD camera.

Here is some XL2 footage upscaled to 720p on Vimeo:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-xl2...demo-reel.html

Greg

Seeing it on Vimeo, (if you didn't tell them) most folks would never realize that was shot in SD (the images of the HV20, towards the beginning, are a bit weak though). It looks good compared to the typical, run-of-the-mill "HD" video on Vimeo, that was originally shot in HD (indeed looks better than many "true HD" videos there - some are awful).

That indeed looks really good, I even might have to reconsider my opinion here. Care to share how you uprezzed it?

Sorry, it's not mine. I just saw the post and figured you guys would want to see it.

Greg

I'd cast my vote for the A1 also. I have one (and a Merlin) and it's a nice combination, virtually ideal actually. I use the Canon wide angle adaptor and I'm happy with its performance. If you were to start loading up the camera with anything else (wireless receivers, lights) you'd start to punish the old wrist unless you got the Merlin vest and arm. One never really knows where a creative project might go; while the bulk of recent conversation on this has moved into a debate about web delivery, I think we could all agree that if the film was to be shown on an HD monitor or projector (festival etc) the A1 would be an obvious choice, it being HD and all?

FYI I had to make a little demo clip for my recent daylight monitor shootout, this was done with the A1 on my customized running rig which is something like a Steadicam Flyer on steriods:

monitorshootout 2

Charles, were you holding that steadicam in your hands or did you use a vest with it? It looks quite heavy to hold by hand only?

No, that's only meant to be used with an arm and vest. More pix of the setup here:

MobileMe Gallery

The first two (with the A1) were an early test with my full-size arm and backmount harness; I now use a modified Flyer arm and PRO vest (as seen in the pix with the 235).

The A1 is really too light for this rig, there's a 5lb weight block seen just under the camera and really I should add a bit more.

I don't really use my Merlin much, occasionally with an HV20, but I have tried it with the A1 and it's a nice setup for a handheld rig.

I am of the opinion that the Merlin with the new JVC HM100 (with or without the Canon wide angle) is a perfect match.

The camera weighs about 3.5 lbs.

The XH-A1 works well with the Merlin, but I think the lighter HM100 would be perfect.

I posted asking if anyone had tried the HM100 and Merlin together, but I haven't found anyone yet.

in all honesty i think Hd tends to take away a lot of the "entertainment" factors to some people. Robert Rodriguez said that with hd you tend to pay more attention to details then the story/entertainment. In all honesty either camera would work, but think of what you are filming. I've still seen some academy awardwinning documentarys filmed on some P.O.S. digital consumer grade camcorders. But if i had to choose either or, the xh-a1 is definatly a massive leg over the competition (that being the XL2). all you need for audio, and if you do it right you can simply have a boom/rode mic

It all depends on what your clients expect, this year I have got several cleints asking if I film in HD, they want the entertainment and the clarity on their big full hd screens. But you are right about the story telling part.

If HD distracted and detracted from story/entertainment, major motion picture studios would use 8mm film for movies.

Yeah, I have yet to see any evidence that a crappy low-res image actually makes people get *more* into the story. All due respect to Robert Rodriguez, but that assertion is just plain silly.