Your wisdom and charm
 

Gang. I've been working with the XL2 for years creating clips online. DCLugi Online Videos, Funny Junk and Cool Video Clips on Super Deluxe

I recently have been given the chance to do a DVD for distribution and potential TV broadcast. Staying in this price range is the XH A1 a respectable upgrade consideration for this need?

A hardy thanks,
-DC

Why not stick with the XL2, unless there's a call for HD release of your programs?

HD is the request but I've yet to hear the exact specs.

Ah, well if they want HD, then the XH A1 is probably the best quality for the money. You'll probably like the lens better than the XL2 also, because it's wider so for most everything you shouldn't need a wide angle adapter as you probably do with the XL2.

The next step up from the XH A1 (or XL H1a, s etc.) would be the 1/2" chip Sony EX tapeless camera. If you stay in the 1/3" chip world, all the cameras are more similar than they are different. I bought the Canon over the equivalent Sony because of the lens, mainly. If you like the form of your XL2 and want interchangeable lenses, you could spend more and get the XL H1a, which his the XL version of the XH A1; or the XL H1s, the XL version of the XH G1. You'll get the same end image quality from all of them.

Many thanks Bill. A wider lens is a welcomed plus. I didn't know if there would be an issue of "true HD or not true HD" When I chat with their tech team I'll have a clearer picture of the delivery demands.

Cheers,
-DC

HDV is true HD. There are many different "wrappers" for HD, and lots of propaganda and hype out there from different manufacturers trying to discredit whatever format they don't use. Usually the problems cited are not really there if the filmmaker knows what he's doing.

Currently there's no such thing as an HD format that isn't "true." As Bill points out above, anytime you see some distinction regarding so-called "true HD" you should regard it with a healthy dose of suspicion, because it's just very poor marketing hype. All of the popular High Definition formats in use today (AVCHD, HDV, P2HD, DVCPRO HD, XDCAM HD, HDCAM etc.) are indeed High Definition. To label one as "true" is to imply that something else is "false," and there's nothing false about any of the various current HD formats. Hope this helps,

Yes, HDV is true HD yet one continually reads about one station or another not accepting HDV or they'll only accept a small percentage of the full program being HDV. Broadcasters sometimes say they won't accept it but then do because its been well produced and they like the content.

So how do you make the upgrade call if you're producing for a specific station/network. It might safest just to find out for sure by asking. On the other hand, by saying nothing you might slip under their official anti HDV position.

The simple and tried and true solution is to provide them with whatever format they want, which is totally independent of what you shoot with. They want Digibeta, you go to a dub house and get a Digibeta tape made. They want an H.264 QT on a DVD or up on a link, you export that for them.

Hi Dave,

I made the transition from XL1s to A1 (w/ PAL "upgrade") a year ago.
(I mainly shoot documentaries for Swiss TV: they needed 16:9 SD;
I shoot HDV, downconvert & deliver SD, but I can keep my HDV footage
and play it safe for tomorrow...).
I really do like the much wider lens, and I didn't have any problem
adjusting to the different form factor (I actually prefer the A1:
lighter & easier to carry around and on a plane,
especially on those small turboprops).
In a nutshell: probably the best bang for the buck;
you can't go wrong with the A1 (if 3K is your budget, of course;
if you're willing to shell out more, then it's a whole different story).
BTW: looks like we are not far away...

Best
Vasco

Dear All,

I would like to buy a A1 (PAL) but I wonder why the PAL version is always a bit expensive than the NTSC version? Is there any diference in the HD world?

Kenneth

Daaaaang! Just when I was sold on the camera I hear that my old buddy Vegas can't handle the 24f. Me thinks the Cylons are responsible for all of this incompatibility with modern technology.

Thanks for all the info,
-DC

That's why I stuck with FCP. I was considering moving back to Avid for a new system I set up, but it wouldn't handle 24F, and FCP does that just fine.

Vegas handles 24F just fine, and has always handled 24F just fine, since Vegas 6.0, when Canon first introduced the world to 24F.

I just went through a Vegas thread that stated that these two are not friends and Sony isn't interested in fixing it. I'm all about "user friendly" and Vegas has been great with my XL2 so this comes as punch to the gut.