http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ Videomaker Community Forums » Tag: Canon XH A1 - Recent Posts en Fri, 17 Feb 2012 06:48:02 +0000 http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-73082 Sun, 04 Dec 2011 20:33:51 +0000 Tony Koretz 73082@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> I totally agree that getting your mic off the camera is the best place to start.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-72990 Thu, 01 Dec 2011 11:17:53 +0000 Kenkyusha 72990@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>&nbsp;Nope, it's true, a $20&nbsp;lav isn't going to beat a Countryman and a cheapy&nbsp;shotgun won't match&nbsp;a Scheops.&nbsp; That said,&nbsp;getting the sound acquisition&nbsp;away from your camera (especially ones with tape transits like the XH-A1*) is going to yield better results.</p> <p>*Tape sounds and&nbsp;handling noise&nbsp;raises the noise floor way past acceptable levels.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-72982 Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:02:51 +0000 Tony Koretz 72982@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Lav mics are ok for a stationary subject but are not much good for a moving subject. A shotgun mic can be used there.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-72981 Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:00:35 +0000 Tony Koretz 72981@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> No $20 mic is ever going to sound professional though. If you are using a lav mic it still needs to be a good one. At a distance of 3-5 feet, a good shotgun mic has the potential to give you good sound. At least research some microphones. Look at mics like the Rode NT2-G or NT3-G as possibilities for example.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-72958 Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:38:07 +0000 Kenkyusha 72958@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>&nbsp;The Xh-1A has phantom XLR- you can probably find some microphones that will do the trick without killing your budget, but even a $20 lav&nbsp;placed on your subject&nbsp;will sound better than a fantastic, high-end one 5 feet away...</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-72941 Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:49:56 +0000 Tony Koretz 72941@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Honestly, if anyone is serious about making video then the sound should be of equal importance as the picture. People will more easily put up with poor picture than they will poor audio. They are likely to switch  off altogether if the sound is bad. You really should consider getting a decent off camera microphone as an important step. Then a good preamp and sound recording device secondly. The preamps in most cameras ( unless really expensive models) are generally not that great either. However, at least having  a good mic will be a starting point.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-67456 Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:06:01 +0000 Adam 67456@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Thanks for your help, the EQ, Gain settings helped out a lot</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-67359 Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:58:08 +0000 vid-e-o-man 67359@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p> Adam, my suggestion would be to use a hard wired lavalier microphone 'subject 3-5 feet away from camera'. If there is a Radio Shack near you, they have one for less than $30.00. This could be later used with a portable recorder lke the Zoom H2. Suggestion number 2 would be to sound dampen the surroundings in the room (if this is possible?). This would save the work involved in post. Monitoring the audio (headphones connected to camera) should give you a headsup while recording. Keep shooting.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-67358 Wed, 20 Apr 2011 07:36:12 +0000 Don 67358@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>without getting too specific, as I use audacity.. I first use the noise reduction filter to remove any noise or hums or hisses, then try playing with the EQ, Gain, expander or compressor filters...</p> <p>usually the noise removal and a couple tweeks with the EQ is all it needs...</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/better-audio-from-built-in-mic#post-67347 Wed, 20 Apr 2011 05:24:26 +0000 Adam 67347@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I have a Canon XH-A1 and I wanted to know how to improve the sound quality of my audio, either while setting up the camera or via post production (I use Soundtrack Pro) the audio I get sounds empty or hallow, the subject of my videos are usually only 3-5 feet away from the camera, and I don't want to invest in a new more expensive mic at the moment as I am still kinda new at this.</p> <p>Any tips?</p> <p> </p> <p>Cheers Adam&lt;span style="white-space: pre;"&gt; &lt;/span&gt;</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/is-the-canon-hx-a1s-a-bargain#post-66132 Sun, 06 Mar 2011 06:02:32 +0000 Pablo 66132@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hi. I do a lot of live events (concerts, plays, etc) with available light in HDV, now using a little Sony HVR-A1. I create DVDs not aim to reach a professional level in terms of quality but good enough to be enjoy at home.</p> <p>The A1 is great with good light, but with low light noise it very bad. Ocassionally I rent the famous Sony Z1 and I really love it (of course, after using the Sony A1 the Z1 is a great step forward). Although people say that it not good in low light, for be is does a decent job (could be better of course). The only problem I see with the Z1 is that iris increase quite dramatically when zoomed, which is bad as all my footage requiere being almost fully zoomed.</p> <p>Looking for a possible upgrade, the natural one is the new Sony Z5, which is about $3800. But I have seen the Canon XH A1s  for $1000 less! </p> <p>The XH A1s and the Z5 seems almost identical. Some people critict the Canon's LCD and probably a little less sensitivity to light than the Z5, but this is worth $1000?</p> <p>Probably the main drawback for me with the Canon is that where I live, almost all equipment is Sony, so maybe pairing the Canon with rented Sonys willl be problematic.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-61908 Fri, 03 Sep 2010 08:45:51 +0000 kiloby 61908@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Hello <strong>bohus</strong> thanks for sharing such a good info!</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><a href="http://www.in-dash-receivers.com/">In Dash Receivers</a></p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59348 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 08:48:29 +0000 composite1 59348@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Bo',</p> <p>That sounds like a plan. Recently I've installed a BMD Intensity Capture card and they have some pretty good codecs for transcoding. Their software Media Express has a setup where you can capture via HDMI from cam to NLE or as in my case a BR-HD50. Being able to process up front is a definite time saver.</p> <p>I read you LnC about that 'Film Degree'. Fortunately, mine has paid itself off at least twice by now and though I love my Xl series and GYHD 200 series cameras, the prospect of getting a real cinematic look without having to purchase a 35mm adapter does bring a sparkle to my eye.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59347 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 07:46:39 +0000 bohus 59347@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Heh - well, once you get to know me you'll see that I'm not all that detestable. ;)</p> <p>Yes, there are certainly people transcoding to make the magic happen. Next week I'll be shooting a video demonstrating one editing program that doesn't require transcoding at all. Transcoding is one of my pet peeves, as people don't seem to realize that it does actually matter how many times you recompress an image. Those folks who didn't grow up being careful about analog video's generational quality loss seem pretty blithe about doing much the same thing in digital. And yes, I know all about lossless codecs, but those sap up another resource - time.</p> <p>The program I'll be using is NewTek's SpeedEDIT2. Not well known, but a quite powerful tool to have in your toolbox right alongside Premiere et al.</p> <p>The shootout was terrific. Made me feel really good about that film degree of mine. ;)  Actually, I haven't felt this excited about shooting for a long time. I'm really looking forward to getting a DSLR of my own. I've got a lot of projects that could use that extra sheen, plus I'd love to make a few extra bucks selling stock footage.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59346 Thu, 03 Jun 2010 07:31:50 +0000 composite1 59346@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"I was at the DSLR shootout in person here in Chicago."</em></p> <p>I hate you.... Seriously, I couldn't have explained the difference in workflow better. Concerning the H.264 issue, all current info suggests that converting the footage to a more workable codec will increase your ability to manipulate it in post. I'm curious to see how all that will work in Premiere CS5 when it comes to down and dirty post work.</p> <p>Hope you had a good time at the shootout!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59338 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 22:59:14 +0000 bohus 59338@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I was at the DSLR shootout in person here in Chicago. The tests were projected on a movie theater screen, and they were stunning. I didn't see any anti-aliasing problems at all. Fine textures really shined through. The shallow depth of field thing is already a visual cliche, but used right it still works. ;)</p> <p>As for a DSLR as a replacement for a traditional video camera, it's not a point by point replacement. If you're making a cinema-style film, it's a great tool. my background is in film, and we're already used to post-synching audio, and having lots of bits and bobs of support gear to get the project done. Also the DSLRs can't do a take longer than 12 minutes. More than enough for cinema style work, not great for an interview.</p> <p>Regular cameras are still the best tool for longform work, and for studio use. DSLRs still aren't ready for using with a multicam setup in a live situation. Not what they were even intended for, so that's not a knock against them...</p> <p>I mostly do broadcast stuff as well as industrials and educational. I couldn't use a DSLR to replace my Canon XL H1, but it would be a great b-roll camera. I plan on getting one and using it for beauty shots of products.</p> <p>The DSLRs really shine in low light. Not only can you deliver a gorgeous picture without a huge light kit and lots of prep, but that image will be free of grain. That also makes it potentially good for greenscreen work (though the internal compression to h.264 might be a hiccup.  I won't know till I've noodled around with a DSLR some more).</p> <p>So if your projects are long form long take sorts of things, the DSLR isn't a great tool. But if you're shooting a project where you'd use a film camera and a film production process, the DSLR is amazing.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59330 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:49:04 +0000 composite1 59330@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"The "Great Camera Shootout" was not comparing DSLRs to a true video<br /> camera."</em></p> <p>Lens,</p> <p>You are correct but I said to take a look to see the capabilities of DSLRs. In the first shootout they did compare the looks of DSLR's and traditional HD video cameras. Here's an entry with some 'numerical' and not subjective information;</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor">CMOS vs CCD sensors</a></p> <p>As for 'why a videographer would choose a DSLR over a Trad vid cam' are capabilities, expense and a certain amount of 'wow' factor. I'm an old-school broadcast camera shooter, but when the XL1 came out, I knew where things were going. Yeah, you sacrificed picture quality compared to a late model Betacam-SP, but the picture was very good, building a kit for it was infinitely cheaper and I could take it places a Betacam couldn't go. I've seen 'ordinary' stuff shot with DSLR's and in the hands of someone who knew what they were doing, it looked 'cinematic'. </p> <p>Now you've got the same thing with DSLR's. A huge sensor with unprecedented low-light picture quality in a body smaller than an XL1 that can shoot in full HD that can hold up side to side with RED footage. Oh and cheaper! Yeah, the accessories can get expensive, but you are trying to make a still camera into a video camera. Secret is, you don't need 'the erector set' as you rightfully called it. Just enough for good shoulder support and hand-held is all you really need. It's when you start adding all the 'doo dads' that crap starts getting complicated, heavy and expensive.</p> <p>At least with the Canon models there are regular firmware updates that add video controls that weren't present initially. Remember these things were initially made by still camera engineers for still photographers to do short video feeds on blogs and junk. They had no idea of what they really came up with until videographers got a hold of the tech.</p> <p>Dude, I think your 'sweating' the rolling shutter thing way too much. You really have to crank on some of these rigs to see the effect. On the forum there are a number of posts with aerial video shot with RC units and the 7D and I think the 5D. No rollin' jello at all. </p> <p>This is just where things are going. Personally, I still love 'tradi cams' and use them regularly. But I am looking to have a couple of DSLR's in the arsenal including a 'flip' or three when something needs to get blown up.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59329 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 17:56:18 +0000 robGRAUERT 59329@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>To be more accurate, rolling shutter happens because the sensors' horizontal rows of pixels become "active" starting from the top and then working downward (as opposed to all pixels on the sensor becoming "active" at once).</p> <p>Video cameras don't really have a physical shutter in them. When you adjust the shutter speed of a video camera, you're really changing the duration in which pixels on the sensor become active.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59326 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 16:59:24 +0000 roblewis56 59326@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Rolling shutter happens because the sensor gets scanned progressively as the shutter moves. In focal plane film cameras the slit moves horizontally across the film plane. Shutter speed is determined by the width of the slit with a higher speed corresponding to a narrower slit. In the Canon 5D the slit moves vertically from top to bottom. This means that for something moving horizontally something at the top of the frame is recorded before things at the bottom and appear slanted away from the direction of motion. In the video shown in the link below the leading edge of the train moving from left to right is slanted to the left because the top is recorded before the bottom as the shutter moves down.</p> <p>Canon VIXIA HF11 Shutter Speed Test</p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/roblewis56?feature=moby#play/all/uploads-all/0/tsb6T_4SYJE">http://www.youtube.com/user/roblewis56?feature=moby#play/all/uploads-all/0/tsb6T_4SYJE</a></p> <p>Robert</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59324 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 14:16:56 +0000 LensLens 59324@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Intuitively, I felt that the 5D MK2 would produce the better result. I was kind of hoping there was a "numerical" answer to my question above, as opposed to a subjective evaluation. I intend to do just such a side-by-side test later this week. I'll report back on my subjective results.</p> <p>An additional consideration...I do quite a bit of aerial video. This is where my concern about the rolling shutter enters the picture. When doing aerial video, there is quite a bit of motion, in spite of the fact that I am using two gyros on the camera. Last thing I need is "jello" on the image.</p> <p>The "Great Camera Shootout" was not comparing DSLRs to a true video camera. It compared them to film cameras.</p> <p>Len</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59322 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:45:28 +0000 robGRAUERT 59322@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>And I'd still get one of the DSLR cameras, but only if I didn't need any other equipment (but I always seem to need something) and it would never be my first choice to shoot with.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59321 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:41:58 +0000 robGRAUERT 59321@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"please tell me what makes DSLRs so hot?"</em></p> <p>In my opinion, the only thing hot about them is the DoF and the fact that you can sacrifice one if you don't want to put a really professional camera in danger for a sweet shot.</p> <p>But if it weren't for these DSLRs, I don't think Panasonic or Sony would have announced those new cameras at NAB, ya know, the ones that are really video cameras that have 35mm sensors, and that aren't as expensive as RED.</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59320 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 11:29:59 +0000 jakeman3 59320@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I'm with robgrauert..DSLRs aren't really my thing. I don't undersatnd why so many shooters are willing to trade off all the pro features of a professional HD camcorder for a DSLR. OK, the image is very nice &amp; using different lenses is cool. But by the time you add all the accessories to make it a usable camera, you've spent more then a real camcorder, it's not ergonomic or easy to use &amp; the audio is marginal at best. I've used a 5D with all the "erector kit" add ons. What a pain in U know what. It's a 2 man job &amp; not at all good on the shoulder. I'm not buying the depth of field argument. I don't need or want it for every shot. Plus, that can be done in post. So....if you're not attempting to do something cinematic, (and most of us aren't) please tell me what makes DSLRs so hot?   </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59319 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:51:00 +0000 robGRAUERT 59319@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p><em>"That would be the 5D. Much larger sensor."</em></p> <p>Are you sure? I could have sworn I heard somewhere that the DSLRs don't utilize the entire 35mm sensor when recording video. They will only utilize whatever pixels are needed for recording 1080 or 720.</p> <p>I certainly could be wrong though. Like I've said in the past, DSLRs aren't really my thing</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59316 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:38:11 +0000 CraftersOfLight 59316@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>LensLens</p> <p>Since you have both, have you tried a test yourself? Which one did you think gave the best video? Which was easier to "fix" in post? Which was easier to set up on shoot so you didn't need to "fix" in post?</p> <p>You can do the math and see what that tells you but with environment variables, lighting, haze, etc., they would each seem to have there "charms" and "curses".</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59315 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:38:01 +0000 composite1 59315@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Lens,</p> <p>No 'dancing' required. That would be the 5D. Much larger sensor. To get more of an idea of the diff between the two check out my post 'The Great Camera Shootout is Here!'</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59311 Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:37:07 +0000 LensLens 59311@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>I have both the XHA1 and the 5DMK2. If I take the depth of field/film look aspect out of the equation, in terms of sheer resolution, clarity, bit depth (useful for grading), which of the two cameras will produce the better quality video?</p> <p>I've asked this question of a number of people, and everyone seems to "dance around" an answer.</p> <p>Thanx!</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59187 Sat, 29 May 2010 08:24:49 +0000 roblewis56 59187@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Also check out</p> <p><a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;articleID=2186" rel="nofollow">http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&amp;articleID=2186</a></p> <p> </p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59182 Sat, 29 May 2010 06:05:39 +0000 roblewis56 59182@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>A major difference in these two cameras is the sensor. The XH 1A has three 1/3" CCD sensors while the 5D Mark II has one 36mm X 24mm CMOS sensor. Besides the rolling shutter effect already mentioned with the CMOS sensor the much larger sensor in the Mark II means it has much better low light performance. </p> <p> </p> <p>Robert</p> http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/topic/canon-xh-1a-vs-canon-5d-markii#post-59161 Fri, 28 May 2010 14:54:37 +0000 composite1 59161@http://www.videomaker.com/community/forums/ <p>Rob,</p> <p>My mistake. Hey if you haven't seen it yet, check out Ep 3 of the GCS! They've got greenscreen tests that show that very thing you're talking about.</p>