Simple Question


New member
Its hard to get an opinion out of people so.

simple way of putting it - which of the canon XL2 and XH-A1 will get the most professional, eye pleasing look, easiest? and if it is just HD that is making the image better, would the XL2 make a nicer image with the adjustable settings it offers that the XHA1 doesnt?

and when i say eye pleasing and better, as you can say its subjective, i mean, colourful, and least similar to old home videos. Taking into consideration that HD shows everything better, more clear, and that this could be argued as a bad thing.

please answer asap as i need to buy very soon.

thanks for al you help

Red Prince

New member
Re: Simple Question

seroe said:
Taking into consideration that HD shows everything better, more clear, and that this could be argued as a bad thing.
By that logic 35 mm is bad compared to 16 mm because it shows everything better.

In just slightly over a year (February 17, 2009) all TV stations in the US will cease airing traditional analog programming and will only air HDTV. I do not know about other countries schedules. But very soon everyone will be used to HD quality and anything below that will appear unsatisfactory.

Additionally, you can always convert the footage from HD to a lower resolution and it will look as good as the lower resolution allows. But you cannot convert a lower resolution image to HD and make it look as good as native HD.

I have recently purchased an HDTV tuner for my computer, one that plugs into a USB port. Ever since then I have been watching television in HD and have been wondering how I could have ever standed the lower image quality of anything below HD. And occasionally they show some old footage on TV news and they dither it from its low resolution to HD. It looks like looking at a color print in a magazine through a magnifying glass, a collection of red, green, and blue dots, which you can actually see with naked eye.


New member
fair points!

i have seen some footage on youtube by a user called brainstudiox - and its fantastic, on an xl2. this is obviously due to some after work in the edit, but alot can be done with the presets and customising of things such as gamma, which the xl2 is famous for being able to totally adjust...

does anybody know the difference between what the xl2 offers in this respect, and what the xha1 does? - because if it is just as possible to achieve the same look with the xha1 as the xl2, only better, in hd, then my questions are all answered

also, the lens on the xl2 it comes with is equivalent to starting at 50mm at its widest, does anybody know the 35mm equvalent of the fixed lens on the xha1? as i think in 35mm!