Zombies on the XL2??

[TizzyEntertainment]

I know I know... DVX forum and I am an owner/lover of the DVX but ran across this and thought it had some merrit.

This is a music video, shot on the XL2 featuring zombies. Now I don't know if the XL2 just dose'nt have the same Gamma options the DVX has or if the shooter didnt know how to employ it but it looks pretty good. Funny video too. Give it a look see.

http://www.uncherished.com/

R. Michael

[ExFilms]

I thought this was hilarious...really good. Saw it over on the DVinfo forums. Great work.

[Highway_26]

I thought the beginning was pretty cool, but my browser craps out every time the skater kids start to run away. Damn you Firefox, I want to see the end >:(

[Isaac_Brody]

Not bad. The handheld shakiness was distracting though.

[Dr.Gonzo]

I love zombies more than I love water. Yeah, that much. I could have seen some exploding heads and blood in the camera lense but hell, it was still good.

When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro

[Zim]

I like those dancing zombies. Great idea. The XL2 looked good.

[STORYTELLER32]

Personally, I think the XL-2 doesn't compare to the DVX. It just looks like video with 24p temporal movement. Doesn't have a film look beyond that. You can put a DVX frame side by side with a 16mm film frame and see how close it is. Put an XL-2 frame next to both and you see where it's lacking. DVX is still the best imagery for the money.

That being said, the video was still funny as hell.

[MattC]

If many DVX users are (and from what I gather this is the case, at least for those putting out images that I feel closely resemble film) using the camera for it's 24p capability and shooting the image "flat", and then achieving their "look" in post, what difference do you think camera selection makes? I try not to get into a camera bashing contest, but, while the stock presets of the DVX look great, and in fact do more closely resemble 16mm film, that look can be achieved with both cameras. Then of course you have to ask if that is the look you're going after at all. I looked at the trailer for your upcoming film and that certainly seems to be the look you're after, but it is far from the only film look, or even the most desirable one for many. So please, in that context tell me where the camera is lacking.


Matt

[Kidster]

The XL2 is still fairly new, (out 6 mos) and I'm not sure how many DVX owners either sold their DVX or just bought the XL2 in addition to their DVX. But perhaps the lack of comparable "film" looks between the two, is not the XL2 falling short, but the XL2 owners being new and inexperienced with 24p cinegamma technology. With experience over time, I think we will see many shorts and some features shot on the XL2, then the proof will be there for all to see.

I have both camera's, but my style of shooting doesn't call for narrative work. I have used the DVX for a outdoor fishing show and it looked great. I now shoot that same show and also a outdoor golf show with the XL2 and they both look great! The 20X lens is the bomb for getting in tight on the golf ball, and a top water lure working across the water. But do either camera's make the shows look like film, absolutely!

[Shaw]

I don't know. I would normally be inclined to agree but lately I've been watching some older stuff shot on 16mm and damn if it doesn't look like XL2 footage. It's sort of low contrast and almost has this greyness to it. Perhaps it was just the film stock but after watching multiple things from different places I was really struck by this thought.

[STORYTELLER32]

Hi guys,
Sorry it took me so long to respond, but I didn't get a notification on the response. (does anyone else have this problem? I think it's a mac safari issue when I click notify of replies, it doesn't always do so)

Anyway, my feeling is this:
Granted, I haven't seen any place near as much XL2 footage as I've seen DVX. And Kidster could be absolutely correct that the footage I've seen so far is lacking because of the people who shot it. (that in itself says something about the camera though, because right out of the box, a non-pro can have their footage looking filmic without much toil to do so)

That aside, for me, it comes down to a simple concept. Since both are SD video and neither are film, when you look at the footage from either camera, what does it remind you of? Does the footage remind you of what we've come to know of throughout the years as video look (soap operas, evening news broadcasts, sporting events, etc.)? Or does it remind you of film? All of my purposes for these kinds of cameras is with dramatic narratives in mind. Not documentaries, or sporting events where video look is more appropriate. Video look when used with the purpose of conveying a dramatic narrative, takes the viewer out of the narrative and ruins the experience. So for my purposes, I don't want my audience to be reminded of video. I want them to gloss over what it was shot on and just become engaged in my narrative.

When I look at XL2 footage, I see video. I don't mistake it for film. This includes magic bullet altered footage. There's so much sharpness to it that it screams 29.97 footage to me even when it's 24p. I've been able to pick it out when a project is shot on that camera just by looking at the footage. To me, that's a drawback.

Anyway, that's where my point of view comes from on the camera. It's not out of some misguided loyalty to the DVX. Hell, I don't even own a camera yet. I borrowed one for my shoot. I'm waiting for prosumer 24p HD before buying. In the mean time, I'm spending my money on everything except the camera (lighting, dollies, increased computer power for post work, etc.) ;D

[Kidster]

Storyteller....congrats on getting a project shot. I applaud anyone who spends the time and the great deal of hard work that goes into any of these productions....since you borrowed the DVX, I would love to see a clip of your narrative drama. Also to see how "filmic" it is.

[MattC]

Well, perhaps you're right. Personally I don't care what either camera looks like "out of the box" but what the end result looks like. I just finished shooting the first scene (well actually the eleventh, but it's the first shot) of a new short film. When it's all done I'll have you take a look at it and you can tell me if it looks like video or not.

Matt

[Kidster]

Hey Matt....is your short going to be your submission to the XL2fest? Speaking of which, are we still going ahead with it? If so, are we doing it on any subject matter we want?

[Kidster]

I apologize for getting OT..by the way, the make up job for the Zombies I thought was very good, and seriously funny concept.

[STORYTELLER32]

By the way, guys, you shouldn't take my comments about the camera personally. It wasn't a reflection on the work in the video. My original statement specifically stated the zombie video was funny as hell. I'm just not a fan of the camera so far.

Kidster:
You can see the finished film right now here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=Clips;action=display;num=1109483800

If that link doesn't work, just go to the clips section of this site and look for "The Message Universal" topic. Would love some feedback if you opt to view it.

[TC]

Who here thinks that a good percent of people prefer the XL2 to the DVX because they think it looks cooler?

I'm not saying either is better, because I've never used the XL2, but I know of at least 2 people that bought XL1s over DVXs soley based on the fact that they felt "more professional" using the XL1.

Food for thought.

Anyways, this video is a whole lot of fun. I love the concept and I love the execution.

[ZaniacMedia]

I thought the video kicked serious a. It was fun to watch, and it looked like it was fun to make. That's all that matters, to me anyway.

[MattC]

Well TC, I know of a couple of event videographers that went with the XL1s for that very reason, and they've been very happy with that choice. *And to be honest, for them, it did make sense and, rightly or wrongly according to them, did make a difference. *Now it shouldn't make a difference (the best wedding video I ever saw was shot by a true artist on a DVX), but it often does in certain circles.

As I said in another post, those who stayed with Canon after the DVX was introduced, were NOT indie film folks. *They were definitely VIDEO folks. *I mean, why in god's name would you stay with the XL1 for an indie film if the DVX was available? *Short answer - you wouldn't. *You'd sell your XL1 donate some blood and go buy the DVX. *So, who moved to the XL2? *Well alot of folks upgraded from the XL1 or XL1s. *Again, these were not filmmakers, they were event videographers looking primarily for the increased resolution and the 16:9 mode. *24p is a plus, and many are experimenting with it, but many, many of the XL2 "upgraders" hate it. *This doesn't mean that the XL2 is incapable of shooting cinematic quality movies, it just means that most folks who bought one, have no intention of ever doing that. *Some guy posts a video clip over at DVinfo and cats here rail against his footage because it doesn't look like film. *Well guess what? *He shoots weddings and sporting events and maybe some local news footage and he doesn't want his video to look like film, he could care less about the "filmlook". *He just wants good clean video. *So the comparisons, I think, are mostly off base.

Last night I watched John Hudson's short for this months contest - It looks GREAT (I voted for it)!! *But he didn't do anything with his DVX that couldn't have been done with the XL2. *In fact, after talking to John about these things, I'm pretty sure he shot it mostly flat and then achieved his "look" in post. *As do many here. *So if that's the case, any camera which renders color accurately (and that seems to be somewhat subjective here) and records in true 24pa can accomplish the same thing.

As far as the color goes, the Canon is preset to look like crisp video. *Why? See above, but you can make it look however you want. *Personally, I'm not so much a fan of certain looks that many here go for because they associate them with film (although to be fair, I think most of them come from just using a "scene" preset). *As I said, earlier in this thread, the DVX preset scenes do look FAR more filmic than the Canon, which has no such presets, just empty spaces to store your own presets. *But, while others may choose to emulate the look of washed out 16mm film, I don't. * [EDIT: I am not saying or implying that the DVX natively looks like washed out 16mm film, only that I see a lot of stuff posted here that has a similar look, which is great if that's what you're going for.]

Post a few grabs from some movies known for their great cinematography (there's a thread on just this in the cinematography section) and tell me if ANY of them resemble the DVX straight out of the box. *Maybe they do, and I just haven't seen it yet (seriously).

Matt

[Dests]

Since we're on the subject about film look, I'm planning on shooting a short film at the begining of next month or the end of this one. Right now I'm in pre-production, trying to prepare as much as I can. I was wondering, since the XL2 achieves more of the video look straight out of the box, and for me, mine is only 3 weeks out of its cage, should I shoot my short project in the default presets as is out of the box or is there a preset that I could customize to achieve more of the film look that has been discussed on this topic. I'll probably do a lot of post altering of footage, but is there a preset that gives the best film look possibility, and not the video look that I agree that will take some people out of my narrative.

By the way, great zombie video! I really like the zombie make-up!

[MattC]

Yes there is, it was originally posted by Mac, and I've tweaked it a bit and change around while experimenting.

A good base point I think is:

16:9
Full Manual
-3 Gain (if you can, depends on lighting)
24pA
Zebra on (set to about 90)

Gamma: This is tough I go back and forth. *If you want to use "presets" in post (say a particular Magic Bullet look) then leave this set to normal (I think, juries still out). *If on the otherhand you want your gamma set in the camera, or you are going to tweak the gamma yourself in post then set it to cine.

Knee: Middle

Black: For the most part, Middle. *If you are trying to increase latitude in low light, set it to stretch. *You can always make things darker in post.

Color Matix: Same answer as for Gamma

V Detail: debatable, I'm using low for now.

Noise Reduction: Off

Color Gain: +1

Sharpness: -4 (I might even bring it down more)

Coring: Depends on what you're shooting, so far I like +3

Setup Level: 0

Master Ped: -3

Red/Green/Blue Gain: *Again, I think if you're going to be doing a lot with color correction in post you might want to leave them all at 0. *If not, well then it depends on what you want (warm, cool, etc.) *If you want to get closer to "film" or the DVX, you might want to warm it up a bit, say +1 red. *Personally I wouldn't, I would go -1 Blue and leave the red alone.

That should give you a a flat, but nice, starting point. *There are so many variables though it really depends on what you want to do. *And today, you can't ignore post, or what you're going to do there. *I'm working on a short right now and spent three days shooting test footage with different settings and then playing with all of the settings in post to see which look/combination I liked best. *I think this is really your best bet.

Time for bed...

Matt

[Dests]

Thanks Matt!

Also, is there any other site that anyone knows of where they shot a project with the XL2 that can easily be mistaken for 16mm?

[MattC]

Well, I agree with Shaw, I think the stock XL2 image pretty closely resembles it, but remember I'm saying that as someone who doesn't really like that look. *Often I hear that the DVX closely resembles 16mm footage, but I actually think it looks much better than that in certain respects (or at least is capable of looking much better than that).

Matt

[EDIT: Tell you what, since this stuff is so subjective, why don't you post a frame grab of the look you want, and then I'll try and emulate that with the XL2 and post the results. I actually think this would be a lot of fun. Then I'll keep records of all the different looks and settings and make a sticky post for people looking to get various looks out of the camera.]

[Shaw]

I don't like the look either but the XL2 certainly has an "old 16mm" look to it. Watch some older TV shows sometime and take a look at the footage. The XL2 is much sharper than this out of the box but if you dropped the sharpening a lot it would look very similar.

The DVX is a camera is really quite interesting. It's a camera that desperately wants to be 35mm film but isn't quite there.

[Seetukka]

anyone who says that xl2 doesn´t look like film, should firts look these...http://www.goroommating.com/

[Shaw]

Interesting :D

Just to clarify my comment: I'm refering to "out of the box" settings. I have no doubt the XL2 can be altered in post or in cam to look different :)

[MattC]

Seetukka, great images, thanks! Did you do these?

Shaw, I understood you, no worries matey... It simply is illogical to think otherwise, and I know you are not the illogical sort. And, as I've said, the DVX can be somewhat filmic right out of the box, the XL2 has no such capability.

Something to consider, on the DVInfo board there was/is a discussion of the movie, "Anniversary Party" starring Alan Cumming and Jennifer Jason Leigh. In that thread Wayne Orr writes:

"The movie was shot with two DSR500W PAL cameras, and a couple times with three cameras. The underwater material is film. The lighting was accomplished using a truckload of kino flos that were stuffed into every nook and cranny. Harder lighting units were used for kickers.

Mr. Bailey delivered what is known as a "fat negative." That is, he made sure none of the blacks were crushed, and avoided clipping the highlights, except for a few exteriors seen through windows. The edited footage was later subjected to extensive color correction to create the final "look" which you see on the dvd. Interestingly, you can rent the vhs of this movie and see what the video looked like before it was color corrected. For what must obviously be economic reasons, the vhs tapes were struck from the original footage before the color correction, which was a terrible disservice to Mr. Bailey. This version has been described as looking like "bad home videos." And indeed it does look bad, if you don't know the workflow, and where it is headed."

I think this is a great experiment for anyone to do, in order to see how most footage "starts out". I think the idea of using a camera, any camera, to achive the totality of your "look" is missing part of the process, but as someone new to this I could certainly be wrong.

Matt

[Seetukka]

No´!! they are not mine, but I was just so impressed by the "look" of those commersial that I had to post the link... In my opinion Dvx and xl2 are both exellent cameras and they both do good film look. I agree that dvx makes better out of the box, but so what??!! I´m spending a lot of time doing the post production anyway. I´ve been filming many musicvideos with vx2100 with no progressive scan and I think that I´ve made quite good "film look" just with lot of post work. So in my opinion the final result is what matters. And I think that dvx and xl2, both look much as film after a good and hard work in the post.

Greetings from Finland

Seetukka

[MattC]

You have summed up an entire thread in one excellent post, thanks!

It's been so cold by me for the past couple of days, I feel like I'm in Finland....

Matt

[Seetukka]

It´s not always that cold in Finland ;)

[MattC]

Well, I'm American, so you know I'm geographically challenged, but aren't you guys in the Arctic Circle?

Perhaps its how we define cold. Basically anything below 72 degrees Fahrenheit (22 degrees Celsius) is cold. Much below that is just too damn cold. What's the temperature by you now?

Matt

[Shaw]

Thanks for the comments Matt. I figured I had been understood as no one got up and complained :D. Just figured I would clarify since I was posting anyway!

What part of the US are you from Matt? I live in Montana at the moment (lived in Colorady for 12 years, Alaska for 1 or so) and I really don't like any temperature over 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Just too hot for my tastes. I'm quite a fan of 20-40 degrees with a light breeze.

[MattC]

Uhg, you and my Nordic girlfriend would get along fine...

I live in Stamford, CT about 20 minutes north of Manhattan. It's probably not really THAT cold out right now 30's about. Still, not good. Give me an island with a warm beach and scantily clad women, and I'm a happy guy.

[Shaw]

;D

And what is it about Nodic women? There's just something special!

[Seetukka]

half of the finland is in the arctic circle. But if that´s your idea of cold then okay it´s freezing in here. Yesterday there was -25 celsius. But its winter time now. It´s supposed to be cold. it´s warm when it´s summer. ::)

By the way. I´m coming to visit your country next week. I´m coming to buy the xl2 ;)