one more XL2 grab

[Antoine_Fabi]

this image looks pretty clean and well balanced... :)

...et en plus, c'est une très jolie demoiselle !

http://homepage.mac.com/fame1000/PhotoAlbum5.html

[shAi]

broken link.. ???

[hvpz]

Antoine,

Ton lien ne semble pas être effectif.
(Play it again Sam !! )

By the way...
Je lis avec beaucoup d'intérêt tes posts.
J'ai l'intention de faire un "feature film" avec la dvx.
Avec un transfert vers du 35mm si la mayonnaise prend...
Keep the buzz alive...

Cela semble aussi être ton cas. Peux tu m'en dire plus.

(Que penses tu de primer qui a gagné à Sundance et qui a été
tourné en s16.)

MErci par avance.

(Keep on your technical posts (dof and dynamic range especially)

hervé

[Antoine_Fabi]

it's working now !

Hervé,

thanks for your good words !

i did not see Sundance, i will try to find the DVD.
I dont shoot for film.
I like the DVX100A for comercial, institutional and artistic DVDs, that's what i do for now.

yeah, dynamic range is something i always want to improve.
I'll post some more grab frames, you actually can improve dynamic range.
Jarred Land posted some grabs (Tiffen Ultracon filters), and it is really impressive ! He says that we can use two stacked filters !
I will try two 77mm (to avoid vignetting).
I should have one (ultracon 5) in two weeks. cant wait.
That's exactly what we need with a 1/3" CCD cam.

[hvpz]

Thanks for your answer.

Your link is really interesting.

The picture is really nice and sweet. Not yet like a Christopher Doyle picture
(wong kar wai dp) but very interesting.
Xl2 will be a real sparring partner to the dvx...
I'll wait before to choose the one. I'll from Panasonic

[Antoine_Fabi]

yep, based on what i've seen so far, (only very well conrolled lighting environements) it seems that the XL2 and the DVX100A are in the same league. But, i'll wait for Jarred Land and Barry to test and compare both cameras before anything.

[MovieSwede]

To bad they always resize the picture down to letterboxed 4:3

They should stretched it to 854*480 to get a better picture how it will look in 16:9.

[Antoine_Fabi]

you can put it in your NLE, tag it as a anamorphic 16:9, and put it in a 4:3 timeline, you'll se the correct aspect ratio on both your TV and monitor.

[MovieSwede]

well its to late for that because they already taken away pixel from 720*480 to 720*405 when they letterboxed it. I want to se a full 720*480 stretched to 854*480

and I also has a problem when both my cam and tv is PAL ;)

[Antoine_Fabi]

...the most i look at those grabs...

viewing these pictures reveals that the LX2 has very high quality CCDs and lense, no doubts in my mind !
The luma and chroma noise levels seem to be very low, and the contour of white objects are well defined and never harsh looking.

Now i want to see how it handles high contrasts.
If it does well, then it is just spectacular.
It looks like they worked very hard on the electronic components.

It will need the 3X lense though, for normal shooting situations, the 20X is not wide enough...

[mrbimmer]

Looks way video in just a grab. :-/

[Terry_Lasater]

Wow, I *love* those zooooms! ::)

[dvpixl]

Looks way video in just a grab. *:-/


seriously. I'm about to puke. j/k ;D

[nullphonic]

Here's the footage for that, this link was posted over at dvinfo.net...

http://homepage.mac.com/fame1000/

[betsy]

I think that is from the wrong camera, as that looks sooooooooooooo Videoooooooooooooo.

[chi_red]

I think that is from the wrong camera, as that looks sooooooooooooo Videoooooooooooooo.

you are right,
it looks very video.
Maybe they didn't use cine gama mode.

[johnnyspacecommand]

Some mistakes:

1) Never overexpose your shot beyond the curve. If you blow out any DV camera, it will certainly look like video. That is the case with this clip.

2) Never use handheld shots with jerky motions recorded. Tripods, tripods, tripods! Manfrotto is a good choice.

3) Using white fluor lighting as in the car shots will make the shot look like video.

4) No depth of field will definitely clue people in that you are on video.

[Isaac_Brody]

Can someone put up a link with XL2 footage that actually looks like film? Everything I've seen looks like video. I don't know if that's the operator's fault or just the camera.

And everytime I've heard it brought up in comparison to the DVX people say that XL2 footage is noise free and will allow for color timing and post work. Which is cool, but even the post work I've seen done to XL2 footage still screams video.

I'm just wondering why I haven't seen anything from the XL2 that's blown me away and I thought, huh, that looks like film. Am I going crazy? ???

[dmc]

Isaac makes an interesting point. I agree - while the images from the XL2 can be very good, I haven't really seen anything that approximates a look that most of us seem to be associating with film.

I have no question that the degree of in camera tweaking is substantial on the XL2 but the final output, either raw or color corrected in post, never quite loses the "smell of video".

In fact, it even appears to have lost some of the warmth that was inherent to the XL1(S). I could be wrong.

Anybody out there holding onto a secret stash of killer XL2 stuff?



dmc

[johnnyspacecommand]

Here you are. *

http://www.starcentral.ca/mini35xl2.htm

[Isaac_Brody]

Nice stills Jonny.

I'm still looking for non Mini35 stuff to rival some of the stuff I've seen come out of the stock DVX.

[MattC]

Hmmm.....

Well I did one black and white short, my first, and it's here:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/films.html

I made a very quick video for my dolly, it was actually poorly lit and shot (first time using the dolly) but you can see it here:

http://www.birthofthecool.com/dolly.html

And I'm working on a new short but right now I'm just shooting a bunch of test footage trying to figure out how to light it. There are some stills here (although I'm not wild about the lighting yet - seems to be underexposed):

http://www.birthofthecool.com/testing.html

[dmc]

MattC and Johnny,

Excellent grabs guys, thanks for posting. Seriously, you both certainly have talent. I especially enjoyed Matt's "After the Gig", which I had seen before. Very good visual storytelling! Nice stuff.

I just find it curious - the actual treatment that the camera itself seems to be giving the image (not through any specific operator fault).

It's a hard thing to articulate but it's as though there's a veneer that lays ontop of the image. I should also say that sometimes it actually improves the subjective quality of the image - but it is still there. I guess I haven't seen the equivalent trait in the DVX.

Maybe it's just me. : )

btw - I don't own either but have been leaning towards the XL2.


dmc

[johnnyspacecommand]

that's not my work! *However, I have been admiring their work for some time now (www.starcentral.ca). *I always refer people to this site when they needlessly bash the XL2.

There is another site I ran across that is relatively new. *www.thexl2.com
*

[Isaac_Brody]

Hear ya. Not bashing the XL2. I just don't think I've necessarily seen what it's capable of. I looked over at DVINFO and while there are plenty of technical threads, there's not a lot of posted XL2 films. I guess I find that a little strange and was wondering if I was just missing something. Hopefully that will change in the next year as more stuff surfaces.

What really confuses me is that I've seen really excellent XL1s films and footage. Stuff which is very filmlike in color and production values. DMC put it a pretty good way, it's like there's a veneer put on top of some of the footage on the XL2. People have talked about the flatness of the image right out of the box, but even the stuff I've seen which is post-corrected still has a certain flatness to it.

I'd already seen the Star Central stuff before and Matt's stuff is well shot. Any other stuff lurking out there?

[dmc]

Johnny - thanks for the link.

btw - I wasn't bashing the XL2, I'm a fan. It's just an observation of a characteristic that I've noticed.


dmc

[MattC]

Isaac, I don't think there are a lot of "indie" folks using the XL2 yet. When you saw some great independent film coming out of the XL1s I think that was because it was the best alternative at the time. Then the DVX came out and pretty much captured that market. From what I can tell, most buyers of the XL2 (at least over at DVInfo) are looking primarily for a low cost high end VIDEO solution, and are not using it for "independent film". Now, I think that's changing, but that's certainly what made up the early adopters. A lot of those guys don't even like shooting in 24p...

As far as the veneer of the XL2, well, I could say the same thing about the DVX, albeit a different veneer... What I find most interesting is that it appears that the DVX work that I like most comes from users who turn off most of the cameras "cinematic look" features. To be honest, I think for both cameras it's a compromise of in-camera vs. post. I've been shooting a ton of test footage and working with different settings with my film look package of choice. I don't think the best is to shoot "FLAT", but I do think it's best to shoot "MOSTLY FLAT" (No, no, he's only mostly dead...). I'm sure that users of the DVX have come to the same conclusion. From what I've seen of "November", that's the technique Nancy used and from what I've read of "Art History", the same would apply there.

But you know what? I could be wrong. Maybe the DVX does do something completely different. I will say this, I think the DVX, because of its "scenes" produces better images "out of the box". The XL2 really could have benefited from something like that, but I don't think Canon is really that interested in the indie market, which is a shame. Also, the DVX is definitely a better dual use camera. I wouldn't use the XL2 to shoot a birthday party for instance, but I would use the DVX to do that. And if I did use the DVX to do that, I'm sure I would get beautiful footage right out of the camera. But to shoot a feature or an independent short? I think either camera works equally well, providing you put the work into the shot. But again, I could be wrong.

Matt

[Isaac_Brody]

Matt, I think you're right about the indie folks. And a lot of the DVINFO stuff isn't even 24P.

Well if an XL2 contest gets up and running there should be a lot more filmlike stuff to check out.

[Kidster]

Perhaps there isn't a abundance of XL2 "Filmic" footage out there yet because the camera is fairly new. Only out about 6 months, if I'm not mistaken. As time rolls on and more and more stuff is shot I believe we will see how wonderful the XL2 can produce a filimic like image.

I do agree that out of the box, or better yet all presets set to default, the DVX renders a richer, more saturated color palette. However when tweaked, the XL2's colors are alive and very beautiful.

[MattC]

I really think that I'm at least somewhat right about the use though, and this comes from talking to numerous Canon devotees. When the XL1s was the gig for indie film, it was the best alternative, not that it was great, but it was the best thing going in prosumer video. Once the DVX hit, if you were an indie film guy/gal, you sold the Canon and bought the DVX. I mean you had to, it was a camera that was designed (if not actually designed for, in spirit it sure was) folks making low budget films on a prosumer video camera. 24p - enough said. So the only folks staying with Canon were primarily event videographers, and others producing very nice quality video. They were still big with corporate training videos, cable tv comercials, etc. But as the DVX took off, people, like our very own Barry Green, started using the camera for those other purposes as well. All of a sudden brides wanted their "video" to look like a "movie". Now Canon was really in trouble, because the folks who make up their bread and butter were looking seriously at the DVX, if not already making the move. So Canon releases the XL2, a camera which I think is quite excellent. But I don't for a minute think they did it for the indie crowd as Panny seems to do. I think Canon did it to not LOSE their event videographer customers. Dig? Granted this is largely supposition on my part, but I think its right. In fact, the reason I bought the Canon was not to do the indie film thing, I just sort of fell into that because I always wanted to do it. I bought it to have a high-end video look for training videos. But I have to tell you, I have been very pleasantly surprised at its film-like capabilities.

That said, I am VERY interested to see what Panny comes out with in April....

Matt

[J.R. Hudson]

I gotta think it's either the XL2 or the DVX; how can yo uchoose another
camera over these two?

[MovieSwede]

John, if you think HDV is the greatest thing since Tabasco

sure then there are other cams you can use.

[johnnyspacecommand]

How about the ultra-expensive big CCD 9.2 megapixel Viper Cam with 24P? * :D :P

Beyond film and beyond any "HD" camera.

Nice daydream...