My "new" camera is now my old camera...

[Shooter]

Big change of mind....

Cancelled the XL2 and the new DVX102A (PAL) is being put together as I write you all. Will collect it in the a.m and I am shooting a TVC the following day with it..

I was trying to convince myself that I was going to get used to the stupid iris control lever for two whole days. I 1st read it here and then couldnt get it off my mind. Checked it out because frankly I hadnt even played with it before. Too distracted and excited. No way was I ever going to get used to it. That stupid lever controls what I have been doing all my working life...it is my domain, my responsibility. My thing. When the 1st Asst moves it, I check it...everytime! The XL2 iris control lever lags, is imprecise and uncontrollable in real world time.

Next - the wide angle ( I posted elsewhere) - discovered this during my iris control investigation - I cant live without wide. The 4:3 vs 16:9 impact on the width of the lens is too difficult for me to live with . I bought a Cavision .6 wide adaptor and will be very happy with that - It may never come off. I will miss the long end of the Canon Zoom tho'

Not actually the only reasons for the change of mind but I am very happy with the decision despite knowing the XL2 has many things I really preferred.

[J.R. Hudson]

Another convert! :D

[BLUESPIDER]

yeah, I'm thinking about going back to SVHS.

[Guest]

My vhs is better than yours!

Seriously, it isn't easy to choose a new camcorder when a new standard is comming into our homes. People buying a new sd camcorder now can be left alone soon. The Sony HDVs and others comming soon going to change the way we are thinking video.

[Shadow]

Surprised, You sound so much pro XL2 the other day. There is no better world. Both have advantages and disadvantages, it just depend which one you consider for yours needs. ;)

[David Jimerson]

My vhs is better than yours!

Seriously, it isn't easy to choose a new camcorder when a new standard is comming into our homes. People buying a new sd camcorder now can be left alone soon. The Sony HDVs and others comming soon going to change the way we are thinking video.



Not until there's real 24p.

[Neil Rowe]

..ditto. .. im hanging on the "and others coming soon" part, and fully expecting then to be 24p.

[Guest]

David Jimerson - it's only a question of money!

[Guest]

and David Jimerson - you don't have a chance with your 720x480 24p against my 1024x576 25p. Hehehe

[Neil Rowe]

the sony doesnt do 25p.. it doesnt do anything "P" ...its scared of toilets.

[Guest]

iamloser - it's a 100AE with an anamorphic adapter (PAL). But you can't stop the evolution. Nest year you have to get a new tv. What you gonna choose, a 4:3 or a 16:9? SD or HD?

[J.R. Hudson]

I'd love to get 16:9 but wouldn't sweat the HD just yet. As good as it looks there still isn't enough programming options for it. In fact, the majority of the massed can't afford it anyway. It's coming, but it's coming slow.

[Neil Rowe]

..i could just get a new decoder box and keep the Tv i have, but ill probably get a couple HDs. Im not trying to stop the evolution of imaging technology.. im trying to advance them if anything, but im not going to jump on a little 4 foot wave just because its the first one to come along and hope it carries me well into the future.. im going to wat for a big striong wave that i know will get the job done right.

..i love what ive seen from the sony camera. but losing 24p or ANy progressive scan ability is counter evolutionary.. im waiting for a cam (to come soon enough) which really evolves from the technology available. not one which leaves out one of the most important things it could for an independent film maker.

[J.R. Hudson]

I agree Neil; give me 24p or give me death.

The long debate will continue but I'm still gonna pimp the 24p and stay away form 60i or any psuedo-progressive frame BS that is out. 24p is what got me back into the filmmaking junkie dream. HD is superfly in clarity and for filmouts the bene's are obvious, but if it still looks like video then I'm not stoked on it.

[Neil Rowe]

..right on . the whole reason i and many others want HD is for its high res potential for a film out, or digital projection. hardly anybody can watch anything HD in their homes. and i cant justify moving to HD if i have to dump 1/2 or more of its resolution to put it on film, and have it not have the motion rendition that makes it look more like film. .. i can wait a little while for an equivalent HD cam that has progressive scan at 24p and other framerates so that i can actually use all that resolution without sacrifice. as it is now though the new SONY cam appears to be an independent videographers dream. ..gorgeous images.. just not well suited for filmmaking IMHO.

[J.R. Hudson]

Exactly.

And another thing; I don't wanna hear any BS about how if its Video it will still be okay for filmmaking.

Whateva'!

[David Jimerson]

and David Jimerson - you don't have a chance with your 720x480 24p against my 1024x576 25p. Hehehe

Well, 1) it's not a competition that I'm aware of, and 2) what in anything I've ever posted makes you think I might not have the anamorphic adapter myself? You presume way too much in your continual attempts to pick fights.

[David Jimerson]

Exactly.

And another thing; I don't wanna hear any BS about how if its Video it will still be okay for filmmaking.

Whateva'!

I entirely agree. Until actual 24p is incorporated, I have little interest in upgrading.

I don't care how sharp the resolution is; interlaced looks like interlaced and will always look like interlaced -- i.e., like a soap opera or a game show.

Give me true 24p, then you'll have my attention.

[David Jimerson]

i can wait a little while for an equivalent *HD cam that has progressive scan at 24p and other framerates so that i can actually use all that resolution without sacrifice. * *as it is now though the new SONY cam appears to be an independent videographers dream. ..gorgeous images.. * *just not well suited for filmmaking IMHO.

And that is the crux. *I'm in no hurry to spend $5000 on a new camera now when what I really want is coming along later.

And besides, while HD is here to stay, there's no guarantee that HDV is.

[Guest]

..... I might not have the anamorphic adapter myself?

You have the anamorphic lens I guess but than you have only 864x480 24p. What a different, 1024x576 25p.

You want 24p HD? There is what ever you desire on the market David, but it cost you money. It's all about money. If you have it you can get your 24p HD now.

[Ranger]

Up until a few days ago, I would have agreed with everyone regarding this camera’s ability to be a true filmmaker’s dream. On the surface, the lack of 24p hobbled an otherwise revolutionary new video system. However, I recently downloaded a 200mb/6 min nature montage (similar to disjecta’s stuff) that was shot with a PAL FX1E and it looks fantastic. To my eyes, it had a pleasing film look. It was shot using Cineframe25 and rendered using Vegas 5.0 at 720p using WMV.

While the verdict is still out on the usefulness of Cineframe, the stuff I saw was very convincing. Missing here was a lot of the choppiness evident on earlier Cineframe examples. Many notable heavy hitters in the media business, DSE in particular, have strongly endorsed the performance characteristics of the Sony (including its Cineframe technology). Is it enough to convert many of the DVX faithful? Probably not, but for any newcomer that is in the market to purchase a video camera, then this baby is definitely worth consideration. For filmmakers, having 24p is important, however if it turns out that Cineframe is a workable solution to achieving a "film look" coupled its similar price point (as compared to the DVX and XL2), higher resolution and native 16:9, this camera will be geared to more than just broadcasters and independent videographers.

If anyone has the patience (it's EXXXTREMELY slow to download) here is the link:
http://www.prnet.org/videodl/sample1.wmv

[David Jimerson]

Sergej, go find some other sandbox to play in. I think it’s been made pretty clear that no one wants you around here. All you do is tell people that their toys aren’t as nice as yours and that people are stupid for not lining up in droves to be the first to buy a camera which may or may not be worth all the hype.

Get lost. You’ve been told many times. You have nothing to contribute, and you don’t think you have anything to learn, so go be somewhere else.

[MattC]

David,

I'm new around here and don't know of the history, so I should probably just stay out of this. But I would like to add that Sergej was very helpful to me, in reviewing some footage that I posted, and I for one, greatly appreciated what he had to contribute.

Matt

[Guest]

David Jimerson - be cool man, you need a shrink. I didn't say these things you meantion.
------------------->

I mean the XL2 has it's place in the video-maker world. (I don't say filmmaker becouse it's a video as long as it isn't on celluloid.)
It's open architecture , programmable lens etc. .... it's a good camcorder. The Iris controll on the DVX is better but why should I turn the IRIS all the time if it is a controlled situation.

But anyway the winner going to be the Z1.

[Gary_McClurg]

I think Sergej just likes to pick on people that's how he gets his fun for the day. Just ignore him.

[David Jimerson]

Ranger, I think your take on it is legit, especially from the point of view of someone who hasn't purchased a camera yet.

But what John, loser, and I are saying is that what attracted us to the DVX was not resolution but its fantastic 24p rendition, which looks very, very much like film and behaves, in terms of motion rendering, identically to it. *No approximation of it to date -- whether done in post or Cineframe or Frame mode -- has equalled the look of native 24p. Things may come close, but they're not there. And we want to be there.

None of us take issue with the great resolution of HD and we're actually quite excited at the possiblity of affordable 24p HD on the horizon, but for us, the 24p is the thing, and we can happily wait and see what's coming. *We've made our purchases and would prefer to defer further outlay until the technology gives us what we’re looking for. *At present, it doesn’t.

Personally, I'm not interested in being a "videographer." *I'm interested in narrative film work, and for that, the 24p IS the thing. *It's more important than the resolution. *For that, I can wait.

I'm pretty sure I speak for all three of us when I say we can respect why people would be excited about the Sony HDV cams. *But they're not what we're looking for, and we don't care to be told we're dumb for prioritizing 24p over resolution.

[dakotapod]

If anyone has the patience (it's EXXXTREMELY slow to download)

Man! this is like having a 14k modem! Can't wait to see it on the weekend ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

Word!

[Gary_McClurg]

It looks nice. *Took over 20 hours to download. *It looked a little jittery. *Not sure if it was the 25 to 24 and other things to get it to show on the web.

When the Sony Pro model comes I'll have to check it out personally to see what I like. *I'd like for Marcus at DV film to run a test even with the non pro model and see how it does on a film out. *

I agree with David that's why we purchased the DVX is because of the 24p and the cinegamma stuff. *It's a great little camera. *Now I wish they just make it in a 16x9 and HD model, but what would happen with the SDX900 for $20,000?

[dakotapod]

20 hours! >:( :P

[Gary_McClurg]

:o *Everyone in the area must have been on the web yesterday. *Probably checking out the snow storm going to hit back here on Thanksgiving. :-[

:( Or at least a snow storm for me coming from sunny California to have cold weather again :-[

But again that is one of the reason I moved was to have 4 seasons. ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

It snowed in Temecula (Just northeast of me by about 45 minutes.) Never snows there so people were trippin.

I wish I had 4 seasons. (soon hopefully)

[dakotapod]

I wish I had 4 seasons. (soon hopefully)

No you don't! Trust me... No you Don't. You can drive to snow but to deal with it daily is not so cute. :P

Again... No you don't!

[Gary_McClurg]

Yeah, but your up in Canada *which is like Rochester, NY. That's one reason why I didn't move to Rochester, NY. *A friend wanted me to work with him doing commericals. *There were some nice farms and houses for sale. *But when I saw one with a door on the second floor, no deck and no stairs. *I asked the real estate agent what that was for. *"Oh, that's the snow door. *So if it snows a lot you can get out of the house." *

Well that ended my thoughts of moving to upstate New York. *Here we get snow. *But it doesn't last long at least that's what I've been told and what I remember as a child. *But then again it was my dad who probably cleared all the snow. *I just remember playing in it.

John, how is the zombie moving coming along?

[Shaw]

I live just south of the Canadian border and we get plenty of snow. I love it. I don't feel like dealing with snow everyday is a bad thing. I rather enjoy it :)

[Guest]

... as it is now though the new SONY cam appears to be an independent videographers dream. ..gorgeous images.. just not well suited for filmmaking IMHO.

How many filmtransfer had a DVXuser Filmmaker last year? Because whatever we are using it is only a video until it is not transferd to film. You can say filmic, not filmic wahtever, it is only a video.

Open Water [quote author=DVXuser Filmmaker] crap [/] is on the celluloid, so it is a film.

[J.R. Hudson]

It's not wheter or not it's VIDEO or FILM. It is what it appears as:

VIDEO (Soap Opera/Reality T.V.) or FILMIC.

You know the difference Sergej.

[Ranger]

Ranger, I think your take on it is legit, especially from the point of view of someone who hasn't purchased a camera yet.

But what John, loser, and I are saying is that what attracted us to the DVX was not resolution but its fantastic 24p rendition, which looks very, very much like film and behaves, in terms of motion rendering, identically to it. *No approximation of it to date -- whether done in post or Cineframe or Frame mode -- has equalled the look of native 24p. *Things may come close, but they're not there. *And we want to be there.

None of us take issue with the great resolution of HD and we're actually quite excited at the possiblity of affordable 24p HD on the horizon, but for us, the 24p is the thing, and we can happily wait and see what's coming. *We've made our purchases and would prefer to defer further outlay until the technology gives us what we’re looking for. *At present, it doesn’t.

Personally, I'm not interested in being a "videographer." *I'm interested in narrative film work, and for that, the 24p IS the thing. *It's more important than the resolution. *For that, I can wait.

I'm pretty sure I speak for all three of us when I say we can respect why people would be excited about the Sony HDV cams. *But they're not what we're looking for, and we don't care to be told we're dumb for prioritizing 24p over resolution.
Good points David, IAL and John. *For digital filmmakers, 24p is a very important element in telling a story. *For many, the DVX is perfectly suited for that task. *To be honest, of all the video cameras (in this price range) the DVX is the closest thing in achieving the ever elusive "film look" - whatever that is. *It's like that old saying on what is considered pornography. *It's hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. *Add to the equation that the camera has a proven track record and mature NLE options and one has at their disposal a very powerful tool. *The Sony still has a way to go yet before it finds its groove.

For this old soldier (well sort of), I have no desire to be a filmmaker. *I just want to archive my experiences and maybe a few years down the road get into creating military history documentaries. *As such, the Sony is a better tool to meet my needs. *To each his own I guess.

For the record, I never called any of you dumb for prioritizing 24p over other factors. *I'm only highlighting a different point of view.

Cheers!

[David Jimerson]

For the record, I never called any of you dumb for prioritizing 24p over other factors.

I didn't mean YOU, Ranger. We're all cool! 8)

[Neil Rowe]

How many filmtransfer had a DVXuser Filmmaker last year? Because *whatever we are using it is only a video until it is not transferd to film. You can say filmic, not filmic wahtever, it is only a video.

Open Water crap [/] is on the celluloid, so it is a film.




man o man. everytime someone makes this sort of remark, i usually go off on a big tangent to completely shatter this sort of logic. its just rediculous.. and usually it just comes from elitist pretentiousness may i add. i just dont even want to take the energy to choke up my usual big speil this time.. ill just say that its just like saying "thats not a boat" because its not actually sitting in the water.. you could go put in in the water, and it would still be the exact same thing.. only in water.

..let me just go do a film trasnfer using my monitor with the brightness way up and a roll of film in my bathroom with the lights off. ill just wave the film in front of the monitor so the image is transferred horribly to the film when the movie is playing. but good gracious.. itll be a real film then! and when someone says "nice video..its not a film because its not on film.." ill pull out that little strip of film and wave it around and say "oh! to the contrary! .. it is a film.. its on this film right here!"
.. what defines a film if you dont have to change anything but your attitude to call it that. the term has long since been redefined.. get with the program.

[dakotapod]

:D You made my morning IAL. Looking forward to seeing your new film * ;D

[MattC]

IAL,

I've been trying your technique and not having much success. What filmstock are you using? ;)

Matt

[Gary_McClurg]

Gee, I had a friend who was an editor. *She always hated it when people would say I got to get film for my video camera. *It'd drive her up the wall. *"It's video not film," she'd always say.

Now I have a feature that's just been released in Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc. *It was shot on 35mm but you can only pick up a dvd copy for purchase or rent. *

So then by some people's logic well is it a film or is it a DVD, it must be a DVD because that's what it's released on?

I agree with what Mr. Neil says its all a matter of opinion. *I've had people lecture me up and down on how you do things. *This is how the pros do it, bah, bah... *I got so tired of hearing it.

Then one day I finally turned to one of them (a manager of a HD rental house) and asked "how many films have you produced?" *He rattle off all these big pictures. *Again I asked him "how many films have you produced?" *Again he tells me all the big shots he's worked for.

I just turned to him and said, "when you raise the money to produce or direct your own film, then you can tell me how to do things. *I've produced four pictures and my job is to get them made. *That's what I do. *I don't care how I do it. *I just do it." *

This whole argument boils down to will the viewer buy it. *Most of them can't tell what it's shot on. *All they really care about who's in it and is it any good.

Now they know what a feature looks like in terms of production values, etc. *You have to meet those values. *I've said this before on this site. *Story is king. *If you have a great script you can make a bad feature. *But you can't make a great feature from a bad script.

Now I'll go back to my friend's statement. *The viewer again doesn't know the difference that's why they say I got to get film for my video camera. *To them a feature on the average is 90 minutes of entertainment.

Yes, I love shooting on film. *I don't think anything can compare. *But then again if I only have x amount of dollars and I can get a wonderful production value look with a great script and good acting and shoot it on the DVX for that x amount of dollars that's all I care about. *

Just get a great script, good actors, a good dp and a good gaffer and your on your way.

I guess I'm on a big tangent like Neil.

I just want to go out and make features. *That's what we should call them from now on... features... not films. *That way we're saying I'm making 90 minutes of just pure entertainment for a viewer to enjoy.

I guess I'm just going to tell people I'm making a feature and not even use the word film. *Now people who make shorts, etc. *I don't know what term you can come up with but just come up with something that will keep people's mouths shut. *

I think what it boils down to is most of these people are jealous of us because they're not making their dreams come true. *They gave up on them a long time ago.

Sorry about the novel here just had to get it out of my system.

[MattC]

I just want to make porn... But really high quality CINEMATIC porn, epic really... The Ben Hur of porn... Oh, oh, CHARIOTS... I'll use chariots...

Oh and IAL you suck! I've been in the bathroom for over a half hour now waiving this stupid film in front of my monitor and nothing!!

Matt

[Neil Rowe]

..try using a fresnel lense and a magnifying glass to condense the incoherant light from the monitor. this should help your project become a film, and also help me not suck.

[MattC]

Thanks IAL, I new you would come through for me.

[Guest]

It's not wheter or not it's VIDEO or FILM. It is what it appears as:

VIDEO (Soap Opera/Reality T.V.) or FILMIC.

You know the difference Sergej.

Yes I know the difference John Hudson. I hop you didn't men that a Soap Opera Productions Company doesn't have the capital to get 3-4 or even 10 stk DVX to make it filmic if they want.
------------------------>
I just would like to inform you DVXuser Filmmakers, in 2007-2009 the HDV 25p and 50p (real progressive) going to be a standard. Save your money because it gonna cost you not just the camcorder but in the production process. What Panasonic going to do I don't know but Sony, Canon and Jvc is on the road.
------------------------>

[Guest]

man o man. everytime someone makes this sort of remark, i usually go off on a big tangent to completely shatter this sort of logic. its just rediculous.. and usually it just comes from elitist pretentiousness may i add. i just dont even want to take the energy to choke up my usual big speil this time.. ill just say that its just like saying "thats not a boat" because its not actually sitting in the water.. you could go put in in the water, and it would still be the exact same thing.. only in water.

..let me just go do a film trasnfer using my monitor with the brightness way up and a roll of film in my bathroom with the lights off. ill just wave the film in front of the monitor so the image is transferred horribly to the film when the movie is playing. but good gracious.. itll be a real film then! and when someone says "nice video..its not a film because its not on film.." ill pull out that little strip of film and wave it around and say "oh! to the contrary! .. it is a film.. its on this film right here!"
.. what defines a film if you dont have to change anything but your attitude to call it that. the term has long since been redefined.. get with the program.


why don't you call your self a DVXuser Videofilm-maker. I don't think your DVX would be happy if you try to put a 35mm filmstock into the DVX100. Hehe....

I know you have your 24p and I have my only 25 p but wake up it's an interlaced video you are watching. Not even 24 frames. Hehe.....

------------------------>

Ok , I leave you now. Get a nice filmtransfer. It was my misstake. And I'm verry sorry. I just chacked some of yours home page and realised that it's an "amateur" forum. Nothing wrong to be an amateur. It doesn't mean all the time bed quallity, it means most of the time someone burning for what he is doing. I do everything for money and I'm not allways happy with what I have to do but.....

This DVXuser Filmmaker under your names was a little bit missleading information to me. I didn't know that most of you just playing with this camcorder. So again. I'm sorry and get a happy filmtransfer, hehehe.....

----------------->
David ..... yes, I have much to learn . I'm learning english now. hehe......

[Neil Rowe]

why don't you call your self a DVXuser Videofilm-maker. I don't think your DVX would be happy if you try to put a 35mm filmstock into the DVX100. Hehe....

I know you have your 24p and I have my only 25 p but wake up it's an interlaced video you are watching. Not even 24 frames. Hehe.....

------------------------>

Ok , I leave you now. Get a nice filmtransfer. It was my misstake. And I'm verry sorry. I just chacked some of yours home page and realised that it's an "amateur" forum. Nothing wrong to be an amateur. It doesn't mean all the time bed quallity, it means most of the time someone burning for what he is doing. I do everything for money and I'm not allways happy with what I have to do but.....

This DVXuser Filmmaker under your names was a little bit missleading information to me. I didn't know that most of you just playing with this camcorder. So again. I'm sorry and get a happy filmtransfer, hehehe.....




i dont not have a website or a homepage to speak of so i have no idea what you claim to be looking at, and i personally have more hired proffesional work than i can handle right now.
.. " not even 24 frames" ..? seriously this just has to end.

[J.R. Hudson]

What a prick. Damn kook.

[Phil]

. I didn't know that most of you just playing with this camcorder.
man this guy is such a waste of time, I can't believe how many people respond to his idiocy.

Edit: I sunk to his level. Sorry.

[Neil Rowe]

..honestly phil , im just laughing as i type my responses, i find it amusing at best cause i get bored here from time to.. well ok most of the time. :P

[J.R. Hudson]

Reminds me of that line in Ferris.

"It's understanding which makes it possible for a people like us to tolerate a person like yourself."

[Phil]

John and Neil, I have to say, that was the two greatest responses I could've read!! :D

[Gary_McClurg]

John and Neil, just for the fun of it. *Let's have a mystery game. *Have you ever wondered who Sergij really is? *Notice on some of his posts, his English and grammar are perfect and at other times its broken english.

I have my idea who he is. *Just wondering if you guys have thought about this also?

I have nothing to do today for a while at least. *It's snowing a little so I have some time to play until I get back to working on a script.

[J.R. Hudson]

I have noticed this too. One minute he's a professor of literature, and the next he's a tailor living in Lebanon. (No offense to any tailors living in Lebanon).

I think he's just one of the insane.

[Jim Brennan]

nevermind :-X

[Phil]

John if it's you I SWEAR!!!! You're driving me nuts!!! ;D

[Neil Rowe]

..sorry gary,

i must digress from this thread. i dont have anything good to say so... you know how the rule goes.

[dakotapod]

Well according to his IP he's at the Moscow Kremlin. No necessarily true though :P

[Gary_McClurg]

I could be wrong but his real name has come up on this thread if I'm guessing right.

[dakotapod]

You really think it's someone just fooling around?

[Jim Brennan]

How pathetic

[Gary_McClurg]

Maybe I just have to much time on my hands. *Trying to think how long ago this was. *Maybe six to eight weeks ago. *We had a person on who didn't want to hear anything about XL2 only the DVX. *Then this guess member came on. *

Said he was French or Spanish or something. *But his threads read in the same way. *

Some times great English. *Then the next time broken English. *Then sometimes it was mixed. * I think he came after a member was going to be ban for posting some not so nice things to someone.

Just a crazy idea.

But maybe I'm been breaking down a script that's a thriller about someone going crazy because he thinks some else is taking over his personality.

So maybe I'm seeing things jump out of the wall when they're not really there.

[dakotapod]

;D ... snow day... what was that noise...?

[PFP_VIDEO]

Serge do you think the Krosnagorsk is a better camera than the DVX?