XL2 first real life impression

[OPHERBA]

Hi friends,
AVISYS,the Austrian distributor of Canon was kind enough to bring upon my request an XL2 for a real life test.
With the help of Jarred I will upload a 4 minutes video i have assembled from spending a day with the camera.
Pls understand that this is a pre production model.
Since I didn't know yesterday that I will have the camera for the all weekend I rushed out without a tripod just to gather some footage,so pls excuse the somewhat shaking pictures.
The 4 minutes are assembled together and not really edited.
The music is just for making it easier to watch.
The content is mixed,all was shot with the camera out of the box 25P 16x9.
During the weekend I will film more and hope to post it with the help of Jarred.

Pls stay tune.
Tnx!

Johnnie

[Glenn_Gipson]

So what are your impressions?

[OPHERBA]

This is rather short impression but I will be more then happy answering your questions with my limited English.Any way...

The XL2 is a very solid build camera,since I was never holding in my hands the XL1/S I could not compare between the two.
The camera I am testing,has an Anton Bauer battery on the back and no doubt it is the only way to balance it.
The general feeling was very comfortable almost like having a normal ENG on my shoulder.
The biggest disadvantage of the camera is its lens.
Canon is one of the world leaders in making lenses and with a bit more attention they could have had a winner but they chose from some reason not to.
It is a very sharp lens and the zoom is amazing,but after being used to the wide angle of the DVX100 it is like "nothing is fitting inside the frame".The absent of useful information like focus indication numbers and the endless twisting of the zoom/focus rings have no excuse.
The colour viewfinder is way better then the DVX one,and focusing is a breeze.
Picture quality-The 16x9 picture quality is amazing and noise free comparing to the DVX.
Since I did not have time to play with the menu,the end result of the video I took was "pale" to my taste and not as saturated the way I like it with the DVX100,but tomorrow with a monitor I will try and tweak it the way I want.

Johnnie

[Glenn_Gipson]

Thanks Johhnie. I'm assuming that you haven't noticed any of the morray patterns that some people have been talking about.

[Zoomforce]

I just watched it.. and wholly crap thats some clean images. Great work!

For some reason though as with all the other Xl2 clips I have seen, it screams Video to me... Maybe at default they have the shutter up or something... But man is that clean looking video.

[OPHERBA]

Hi,
Jarred you are absulutly right about that "video look",Give me 2 days with this baby and see if I can get better resault.

Johnnie

[chi_red]

Does it look "video" with cine gamma control and cine color matrix on?

[Ranger]

I'm assuming that you haven't noticed any of the morray patterns that some people have been talking about.
Glenn, the moiré patterns visible on the pictures posted by Clive Collier was discussed at length on DV Info Net. It was eventually revealed that moiré patterns are common on all video capture equipment. This phenomenon is not unique to the XL2, but to all video cameras – even the DVX100(A).

[Antoine_Fabi]

where can we see those images ? :)

[OPHERBA]

Back from few more hours with the camera.
The more I use it.more I like it...
I think I found out why the footage I took 2 days ago is looking kind of "videoish".
1-Somehow the cine matrix on that demo camera is not really working.
2-The camera have a default status plus 3 adjustable.
After adjusting some parameters,when you go out of the menu you have to "call" the cine file you just adjusted other wise the camera will film on its default.Only today I got it...
The picture quality is amazing and almost totally noise free.
Still not enough filmic but I hope to get there...
I will send Jarred more material during the weekend and hopefully some will be posted.

Johnnie

[Zoomforce]

here you go:

http://www.24puser.com/XL2Video.xwmv

rename the file to XL2Video.wmv to play.

[alpi69]

do rightclick and save....it can´t stream the xwmv file

[hemophilia]

I'm sold, I'll take two please, and a ticket to Vienna.

Seriously looks great. Now the question is what it's going to cost for that + a nice wide-angle lens.

If it's not tooooo much to ask of the busy souls out there... it would be really cool if you could pick one choicy 4-5second clip or so and put it up really high quality. Just kinda hard to tell the finer points through the net compression.

[Gary_McClurg]

Is that for windows only. Unless I'm screwing up which is more than likely. Everytime I just get the spinning beach ball on my g5. Yes, sometimes I do need step by step instructions.

[OPHERBA]

Hi hemophilia
Here in Austria the price will be about 4750 Euro (price without the local V.A.T)

The second clip is better,(learning the camera...)hope Jarred will post it soon.

Johnnie

[hemophilia]

And how much for the ticket? :)

But that price would be w/o a wide-angle. And I've heard bad things about that wide-angle from the XL1... but that was just through the rumor mill.

Johnnie & Jarred, thanks much... looking forward to see how the images progress.

[Zoomforce]

I just swapped out the first clip with the second one, so if you already have downloaded the first one download it again, its the new clip.

[Kidster]

Thanks Johnie for taking the time to share the XL2 shots. And thanks also to Jared for making it possible.

I will have to say I am impressed. Getting a beautiful 16:9 right straight from the camera. I thought you did a good job Johnie of showing a variety of shooting conditions. I especially liked the carriage in the tunnel shot and the DOF capabilities with the man and woman in the casino.

Did you say you have more footage with settings tweaked a bit more?

[Zoomforce]

I just posted the new footage Kidster under the same file name, so download it again.

[Kidster]

OK I will. Jared what are your thoughts fo the footage?

[Neil Rowe]

..very clean imagery. even after the wmv compression. I was really impressed with the quality of the picture. it doesnt look as filmlike as the DVX to me at all , but well see what you can do after tweaking those settings!..

even as still, as i stated before in another thread.. i dont care if it cooks me breakfast.. with new variant HD format cameras just around the corner. but if i needed a new SD camera right now.. id seriously consider it if the cine gamma settings do it any justice.

[Kidster]

Again great job Johnie and Jared. Superb!

[Ranger]

Wunderbar Johnnie!!!

Thank you!

[OPHERBA]

Thanks guys,
I just press the red button,Thanks to Jarred it is on the net!

With the help of my wife I will try and post XL2,DVX100 side by side "home made interview like" set up.

Johnnie

[Antoine_Fabi]

Johnny,

is it possible for you to compare the XL2 to the DVX100A ?

(because the 100A have better imagery than the original 100)

[OPHERBA]

Sorry,I have the DVX100E

[Antoine_Fabi]

thanks for sharing Johnny.

[Guest]

I missed the first clips!! :'(

But the second ones are awesome!!!!! Do you think you can post full resolution(none-stretched) frame grabs, Johnnie?

[chi_red]

wow,
That looks nice Johnnie,
thanks Jarred for sharing the footage.

Johnnie,
was this footage shot in 24P(25P PAL) without cine gamma and cine matrix?

[OPHERBA]

Mark thank you for the kind words, I will try posting full resolution frame grabs tomorrow.

chi_red,The footage shot in 25P PAL with cine gamma and cine matrix.But I have a feeling that on that demo video camera the cine Matrix have no in influence on the picture.

Tnx
Johnnie

[APDieb]

Ok. I agree that it looks nice (actually very nice), but is there anything shot somewhere that is not brightly lit? Outdoors, an 8mm camera looks good (albeit not 16:9).

Very nice image. Nothing negative to say... But I don't normally shoot park scenes, so I cannot get excited by this clip. Our DVX's in that same park on the same day would hold up quite nicely I believe.

Thanks again for sharing.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media

[OPHERBA]

Hi Andrew
Neither do I am shooting parks for living...
But when you get a new camera for a shot time it is just another place to gather images.
Actually the are images I was shooting 2 days ago with some shots taken inside a church.Jarred have them too.it is all hand-held and before I new I will have the camera for the weekend.you can imagine the millage I did that day...

Johnnie

[Guest]

What about the audio? Inputs/hiss/monitoring levels, etc... I think that was one of the shortcomings of the xl1...

[Kidster]

Andrew,

You should have seen the first clip that was posted. There were plenty of shots in dark places. One in particular was a horse carriage moving through a tunnel. No noise in the shot at all. Very nice shot!

I agree the DVX would probably be just as good with it's images. But not true 16:9.

[chi_red]

yeah,
very very clean imagery.
I am impressed.

but the only problem is that it still looks very videoish even with "cine gamma" ON.
Johnnie thinks that cine matrix control on his demo camera does not work.
I hope he will find ways to make images look more filmlike.

[Guest]

It still does look like film. The DVX only looks like certain filmstocks. The XL2 looks like different film stocks. I've seen plenty of films that look like that. In fact, the entire clip looks like an opening of a film shot in the early to mid 90's. It actually reminds me a little of the opening of Balto. :)

[Shaw]

New here,

Anyway, for those of you who have shot film a lot: what sort of film does the DVX look most like? Same with the XL2 (granted from the very minimal screenshots etc)?

[J.R. Hudson]

Looks even better when you color correct.

Before

http://www.zoomforce.com/dvxuser/photos/images/233144610.jpg

After

http://www.zoomforce.com/dvxuser/photos/images/233143907.jpg

[OPHERBA]

Bill,I will not deal with audio this time.The camera has a big section from its body (behind a protective door) dedicated to audio.This camera have the potential to making it big time,lets hope Canon took care of the audio the way they took care of the picture.

On this camera the Gamma and the Matrix have two options,normal and cine.The gamma is responding when playing between them,the matrix does not!

I can not even explain how clean the picture is comparing to the DVX100.I remember when i got the Panasonic over a year ago,when watching material I took for the first time with camera settings out of the box, I thought something is wrong due to some picture noise,then I learnt to accept it,make it a bit better and even convince myself that it is contributing to the general "film look" feeling.That is way the XL2 clean picture was the first thing popped to my eyes,and as I can read not only to mine.

Tonight was a rainy night in Vienna.I hope tomorrow night is better so I can take some night shots.

Johnnie

[OPHERBA]

The same way when we are playing with this settings in our DVX.
Low,hi,ext...

[chi_red]

thanks :)

[Guest]

Johnnie, when you shoot things put the red gain all the way down and the knee all the way up and if you want, put the Blue gain all the way up. From what I know about film, those setting should make the footage look most like film. Of course I've never shot with film so i dont know for sure.

[OPHERBA]

Mark,
-3 gain,red gain all the way down,knee all the way up,Blue gain all the way up, are waiting for tomorrows test...

[hemophilia]

http://www.cliii.com/kevin/tempxl2dude.jpg

If only these poor unsuspecting park-goers had any idea what scrutiny their images are undergoing... they would've spent a bit longer doing themselves up.

The dramatic music swell for the cut to the couple on the bench is my favorite. *They missed their cue for a passionate embrace.

[Guest]

Jarred, do you think you can post the first footage again?

[J.R. Hudson]

If only these poor unsuspecting park-goers had any idea what scrutiny their images are undergoing... they would've spent a bit longer doing themselves up.

The dramatic music swell for the cut to the couple on the bench is my favorite. *They missed their cue for a passionate embrace.

LMAO :D

[Zoomforce]

you guys are gonna kill that damn server's bandwitdth, but as requested here is the first days footage

http://www.24puser.com/XL2Video2.xwmv

John you playing with Magic Bullet?

[Guest]

Well, that footage looked pretty fantastic. It was so noise free! One of the reasons I got the dvx was for greenscreening and the noise really kills it there (even the gl2 is less noisey!) but I've learned tricks to eliminate most noise, but still...that is far superior. Then again, there was obviously a lot of light.

I think that panasonic's problem resides in the dvx's software. The cinegamma matrix adds horrific amounts of noise to purple/blue areas (and all heavily saturated areas), especially in low light. I'm not excusing panasonic by saying "oh, it can be fixed by toggling the gamma to high and the matrix to normal" because not knowing this has ruined otherwise good footage, and, even then, the dvx produces far noisier video than that!

Still, it seems funny that the xl2 would produce noticeably less filmic--for lack of a better word--gamma and color. The motion looks like 24p, but the gamma and colors look like standard video! This may explain the total lack of noise, too. Obviously, cinegamma and the cinematrix are done in software and probably involve boosting some information beyond the level of what the ccds capture. Thusly, something very similar to gain is involved and panasonic may have pushed the dvx's already noisier image too far whereas canon took a cleaner image to begin with then subjected to less processing. I'd like to see raw 60i output from both and then compare the noise levels. I bet it wouldn't be so drastic.

Also, I saw some chromatic abberation with the xl2 and the sky was often blown out. If it was overcast, then it would seem the dynamic range is superb (I can never shoot totally overcast skies without blowing out the highlights entirely.) Otherwise, it would seem the dynamic range isn't fantastic. Too close to call, again. I would like to see a dynamic range test very very much, as video's limited lattitude is a huge issue.

Still, the XL2 looks very good and this video really impressed me. If it sold for a thousand less and were smaller it would definitely be a dvx-killer. As it is, it seems too close to call. The XL2 produces undoubtedly cleaner and higher resolution images (in 16:9 mode), but $1,500 is a significant chunk of change. And if sony's HDV cam is 24p, around 5 grand, and not horribly limited in terms of adjustability or the HDV codec, things may be shaken up quite a bit.

Canon deserves a round of applause, though. I'm glad--or maybe upset because I have a dvx!--to see that the xl2 is not a carbon copy of the dvx in an xl1 body as it first seemed but instead a leap ahead in a number of ways.

[Zoomforce]

Great Post Policecar.. I agree with the Latitude idea, would be good to see where the gamma clipping occurs. However I dont agree with the 24p motion... thats the one thing I dont see, the colors and gamma can be fixes to some degree in post, so I dont care about that. If anyone used Magic Bullet along time ago to convert normal 60i to 24p it has the same feeling, at least to me. And yes I kow it uses Panasonics Pulldown, but I still say there is something else funky going on.

[J.R. Hudson]

John you playing with Magic Bullet?

No. Why?

[Zoomforce]

looks like one of the presets.. Love that program but I honestly cant figure out why it takes so long to render.

[J.R. Hudson]

Vegas baby! :D

[Guest]

Truthfully, to the average person -(someone who does not analize miniscule camera picture details and just watches the movies) ; the XL2 compared to the DVX100+16:9 lens picture quality =

Both cameras are the same.

I say this b/c the audience is ignorat to cameras and when watching a film wont be nit picking these insignificat things.. To them, If it looks good it looks good. And both cams (if config similarly) can praobably be used in the same film as A and B cameras. (both look just as good)

As for price diffences. The XL2 being more expensive is not because the picture is better. Its just that the XL2 has a more expensive lens/ built in 16:9 / and is bigger with a lot more plastic / plus more other features makes it 1,500 dollars more. If picture quality is all you care about buy the $3,500 DVX100 alone. -But figure this - Add a 16:9 lens that costs $799 -then add a tellephoto lens to get similar zoom out of it which = $700 = total price = 5,000. Bam. The cams are the same. Almost/basicly. ;D

[Guest]

But I am still going to buy the XL2 over the DVX100 cause it is bigger and the girls like the bigger cameras.

[Contact_Therapy]

I can hear it now:

"Are you happy to see me or is that an XL2 in your pocket?" :o

[skippyfetus]

Looks even better when you color correct.

Before

http://www.zoomforce.com/dvxuser/photos/images/233144610.jpg

After

http://www.zoomforce.com/dvxuser/photos/images/233143907.jpg
LOL, correct?

For some reason, this video doesn't scream video to me. I think some of the movement looks kinda funny, but that's probably just the compression.

This is really good footage by the way. I wouldn't be surprised to see that sequence at the beginning of a movie.

[alpi69]

I say this b/c the audience is ignorat to cameras and when watching a film wont be nit picking these insignificat things.. To them, If it looks good it looks good. And both cams (if config similarly) can praobably be used in the same film as A and B cameras. (both look just as good)

If picture quality is all you care about buy the $3,500 DVX100 alone. -But figure this - Add a 16:9 lens that costs $799 -then add a tellephoto lens to get similar zoom out of it which = $700 = total price = 5,000. Bam. The cams are the same. Almost/basicly. ;D


totally agree about the viewer´s perception of a film. they don´t care what it is shot with as long as it is interesting and good looking.

but i am sorry to spoil your calculation:
dvx 3500 + 16:9 800 + 1.6 adapter 700 = 5000
xl2 5000 + WIDEANGLE 1500 = 6500
and we don´t even know how good/bad the 3x zoom behaves....

additional for the xl2: a bigger tripod needed to use all zoom, bigger steadycams (glidecam2000 won´t do) etc.....

so you can add things to the dvx as much as you want, the XL2 needs to perform a lot better to compete pricewise.

and if you don´t plan to go film-out then you won´t even need the 16:9 anamorph on the DVX anyway IMO.

[booggerg]

Policar: DVX noisy? I beg to differ. And there is no scenario where the GL2 is less noisy than the DVX. Keep in mind that XL2 WMV clip was heavily compressed and thus any noise in the original image would undoubtly have been reduced by the compression algorithm.

[alpi69]

1. wow nice bluescreenstuff.

2. to the thread: never trust an american agent (if you are american) based in vienna who cannot speak german but probably russian ;)

3. apparently i inspired johnnie with my DVX testfootage in may in schloss schönbrunn. i think many of you think the XL2 images are so superior because the scenery and the park are so amazing in these clips. truly nice cinematography for such a test, johnnie.
but other than the long lens i do not see any cleaner imagery than with a DVX in this footage. it proves that canon did a good job and lifted the limits with a longer, interchangeable lens, but the pure image seems equal to me.

what is your feeling johnnie. i guess you also shot with your dvx in schönbrunn. how does the cam compare for you as the operator? how is the feel for it, how are the menues (even if it is pre-production). how much does it bug you that you cannot repeat settings without numbered dials etc???

another question: the pan onto the gloriette from halfway up the hill: is the jerkiness of the picture like in the DVX footage (the gloriette is this yellow building on top of the hill with a lot of vertical detail and great for that test). i shot it the other way and the image from the DVX would have been unusable on our national TV due to jerkyness in such a quick pan.

[OPHERBA]

Hi Alpi69
I will post later today a very short "personal feeling" report.
My aim is to film some night shot and with the kind help of Jarred post it later too.

Glory what?...

nicht alle in Wien lebenden Auslaender sind ignorant

[alpi69]

;D

[Guest]

BTW, Thanks for posting the first video again Jarred.

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL, correct?


Thats my favorite current 'look' to apply to footage. (Insert Straight Faced Emoticon)

[hemophilia]

In my attempt I was trying to get the "look" where the colors really 'pop' out at you. I think a couple of them popped right onto my lap. That green is bouncing across the floor on the far side of my room.

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL :D

[OPHERBA]

This camera is amazing in low light pls stay tune.

Johnnie

[Zoomforce]

Here is an official first look: article by Johnnie:

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/FirstXl2/

[Flintstone]

It appears that the XL2 20X lens has good DoF. *Looking at the review pics of the woman, it seems the detail is better on the XL2 (refering to her hair). *But it could be that the DVX was not perfectly focused? *

I realise that it's still premature, but if both DVX and XL2 were white balanced on the same ref card, it will be a nightmare to match footage if a shoot is done with both cams *;) (again referencing the woman pics in the review). *The XL2's raw footage seems to make the woman look more natural.

And looking at the footage, the detail level is very good. *The "strobbing" film-look effect associated to progressive 24p*insn't very noticeable. *But then viewing it on a computer is not the best measure. I guess I'll have to wait and see it on a reference monitor. :)

Just my thouhts. *But I guess we will see more in the near futre.

[Guest]

Hey Johnnie, where are those full resolution non-stretched frame grabs you said you would post.

[skippyfetus]

It appears that the XL2 20X lens has good DoF. *Looking at the review pics of the woman, it seems the detail is better on the XL2 (refering to her hair). *But it could be that the DVX was not perfectly focused? *

I realise that it's still premature, but if both DVX and XL2 were white balanced on the same ref card, it will be a nightmare to match footage if a shoot is done with both cams *;) (again referencing the woman pics in the review). *The XL2's raw footage seems to make the woman look more natural.

And looking at the footage, the detail level is very good. *The "strobbing" film-look effect associated to progressive 24p*insn't very noticeable. *But then viewing it on a computer is not the best measure. *I guess I'll have to wait and see it on a reference monitor. *:)

Just my thouhts. *But I guess we will see more in the near futre.
The differences that we're seeing in the DVX/XL2 sample clip are all settings, focal length, iris, and camera distance. There's no way to tell the real difference between the two in that clip.

Also, here's an adjustment of that frame grab that I like:

http://img43.exs.cx/img43/8531/Picture588.jpg

[alpi69]

nightstuff is really clean.
thanks for the effort johnnie. great stuff.



p.s: isn´t it a pity that vienna and many other austrian cities will give up these old trams and use modern ones soon ???

[OPHERBA]

Thank you everybody,it was a pleasure and interesting experience...
Jarred is the man,I just push red buttons...

Night shots:
Preset 3200K 1/50 0db
From 2:11 1/25 +3db

Last shot +18 db

Wish I could share with you the original,just amazing.

Johnnie

[firre]

Xl3 and dvx200 should have mini35 adaptor build in. :)
that will be a change. :D
lens>|GG|(macro lens)<=CCD

[PC]

Really stunning image clarity. I guss you can get a better film look with the gamma controls.Why the image sizes different for DVX and XL2 when they shown side by side?

[Quest]

I`m ready to order my new camera and I`m 95% sure it`s going to be the dvx and not the canon.
Still they are both stong cameras and great for film makers

[Moe]

I am very impressed with those night shots! excellent quality! I wonder if you can post some shots of the same place at night using the DVX ;)
I did notice that it does have a video look rather than a film look though...

[Kidster]

I think it looked like film for sure. Just a different type of film feel than we are used to from our DVX. But remember Johnnie stated that some of the settings were diabled on the XL2 demo model. Thus I think that would help bring a more familiar look we DVXer's are used to.

[Phil]

I don't want to be negative...But I love my DVX because it's not a "giant robot arm canon"...

Where's the rest of the Transformer this fell off of?

Here's Megatron holding the new XL2 ;D

http://www.eskimo.com/~dorm1/review/divide/mega-laser.jpg

[J.R. Hudson]

LMAO

Yeah, its a beast for sure.

[Guest]

I can't believe people are saying it doesn't look like film. It does. It just doesn't look like the film stock of the DVX. I find it funny that in other threads, you peope complained about the XL2 being too big and saying you don't care about interchangeable lenses and yet, if you had the money you would go right out and buy a SDX900, which is five times the amount of the XL2. From what I'm reading from you guys I'm starting to think your brand loyal and that you've been mocking XL1s so long, that you would feel stupid wanting buying the XL2.

From what I can see from those clips and everything else I saw from the XL2, including the video I took with it, it's void of the one thing that gives the DVX away as being video, hot spots and orange skintones.

OK, I'm done ranting ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

First, if you are going to generalize about "You guys" at least register GUEST BOY.

Second, to clarify your accusations, I think the XL2 looks wonderful. It does indeed look filmic albeit differently than the DVX100.

Third, Im not even in the market for a new camera; my film budget is more or less tapped until XMAS.

Dont generalize. IF you are going to poiunt a finger POINT THE FINGER.

Okay. Im done ranting.

[Phil]

Come on guys. No more ranting. Mine was a quick joke. No harm intended.

[Kidster]

Fucking John....Dude you always make me laugh. I bet you would be cool to go partying with.

[scharky]

Well, This is my first post in this thread, but I just felt that it was time to chime in. Yes it's true, I would never by an XL1, but the only reason was because it looked truely soft. The XL2 is an amazing camera, and I would absolutely jump at the chance to buy one. . . if I didn't already own a DVX. For me it is just not a big enough jump in quality, my next camera will definatly be a big jump in quality. Plus it is hard for me to justify a camera change when I use the wide angle abilities of the DVX constantly. With the 3x lens, the XL2 would be great, but that is another $1500, plus people have said that the 3x lens is not as sharp or as high quality as the other lenses for the Xl2. Great looking footage BTW, and if someone wants to buy me an XL2 I will accept it with open arms, don't forget that wide angle lens though, oh, and also the battery pack, and could you throw in some rods and a nice mattebox while your at it? thanks in advance. ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

Come on guys. No more ranting. Mine was a quick joke. No harm intended.

What Harm? Just calling a Spade a Spade. It is beasty. That thing is huge. Its bigger than a babies arm!

[scharky]

Oh, and mark, you could seriously say the same thing about the XL1 users when the dvx was released. I was told so many times, oh, the DVX is too little, no interchangeble lenses and 24p was a joke. Hmmmm, not too funny a joke anymore huh. I think the Xl2 is a great upgrade for those that own an Xl1 or who have 5grand+ for a new camera. Yes, if I had a choice between the Xl2 and the Sdx900, I would go for the SDX, who wouldn't, I don't care if it's big or small, as long as the footage looks good. Heck with my DVrig Pro my Dvx is easily as big as the Xl2 but you don't hear me complaining about that.

[J.R. Hudson]

Fucking John....Dude you always make me laugh. I bet you would be cool to go partying with.

:D

I was just on the Guiness patrol Friday. Darts and Guiness. I was hammered.

Love a black velvet.

[Neil Rowe]

..i also am impressed with the camera(as i still am by the DVX as well), and think its a great tool so far. while i dont think it looks as filmlike as the dvx, it does look filmic to an extent, but at the same time there are some things about the image that scream video as well. espescially viewing the interview footage side by side.. its like a pd150 in film like appearance compared to the DVX..

but i cant argue with anyone about what they personally think looks like film.. even pd150 and xl1s users have said that their cams image was better than the DVX in terms of color reproduction and so on for a film out...

..anyway, im sure we are an slightly tainted opinionated group here. ;)
,its part of the community that draws us all together.

[Guest]

Ok, I was wrong to generalize and there are people that are looking at its good points and bringing up what they would see as a bad point but others tend to act like the XL2 is in know way better than the DVX. Although I did say "you people" I in no way meant it to be for everyone but you have to admit that when the XL2 was first announced there were some people who complained about it being too big and how they doen't care about interchangeable lenses but there feelings are completely different about the SDX900 simply because it's Panasonic and is in some way "related" to the DVX100(a). Some people even complained about the XL2, but they said that if Panasonic gives the next version of the DVX100(a) 16x9 they would go and buy it right away. Again I'm not talking about everyone just some people.

[J.R. Hudson]

Go on, say it.

You meant me exclusively didnt you. :D

[Kidster]

Stop it John..I thought this was suppose to be a serious discussion...I can't stop laughing.

[J.R. Hudson]

:D

I cant help it. Im at work which is the last place I want to be serious.

[Neil Rowe]

..it is serious. >:( ..<- see look how serious that face is.. its like a warning sign to those who are not professional.


---bunnytrail:

..you know what still makes me laugh.. what barry green said a while back.. about somebodies review of the film " farenhieght 911 " .. the review simply said :


micheal moore is fat.



my wife and i laughed about that for about 2 days straight..

so thank you for that barry...

[Guest]

Oh, and mark, you could seriously say the same thing about the XL1 users when the dvx was released. *I was told so many times, oh, the DVX is too little, no interchangeble lenses and 24p was a joke.

I never got why they complained about the DVX100(a). there is no way that the XL1(s) could possibly be better, its 6 years old and for some reason thay said that the DVX's 24p and 24pA looked the same as frame mode. I think they also mentioned that Danny Boyle used the Xl1s for 28 Days Later alot as a reason for why the its better than the DVX.

Though if you think about it, that means that with the XL2's Normal Gamma you could probably make film that looks like the end of 28 days later!

But anyway, i see what your saying scharky

[Guest]

johnnie, when ya post the frame grabs make sure you post a lot of night ones.

[J.R. Hudson]

I would love to have seen 28 Days on the DVX. Oh wait, thats my project. :D

[Mike_Donis]

;D

[OPHERBA]

Mark,
Did not forget you,just have to work from time to time...
Will do it the day after tomorow.

Tnx.
Johnnie

[Guest]

I would love to have seen 28 Days on the DVX. *Oh wait, thats my project. *:D

28 Days? As in the Sandra Bullock movie?

[Guest]

hehe thanks Johnnie

[J.R. Hudson]

No. Not the Sandra Bullock movie! >:( :D

[Kidster]

Hey Johnnie..just curious...what brand of tape did you use in the XL2?

[OPHERBA]

Pana,PQ

[Solaam]

Wow. great footage!

Thanks man.


Peace

[Kidster]

That's good to know that the XL2 will record on the Panny tapes, because B&H has the new Canon tape for the XL2 at $13.95 each..OUCH!

[Richard__Knight]

Nice footage.

not to rehash what Johnnie and Bill asked about but...

... what would the same/similar footage look like from a DVX perspective -- with audio from the built-in mic (both cameras)?

The music is good but it's distracting. sry

Seeing what these cameras can do from their base standards is a must.

Richard

[skippyfetus]

The angry guest poster did make a good point about the size of the XL2. People are saying that it's too big. I say, not for a shoulder mount PLUS how many DVX users are walking around with a DVRigPro looking like a cyborg or something, lol.

BTW, Michael Moore fat jokes, especially when politically motivated, are sad, pathetic and low brow. If you disagree with someone, don't make fun of their health or physical appearance. Dennis Miller did a Michael Moore fat joke on his CNBC show the other day and I'm just like, "dude why go there unless you're desperate".

[Kidster]

Hey Tony c'mon....it was all in fun. Comedians do it everyday..ie Jay Leno.

[Guest]

I wasn't THAT angry

[skippyfetus]

Yeah, but Jay Leno goes after everyone without having a political agenda.

I think it must take a lot of guts (no pun intended) to be a fat celebrity and I admire people who don't rely on their looks to get ahead.

[Guest]

LOL :) ;D

[J.R. Hudson]

So Tony when are you getting your Xl2?

[Kidster]

I don't know about Tony, but I'm going to buy one of those Son's a bitches. Seems they are back logged with orders so I should have one mid to late Sept.

[APDieb]

Guess it depends on what or whom you consider a celebrity? Of course, politics has nothing to do with cameras so I'll just leave it at that. We all know where political conversations on these types of forums end up...

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media

[skippyfetus]

So Tony when are you getting your Xl2?
Who says I've made up my mind?

Yeah, I pretty much have. There's no way that this camera is going to suck. People say, "wait til other people get it so you'll know if there's something wrong with it". I'm saying right now that there's no way Canon would screw up something this important. You're not going to get a perfect camera for 5K, but you're going to get your money's worth. That's fo sho.

I'm still trying to figure out a way that I can afford/justify it. I also want the new Canon 20D with one of the new EF-S lenses and that's another 2K that I don't have. I've spent a shitload of money this year... ordered a Magiqcam a month ago and haven't got it yet. It may be a year before I get to hold one of these puppys. Until I can afford it, I think I'm going to get the DVC60 when it comes out, unless I come into some money... Ok, thinking out loud now.

[skippyfetus]

Guess it depends on what or whom you consider a celebrity? *Of course, politics has nothing to do with cameras so I'll just leave it at that. *We all know where political conversations on these types of forums end up...

Andrew
Crystal Clear MediaYup, sometimes it's best not to mention the "M" word.

[APDieb]

>>>Yeah, I pretty much have. There's no way that this camera is going to suck. <<<

Just hope that it does not have the same problems I had with my GL1 or my friends XL1 & XL1S. *Was in the shop more than in my hands. *I eventually sold it (bought a VX2000, actually a couple of them).

But to be fair, my first DVX100A came with a bad LCD. And my DVC200 had to be sent in after 9 months for a bad/hot pixel.

I hope it does not "suck". *New solid technology is good for all of us.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media

[skippyfetus]

>>>Yeah, I pretty much have. There's no way that this camera is going to suck. <<<

Just hope that it does not have the same problems I had with my GL1 or my friends XL1 & XL1S. *Was in the shop more than in my hands. *I eventually sold it (bought a VX2000, actually a couple of them).

But to be fair, my first DVX100A came with a bad LCD. *And my DVC200 had to be sent in after 9 months for a bad/hot pixel.

I hope it does not "suck". *New solid technology is good for all of us.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media
If I were you, I'd start looking for the gypsy that cursed you ;D

I guess I'm lucky, but I've never had any problems like that.

[APDieb]

True. I also was the one that blew up a nice 7" Panny LCD trying to use a 12v battery brick rather than on-cam battery (Anton Bauer). Still not sure how that happened. DOH!!!

Funny thing.. I have had 2 VX2000's for over 3 years now.. Used extensively (more than my DVC and DVX combined). Absolutely zero problems with the Sony's. Knock on wood. I still love the Panny's. Each tool has it's own strength. I am just glad I am lucky enough to own them.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media

[hemophilia]

Not to thread-jack or anything... but Tony_H:

I expect to see a very thorough report about the magiqcam once you've put it through the paces.

Pretty please. :)

[LaFinDuMonde]

There are some things that I like in teh XL2 over the DVX(which I own) (16:9 built-in, built in shoulder mount, etc.) and there are many things I like better in the DVX(focus NUMBERS, hard zoom, more film-like in my opinion, wide-angle built-in, etc.). However, it seems to me that most of the Xl2's advantages can be replicated in teh dvx with some $$$: ana adapter, shouldermount, and so on. However, i just watched the XL2 night video...
HOLY FOOKIN CRAP
Y is there no grain whatsoever??? Calm down... okay, would the dvx do similarly well in these night areas, or does the canon just shoot very clean in low-light? My upcoming film is mostly at night in NYC, so there is a lot of lights at night, but still its dark, like the XL2 night video. I would like to know if the video just happens to look good and a dvx would perform similarly, or does the canon have a big advantage here?

[skippyfetus]

Not to thread-jack or anything... but Tony_H:

I expect to see a very thorough report about the magiqcam once you've put it through the paces.

Pretty please. *:)Oh yes, I'll provide video clips... don't know if I'll host em, but I'll put them out there. God only knows when it will come. Some people say they waited 11 weeks before getting theirs. I've sent them an email and left a message and haven't heard back yet.

[Gary_McClurg]

So Tony what is the magiqcam, never heard of it?

[Guest]

The nighttime footage has shown me three things:

a) Canon did not drop the ball. It's an awesome camera. I still prefer the form factor on the dvx, but if the image on the xl2 proves to be "superior" it wouldn't surprise me.

b) I've just got to visit Vienna.

c) Michael Moore IS fat. ;D

[Tommy_Haupfear]

think I'm going to get the DVC60 when it comes out,

Are you serious? I guess if you're not doing quality widescreen it would be ok but its way too much plastic for me. I think I'll get a GS400 to compliment my DVX100A (or another DVX100A if I rob a bank).

[Guest]

I have to ask but what was the sound track on that night video!?!

[Guest]

I just remember, apparently you can import new gamma curves with the SDK, so whatever you don't like about the gamma curve you can change

[Gary_McClurg]

Gee I'm getting old. When I played with the XL2 last week I can't remember if in the future if someone writes the software you can use FCP or even Magic Bullet, or AE filters and effects, ie; film grain, etc. to add them as you shoot.

[newtodvx100a]

Thanks for the preview. Looks great but with less flim look. Awsome looking camera. I couldn't see any noise at night, those shots were great!!!

[hemophilia]

I don't get it, why is almost all the footage telephoto? *:)

On a more serious note... after loading the footage up on the DaVinci, I think I've finally really nailed the look I was going for. *No one can ever again say that it's not capable of a film look:

http://www.cliii.com/kevin/tempxl2clown.jpg

[J.R. Hudson]

LMAO!!!!! :D

[LaFinDuMonde]

c) Michael Moore IS fat. *;D

Yes. He came to speak at my school this year. For the record: He is really, really fat. And screw all you hippies who might try to yell at me for saying it and not taking into consideration blah blah blah. ;D

[Guest]

Can anyone tell me the audio track used on the night clip????????

[Zoomforce]

posted :)

[Thirsty]

This might only be bothering me, but there seems to be a motion difference in quality between the first 2 daytime clips that were posted. The first XL2 video clip (the one with the old man on the park bench that everyone is color correcting) definitely seems like a 24p clip (or rather 25p in this case). Like something the DVX could shoot if it had the wide screen mode. Very filmic.
That second clip though, Xl2 video2, has a more video/strobby feel to it in most of the shots. The same could be said in some of the night shots (which looked gorgeous by the way). I'm wondering if the switch was accidently set to 50i or maybe the 25p/24p feature hasn't been tweaked accordingly yet. Other then that everything looks good so far.

[Guest]

thirsty

Based on johnnies settings for the night shots, I think what you are seeing is caused by the 1/25 second shutter speed. I wouldn't call it "strobey"..that would better describe the daylight 25p stuff. But the night shots have an almost a blurred sense of motion that matches the deinterlacing effect you often see when converting from video to film. I've seen this on my xl1s when using 1/30 shutter as well.

Barry

[Mike_Donis]

I had no problems with the motion rendering of the night XL2 footage - it was the same exact look I'm used to when watching footage that was shot on film...

[paulstamat]

So far the images I've seen are nice, BUT it's not enough for me to want to spend more money yet. Plus I know that while the images shown in the comparrison clearly show that the XL2 does better under certain lighting conditions that makes little difference to me unless I was recording weddings and needed to deal strictly with available light. The XL2 is nice and I wouldn't refuse one if it were given to me, but I'll stick with the dvx100 for now.

[Mike_Donis]

I have a DVX and am not buying an XL2 - it would have to be considerably better than the DVX to warrant the expense. Right now it seems damn good - but not ridiculously superior to the DVX. Stick on the anamorphic adaptor, and I'd just as soon use a DVX for independent films.

[Guest]

I want frame grabs!!!!!!!! ;D

[Antoine_Fabi]

yep ! agree !

frame grabs from XL2 (Canon's most recent product) and from DVX100A (most recent Panasonic product), not from the original DVX100.

I want to compare the dynamic range of both cameras.
Otherwise, it is fun and informative, but it is not scientific.

I hope the XL2 will be better because it will force other manufacturers to give us even better products...and i would love to use 16:9 without any zoom/iris preoccupations.

that's progress ! ;D

[skippyfetus]

So Tony what is the magiqcam, never heard of it?
http://www.magiqcam.com
An affordable Steadicam

[skippyfetus]

Are you serious? *I guess if you're not doing quality widescreen it would be ok but its way too much plastic for me. *I think I'll get a GS400 to compliment my DVX100A (or another DVX100A if I rob a bank).
I'm not sure that I'd want to shoot a movie with it, but I think it's going to be pretty nice. I'm going to get one when it comes out.

[skippyfetus]

why is almost all the footage telephotoshallow depth of field

[Gary_McClurg]

Hey Tony thanks for the link to Magiqcam. When I looked it up I got some old site. But I did find out its a Stedicam. Your link went right to it. Looks good. Have you tried it out yet? The price looks good and talked Jonn there. Seems like a good guy. So thanks, probably will put my order in just before I move.

[Col_Dee]

additional for the xl2: a bigger tripod needed to use all zoom, bigger steadycams (glidecam2000 won´t do) etc.....

Alpi69, how do you know the Glidecam 2000 won't be good enough for the XL2? Their website claims the 2000 works great with the XL1s, and the XL2 is only 1.5 pounds heavier.

Do you think the Glidecam 4000 would work well with the XL2?

[disjecta]

I would definitely recommend the Glidecam 4000 for the XL2

[Col_Dee]

I would definitely recommend the Glidecam 4000 for the XL2

Thanks, but why? Is it because of the (small) weight difference between the cameras?

[disjecta]

Let's just assume that you will be adding to the camera over time....a mattebox, mike, rod system, etc.

Even if you don't plan that right now, buying the 4000 will give you that option rather than having to incur yet another expense down the road.

[skippyfetus]

Hey Tony thanks for the link to Magiqcam. *When I looked it up I got some old site. *But I did find out its a Stedicam. *Your link went right to it. *Looks good. *Have you tried it out yet? * The price looks good and talked Jonn there. *Seems like a good guy. *So thanks, probably will put my order in just before I move.

Well, I haven't got it yet but I've heard good things and have seen some nice clips. I'll post some examples when it comes.

[spencercl]

Johnnie (or anyone else who knows ) - what battery and mount was used on the XL2 used, and how long was the battery life?

Thanks!

[Guest]

What capture/sequence settings for FCP? ???

[OPHERBA]

spencercl,
The battery I used with the XL2 was "DIGITAL DIONIC 90" from Anton/Bauer.

One battery actually lasted the all time I had the camera,I would buy the biggest capacity I can get so that the battery will serve as a wight and would hold the all day.

Check out this brand,they are cheaper then the Anton Bauer and being widely used in the professional world.

http://www.swit-battery.com/english/index.asp

http://www.swit-battery.com/english/productlist.asp?listtype=01

Johnnie

[skippyfetus]

where'd you get the mount for the XL2? I don't know about anton bauer and how you hook those up

[OPHERBA]

The Anton Bauer to canon battery connection mount is the:
QR-XL1C,$180 new

Or $99used in B&H
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:En198w7Er78J:www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home%3FO%3DNavBar%26A%3Dsearch%26Q%3D%26ci%3D2989+ QR-XL1C&hl=en

[Curtis_Rhoads]

Okay, so I've been out of it for a while, and decide to check things out, and the footage has gone AWOL. *Anyone able to send me both the default and the nighttime footage, I'd love to check it out.

Thanks!

Curtis

[vamshi]

hi johnie..

First of all i appreciate you...You have great cinematographer's eye. well footage looks excellent...but when i watch the footage the width of the footage is very small..Do you think definately need an wide angle attchment.
what do you think...

vamshi

[OPHERBA]

Hi vamshi,
Thanks for the kind words.

You are right,for me there is a definite need for a wide angle attachment.It felt kind of funny trying to compose some wide shots that with the DVX100 wouldn't be an issue,and suddenly things got tight...

Canon just will not make a perfect lens for this camera:

The x20 is not wide enough (among other limitations).
The x16 is not full manual (no real iris).
The x14 is full manual but with a kind of an old method where the front of the lens is "breathing" in and out when focusing,making it difficult for a clip on sunshades and mattboxes in general.Plus,since the camera have no build in ND filters (all are on the new lenses) this one does not have ND on it and if you did mange to fit a mattbox on,one filter frame will be used for for ND when shooting outside.
The x3 is old and might not be sharp enough.

So here you go...Nice camera made by a lens manufacturer leader,look at the end result...

Johnnie

[vamshi]

hi johnie...

well appreciate for the answer.
if you dont mind ill ask you a question....please
tell me which books/video's or any other source you are following for the best......videography/cinematography. I mean the techniques..

cheers.

vamshi

[Antoine_Fabi]

===================================
The x20 is not wide enough (among other limitations).
The x16 is not full manual (no real iris).
The x14 is full manual but with a kind of an old method where the front of the lens is "breathing" in and out when focusing,making it difficult for a clip on sunshades and mattboxes in general.Plus,since the camera have no build in ND filters (all are on the new lenses) this one does not have ND on it and if you did mange to fit a mattbox on,one filter frame will be used for for ND when shooting outside.
The x3 is old and might not be sharp enough.
*
So here you go...Nice camera made by a lens manufacturer leader,look at the end result... "

dixit Johnnie

==========================================

Johnnie,

I like the way you shoot video.
Honestly, i think you know how to get exellent images from almost "any" good camera.
Great work !

i work with a DVX100A right now and love it, but as always, i am very open minded to new products.
What bothered me on the XL2 was some chroma aberration on high contrast edges.

I have 3 questions:
1-did you see that chroma aberration or was it a result from the compression ?
2-What do you think about the dynamic range of the XL2 in high contrast situations ?
3-Do you think the Fuginon 12X work OK with the XL2 ?, it seems to have good wide angle to reasonnable telephoto...

thanks

[skippyfetus]

The Anton Bauer to canon battery connection mount is the:
QR-XL1C,$180 new

Or $99used in B&H
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:En198w7Er78J:www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home%3FO%3DNavBar%26A%3Dsearch%26Q%3D%26ci%3D2989+ QR-XL1C&hl=en


Well, that page is cached by Google and B&H doesn't actually carry the product right now. I guess Anton Bauer must be making a new one for the XL2

[Zoomforce]

here is the uncompressed (well, JPG's) stills from the Tape.

http://24puser.com/XL2frames.zip

[OPHERBA]

Jarred good morning!

The requested URL Not Found.

Johnnie

[Zoomforce]

try now

[J.R. Hudson]

Is it my monitor (Dell FS 17") or...

There seems to be some interesting VERTICAL smear of sorts. What is that? Almost a Vertical Mosaic kind of. Anyone see this?

[Guest]

The frame grabs are finally posted and I cant view them cause I'm in Atlantic City on Lodgenet's internet access thing and it can't open zip files :'(

[Guest]

whats up with that vertical interlaced look?? Besides those strip pattern things, the pics look great.

Any ideas??

[scharky]

It kinda looks like when you are running a clip in vegas and you turn on "simulate device aspect ratio". However, that effect doesn't come through when you export a frame. The only thing that I can think of is that Jared captured his entire screen (prints screen) command, and capture that anomoly with the clips.

Am I right Jarred? Do I get the prize?

[Policar]

It looks like nearest neighbor (as opposed to bicubic/bilinear/whatever else) image scaling combined with 4:1:1 color artifacting to me.

[the_director]

The red and green aliasing is awful. IMHO it is not the lens but the electronics that is creating the green and red ghosting.

Also the serious color fringing was already demonsrtated in the original daylight pictures.

I'd say that Canon did a very poor job with this camera by not correcting optical and elecronic aberations. Now with the W/A the problems may be even bigger.

Does anyone know how does the DVX compare? How does it compare with the anamorphic adapter? Which brand? How close can you focus with the anamorphic? How much resolution do you lose with the anamotphic? How much is the anamorphic?

Does it make sense to buy this camera with the serious color image problems?

[Guest]

id bet my left leg along with my right that something else is wrong- not what your saying director. I highly highly doubt that its the camera that did that. Theres no way that thats a regular image capture. And if you dont think so, then look at those first screen shots that were taken with the xl2 from the show where it was first showed.- those grabs didnt look like that. Something else was done wrong.

[the_director]

Kevin

There was a DP that contributes to cinematography.com that was at the DV Expo East show and he reported significant aliasing problems. He must have seen something. He may have mislabeled it. But the serious color fringing in the daytime grabs and this color aliasing is a very serious defect. It may be the same thing.

I just went back and blew the image 800x. Do it and check the horse. It's head is basically 1/2 red, 1/2 green. My explanation is that the following contributes:
1. pixel shift between sensors
2. poor filtering. There is definitely serious color shift and color ghosting (aliasing) that is not corrected. The shifted pixels require something similar to Bayer filtering. It was apparently not applied correctly. Canon may have used some off the shelf chips instead of developing custom chips, which are on low volume items quite expensive and they don't even have the expertise in this area that Sony and Matsushita have.
3. The lens definitely shows serious color fringing
4. Color fringing due to a inexpensive prism system

None of these things are due to DV compression.

Here is one more explanation. I read somewhere that Canon was going to replace the XL1s with an HDV model but it relies heavily on Sony and Matsushita technology. Canon always had in the camcorder product line. This is typical for the Japanese manufacturers. They share technology and patents. Together they conquer the world, very successfully. They don't sue each other for infringing on patents, etc.

Sony and Matsushita have not advanced fast enough in the HDV chip manufacturing. That is what is holding up quality HDV introductions. Nanotechnology chips are needed for low power, high quality processing and that technology is only now becoming available.

The color shifting technology of the Canon allow it to use it up to 1080. There was no sense to use the pixel shift for any other reason. XL1(s) used it because the chips were low res. Other cameras use it because they want to achieve high still picture resolution. The pixel shift does not have as good image quality as aligned CCDs. The only logical reason Canon used it was because of it was meant for HDV. So Canon may have been developing HDV-DV camera, where the performance was to concentrate to the HDV format and DV was not to be developed to its limit. The technology from Sony/Matsushita/etc. was delayed. Meanwhile XL1(s) stock was depleted and the technology was not coming any time soon so a decision was made to produce the camera without the HDV section. I can see this as the only explanation. What puzzles me though is the poor quality of the new 20x zoom. The color fringing is terrible. It is definitely not an HD product, I hope. It may be function-wise a type of lens that we will see on the HDV camera but the optical system must have been designed for DV. It is some prototype design that they pulled. They may be testing the market acceptance of this type of lens, function-wise. These things are all made on 100% automated robotic lines and are made in batches.

I wonder if the DVX has similar problems, but I doubt it. How is the performance with the anamorphic? Can someone let me know. please.

[Antoine_Fabi]

Kevin,

I use the anamorphic with a DVX100A and the image is amazing, no such problem.
The anamorphic was a "zoom/iris/focus" headake the first day i used it, but after some testing, i now can use "safe" settings and point and shoot without any focus problem... but to go even further i'll use Barry Green's guide for the anamorphic lense with charts for zoom/iris/focus.

...regarding the XL2's color fringing, that's something i really dont like.
I just hope it was a problem only with the preproduction units.
If not, i doubt i would go for it.

[the_director]

Hi, Some guy noticed it on the NTSC model too and described it as aliasing. Pretty bad stuff.

How close can you focus with the anamorphic at W/A and midrange zoom?

[hvpz]

Hum...

Very speculative thoughs, herr direktor...

>I'd say that Canon did a very poor job with this camera by not correcting optical and elecronic >aberations.

I can't believe that canon would try to sell a so expensive camera with those kind of problems...
It's business, serious business...

>There was a DP that contributes to cinematography.com that was at the DV Expo East show and he >reported significant aliasing problems.

The "famous DP" contribution seems to be a hoax.

> I just went back and blew the image 800x.

You must be a little psycho-bargeot to look for clues in jpeg picture zoomed 800x ! (jpeg is a loss compression)

We have definitely to wait for some reals tests with a definitive camera.

And read of course with I'm sure a lot of pleasure the soon coming xl2user.com ! ;)

[the_director]

the fringing is pretty obvious; canon only lets out fully factory tested models to the press, etc. The tested camera was one of them. the one you'll buy from a dealer will not be tested by canon as much.

I never said a famous director. I said a DP. i read his report at cinematography.com. No hoax.

Sorry; I blew the image 800%, not 800x; the image was not compressed; only the DV compression; compression does not cause this type of artifacts.

This was a real test with a real camera; the production cameras that are supposed to be out in couple of days will not be any better.

[Gary_McClurg]

The famous DP qoute was used by someone before any test footagae came out. That this world famous DP had knocked the camera. I think the person who wrote this, thought it'd add more punch to his dislike of the camera to make the DP sound bigger than he was.

Not that I'm going to love Canon, but I hope it does well. Acutally, I hope it does great. That will push Panasonic to do something better, then Sony, so on and so on. Then we'll keep getting better cameras.

Then some day we'll have a great camera that won't cost an arm and a leg. Things will keep move up the ladder. But like film. You can shoot on a 20 year old camera or a brand new Arri and you'll be pretty close to each other if you have the right DP. But in the end it'll be the story that'll sell the film. Yes, it has to be shot well. But if the story sucks it doesn't matter how pretty it looks.

[Guest]

Your interview footage comparison...
It seems DVX100 is under exposed by at least half a stop.

[Barry_Green]

As for the "world famous DP"... Mitch Gross is an accomplished indie film director of photography. He's not "famous" or "world famous", nor does he claim to be. I think whoever made that initial post tagged him as such, and unfortunately that label seems to be a lighting rod for attracting attention.

Simple point is, Mitch is very, very experienced, well versed, well thought of in the indie film circles, and I respect his opinion, whether he's "world famous" or not... ;)

[the_director]

I don't know where you guys are coming out with the famous film director. I never said famous. Yes, it was Mitch Gross. Thanks for reminding me. I read his post at the cinematography forum and no one ever refered to him as famous.

As to Canon pushing Panasonic and Sony? I doubt that. This is the last prosumer camera that will not be HD.

What will push Sony and Panasonic and a few other lesser companies to produce affordable quality digital cinema stuff are the two 1080p $5K cameras that will be coming out in a month or two from Summix and SI. The same quality as the Kinetta, at a small fraction of the cost, with less expensive lens system. You'll need a PC or a MAC to record to though. These two cameras will allow you to make films that will project well even to the biggest screen. When these two cameras with the new Altasens CMOS come out, that will be the dawn of new era of independent filmmaking. The Canon and the HDV -- it is all nothing. Who needs 20:1 compressed HDV image if you can get uncompressed one for the same cost. The cameras will not be as convenient to use, but they will start a new indie revolution.

Would you buy a $8,000 PAL Canon with a wide angle lens in the price that is 480p, or would you rather buy a 1080p $8,000 camera, where the price will include lenses and the CMOS will be 2/3", with no color fringing. It will be less convenient to use. Your NLE will cost more but it could double as an acquisition recorder, or you could get a smaller computer for that. Which one would you rather buy?

[Gary_McClurg]

The one that works.

That's the idea of my earlier post. These cameras and hopefully if these homemade HD camera are even half what they say they can be will push the price down. Because if the NBC's, ABC's CBS's, cable networks, everyone sees that you can get the same look for a smaller price. Then that'll drive down the prices of the Sony, Panasonic and others.

Which in turn helps us to create better product, which help those of us who would like to be in the studio world to show that we can do the same job for a fraction of the cost.

About the DP I don't know if he's good or bad. And he doesn't have to be world famous to be good. An old DP friend said to me once. "If I had twelve weeks to shoot instead of four, my stuff would look just as good because I'd have more time to light and so on."

But not the director, but someone else... forget that. If Panasonic came out with a DVX200 tomorrow would you go out and buy it?

[jimagine]

<<Some guy noticed it on the NTSC model too and described it as aliasing. Pretty bad stuff...What puzzles me though is the poor quality of the new 20x zoom...etc.>>

Why exactly would anyone indulge in this kind of jpeg masturbation and "I heard from some guy who saw a camera for a few minutes at a show"? There are two qualified and relatively well tested reviews of the preproduction model of the XL2. One from a senior producer for BBC the other from an obviously talented shooter with DVX experience. The comments regarding image quality were along the lines of "amazing", "stunning", "digibeta quality or better". Why would you even consider some compressed jpegs as a source of anything?

Seriously, the cameras early test footage is beautiful...that's already been pretty much a given just looking at the work of Johnnie in a run and gun situation. The reports have been glowing at the least, and that's before anyone has seen a production model and had a chance to really work the camera to it's potential.

Suggesting that the 20x lens is of "poor quality" is, no offense, ridiculous. Citing some seconf and third hand comments about color fringing and aliasing is equally ridculous as is using a jpeg of something posted on the net. No professional would take these comments or lack of support seriously. A pro would only trust their eyes and examples of other quality shooters. From those people as well as the few pros I know who worked with the camera for a few days at the DVExpo, the comments have been unanimous. In their judgement, the lens and camera performance are nothing short of outstanding.

I'll have one of the first production models in the coming days. I'll be doing a location and studio comparison using the new lens, 14x Fujinon and the P&S Mini35. Based on the only qualified reports I've read, the footage I've seen and the conversations with top shooters that have previewed this camera, I'll be very surprised to find any of the groundless specualtion to be anything but groundless speculation
*

[the_director]

Well, some of us can look at an image and make fairly qualified judgements, some can sort through reality and hype, other are here just to prove that the Canon is the best. Some can see color fringing, some can't.

And to the small 1080p cameras, I think that CineForm/Premiere is working with the manufacturers on deBayer filtering and compression. I would not call them homemade cameras at all. There is probably a parallel effort to create homemade cameras and there is hidden effort to create factory made cameras and complete systems. We will soon find out. If Premiere works on the algorithm, we will have superb quality images, on the level of the $100K CineAlta.

I believe that the quality will be amazing. The two manufacturers have had the sample Altasens CMOS to play with long enough before the production runs start coming in to start manufacturing the cameras.

[jimagine]

<<Well, some of us can look at an image and make fairly qualified judgements,>>

exactly, which is why you need to see some "footage" that represents the actual camera output. As I said, no pro would even consider using a captured, compressed still from the net to judge anything.

<< can sort through reality and hype, other are here just to prove that the Canon is the best. Some can see color fringing, some can't. >>

What hype are you talking about? I referenced the only actual user reviews and footage and they are glowing in their praise of the image quality. Plus I've seen some of the footage and it's great.The only hype is coming from you in the sense that your negatively hyping something you have absolutely no experience with.

I don't know who it is you think can't judge chromatic abberation and aliasing, but my point was, is and is: you can't judge squat about a video image from a compressed web still capture. To say you can or to quote someone who had a few minutes exposure at a trade show is just plain hype and nonsense...especially when there is real life experience and examples right on this sight to prove otherwise.

[Antoine_Fabi]

well,

i will see by myself "if" there is actually a color fringing from the XL2.
But i wonder why i dont see that kind of color fringing in JPEGs from DVX100A or SDX900, or PD170 and others...

just a normal question for a camera in that price range....i think...

anyway, the first regular prod units are supposed to be in store next week...

I stay tuned...

[Gary_McClurg]

What happen to the post from the one guy telling the other guy basically where to go?

[Barry_Green]

Personal attacks or insults are not tolerated on dvxuser, so posts that tell someone "where to go" get deleted when they're found. I saw it, it was incendiary and added nothing useful to the conversation, so I deleted it before some flame war could start up.

[J.R. Hudson]

Yes. Often we must use pre-emtive strikes. People tend to get bigger for some reason on the internet; like road rage kind of.

[Gary_McClurg]

I agree 100% I don't know why we can't just agree to disagree. That each of us has are own thoughts. Its like color correction two people can go with different looks. It all boils down to personal choice and taste. Neither one is wrong.

[Zoomforce]

Thanks for keeping on top of things Barry :)

[PFP_VIDEO]

The 20x is a nice piece of junk. The glass looks good as does most Canon lenses. But the lack of true focus and manual zoom make it a $1000 clunker. Makes no sense.

[Aaron Koolen]

The 20x lens is actually nearer to $2000 if bought separately.

[J_Barnes]

Yes. *Often we must use pre-emtive strikes. *People tend to get bigger for some reason on the internet; like road rage kind of.

Ha! Road rage on the information superhighway!

Perhaps when we all finally get nerdy enough to rent out a hotel ballroom and have DVXUserCON 1, we can set up a boxing ring to finally settle who's the best miniDV cinematographer.

It could be called the "Punch your way to Prestige" event.

[J_Barnes]

The 20x is a nice piece of junk. The glass looks good as does most Canon lenses. But the lack of true focus and manual zoom make it a $1000 clunker. Makes no sense.

You should check out Canon's lens business sometime. Their $6,000+ 35mm tele lenses also have servo rings.

It's not junk just because it has servo rings...I certainly would rather have physical controls, but that's not what Canon's lens business is based in.

Canon glass is widely adopted by photographers the world over, even with the dreaded infinate spinning ring, so like most companies...Canon doesn't stray from what they know, thus the servo rings are standard.

[PFP_VIDEO]

I have a Canom 1014 super8 and I used to have a Canon Scoopic 16mm. No infinite spinning. Canon eng pro lenses have real focus with no infinite spinning. If you're telling me they are marketing a camera with a long lens, that wildlife, event, and other videographers will find appealing.
But those people are going to have the focus and manual control of a consumer video camera. Then I say Canon has really strayed.

[J_Barnes]

How long do you think it's been since Canon has made a NEW super 8 camera or a 16mm lens? And their pro ENG lenses are exactly that...PRO. IE- they cost more then the XL2 and it's lens combined.

Canon did a complete redesign of their photographic lenses in the early 80's and totally ditched backwards compatability. Since then, they've embraced the servo ring on the vast majority of their AF lenses because it requires less of the motors internally and thus less power is used to focus and zoom. The XL1/XL2 seems to be based far more on their photographic designs then their ENG designs. It's not like they took a sweet manual lens and then added a bunch of electronic motors and a white plastic shell to keep you from all the manual gearing.

They make a few manual focus lenses and non-servo models, but they're an oddity in their lineup, servo is what they do.

I'm telling you that they're marketing a camera, not a lens (and stupidly I might add). People bought the XL1 for the camera, not for the lens, and I'm sure Canon's sales figures would attest to that fact. I can count on one hand the number of XL1's I've seen in the field with the optional manual zoom lens.

Wildlife, event, and other videographers comprise a market that is probably larger in volume then the independent film market, so if a long lens is advantageous to that group...it makes sense for canon to stay long.

You also suggest that the canon's focus and zoom controls are akin to a consumer video camera, but Canon's professional photographic lenses are designed the same way and consistently outsell it's main compeditor's manual-controlled AF lenses.

I don't buy anything canon because I don't like their lens designs, so I don't argue that there are many potential buyers out there who will be driven away by the XL2's standard lens (as I am personally). But I'm suggesting that the market outside of the fine-manual control independent filmmakers probably isn't as bothered by this as we are.

Canon has indeed strayed...but since their business is still photo, I'd suggest that they've "strayed" into this miniDV filmmaking thing.

[TimurCivan]

ok Newbie gets his two cents. The images you guys discuss, specifically the Interview one, cause that was the only clip i could download, Are both completly useable. I'd be proud if my camera were able to capture what he DVx did. IF you feel its too dark, get some lights. You guys are all pro's. If its too dark, brighten it up slightly. Quite simply, one thing ive learned in my little experince, is that i treat all my Video projects like paintings. You ahve to carefully create your image, maipulate what you need to.

The XL2 is amazing. But so is the DVX. Live with it. I dont even havea DVX, and i feel a kind of threat that it will be replaced, (im fiercley loyal to Inatiamte objects.) But interms of pure image, the XL2 was brighter, and showed much more of what was in the frame. But the color in the DVX was far superior IMO. Even though her face was darker. Its a question of look. Do you want her to emerge from Darkness or be cast in moon light. The XL2 is quite simply a technological marvel, rich black and saturated color with little Grain. But it has a "look". its kinda ghostly. Where as i feel liek the DVX sees what your eye would if you were there.

then again, for me XL2 would be over kill. A DVX gives me 97% of its capability, for 1500 less. is that three percent worth 1500.....? well to some of you yes. To me no. I will ook forward to the DVX. If in a couple years, my VideoART sells like crazy and i become rich, then fuck it! i'll get a XL2, or whatever camera is the ass kicker of that moment. cause face it, if youre wired about the XL2, waita coupl years for HD,we will all havea Field day fearing for our precious pieces of plastic metal and Glass..

PS(doesnt JVC have a HD cam out already?)

[TimurCivan]

PS...ps 97% was arbitrary, i know one of you is gonna say something......... lol

[the_director]

Why Canon did not provide manual focus and zoom rings? Why the color fringing?

Answer: ECON 102. It's the way business is done in Japan; in the West it's all about competition; in Japan it's all about cooperation. E.g. they do sue the Koreans about patent infringements, but not each other.

If Canon created a camera that would compete with a lot more expensive cameras by Sony and Panasonic, they would get 10x higher sales on their XL2. But if they did not, they would make a lot more money selling those $20K lenses for the more expensive competitor's cameras.

Canon also needs Sony and Matsushita technology for their camcorders. So why irritate them and have them go to Fuji.

By the way, Fujinon lenses are used more on top digital cinema productions than Canon lenses. And they are not less expensive. The new Star Wars is being shot with Fujinon lenses.

Canon lenses are optically excellent but Canon has always been more commercial than some of the other makers. Their main business is office equipment, not optics.

As to the color fringing on the XL2 -- it's been demonstrated quite well. And I doubt that this was a preproduction model. I'm sure that it was one of the first production models; the same batch is now distributed by Canon.

[J_Barnes]

Canon lenses are optically excellent but Canon has always been more commercial than some of the other makers. Their main business is office equipment, not optics.

Yamaha makes acoustic drums, stereo amplifiers and motorcycles, all of which they do pretty well. A company's diversification is not a good indicator of their faults, because typically each division is operated almost as a seperate entity. Canon may sell more copiers then SLR lenses, but their SLR lenses outsell their compeditors. IE- they obviously make good lenses, and the market (to some degree) preferrs them.

They're not building a substandard camera in order to placate rival japanese companies, that's rediculous to think. Optics aren't interchangeable in the sense that you just slap the elements into a different housing and suddenly you have a manual lens...Especially with servo based lenses. The elements are moved by motors, not helical gearing, so it's a completely different mechanical design.

Typically, there's years of R&D before a lens can be manufacturered in quantity. Do I think Canon could have made a manual lens to mate with the XL2? Yes. Does it surprise me that they didn't? No.

That being said, nothing is stopping anyone from renting the SLR adapter and using any number of canon manual lenses available for rent in any major city.

The color fringing...I'll have to see it in person. All cameras have color fringing to some degree, it's inescapable with standard pixel placement. The only digital solution to have the potential for zero color fringing is the Foevon sensor because the color sensing is essentially stacked on the sensor rather then tiled upon it.

Of course, I'm not interested in buying the XL2 in any way...renting it with all the prime lenses I want? Absolutely.

[the_director]

It takes weeks to months, not years, nowadays to do design through production on lenses. It is all computerized, design through production, except on low quantity lenses like HD, which are hand assembled.

You can use the Canon SLR lenses only for telephoto only.

[J_Barnes]

It takes weeks to months, not years, nowadays to do design through production on lenses. It is all computerized, design through production, except on low quantity lenses like HD, which are hand assembled.

I assume you have published facts to back that statement up?

While it seems like things can happen much quicker these days with all our modernization and computer-aided design, I suggest that your timetable is a bit off.

I'd like you to point out one single example of a lens that took "weeks to months" to go from design through production.

[Haakon]

Wow, I just got back from vacation and the forums have been deluged with XL2 hysteria! :D I'm glad to see there's finally a working unit out there for people to play with.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and maybe I'm completely alone in my thoughts, but I'm not impressed with the posted XL2 footage at ALL. The one area that the camera clearly shines is its high resolution - those clips look unbelievably sharp and clear - and I have admittedly not seen footage shot with the DVX that looks comparable to me in that department. That is, however, where the advantages end in my opinion.

The XL2's gamma and color are significantly less filmic looking than the DVX (you can call it a "different filmstock" look if you want, but it's just screaming "home video" to me), and I'm not sure if that's because the default settings are crap or the camera wasn't configured correctly - but even right out of the box the DVX has far better color IMO. The fact that the settings are adjustible via visible "bars" and not numbers further detracts from its usability within the community. The motion does mimic that of the Panasonic (this was assumed already since they borrowed the exact same technology), but if the gamma and colors look like standard video, then it seems to completely kill the point of having a 24p camera! I'd like to see the "nighttime" sample footage from the camera as well, but it appears that link is not functioning right now.

What blew me away more than anything were the very obvious and unacceptable levels of chromatic abberation present in the XL2 footage - most likely being a result of cramming more pixels into a CCD of equal size. This is the exact same thing that happened to Sony's DSC-F828 digital still camera when they were hoo-hahing about having the first 8MP consumer camera and then all they gave everyone was a high-resolution abberation grabber. I think we've reached our limits with these 1/3" CCDs, and the results are clear. Is it any wonder that this is the last SD camera Canon intends to make?

There's no question that the XL2 packs some serious resolution punch, and as a 60i capturing device, it's probably unmatched in its class. However, my guess is that most people that are shelling out for the XL2 aren't buying it for its 60i capabilities (and at five grand, that would be a ridiculous price to pay for such a use). Let's also not forget that users who want to caputre 60i footage are probably also more likely to shoot in 4:3 mode, an area blocked out on the XL2 CCD that actually has LESS resolution than the DVX! Because no one has posted any 4:3 footage yet (or that I've seen), we can't really compare... but the whole design of the camera just seems flawed to me from just about every angle. I know that users are are going to give the XL2 a one-up on the competition saying how the availability of a myriad of lenses make it much more flexible and powerful, but when you have to shell out around two grand a piece for a few more lenses, then it's probably time to start looking at a better camera anyway.

My overall feeling after seeing the test footage is that the camera does have its strengths, but at a $5,000 price point, they just aren't justified. There are too many weaknesses to set it back. It's funny, too, because the availability of the XL2 has impacted me directly as a young filmmaker in ways that other (older, more experienced, richer) users probably don't have to think about as much. I've been saving up for a DVX for quite awhile (over two years now), and finally through the success of some projects I have been working on have acquired enough funding to be able to purchase one of these two cameras. I decided to hold off on the DVX for awhile after hearing the announcement of the XL2's late 2004 launch. Thanks to these forums, I am now very secure in the direction I want to go - and all I can say is, it's not gonna cost me $5,000. ;)

[skippyfetus]

I assume you have published facts to back that statement up?
Are you related to Slapdragon? Really though, who cares about whether or not his info is published... I don't think his statement is unbelievable

[Jestorius]

Haakon - it gonna cost you more than $5.000! If you have ever tasted the nativ 16:9 than you never gonna use a 4:3 again.

I guess what we want is a filmlook illussion on video. We don't want to transfer the video to film but we want to look like film on DVD. The Canon XL og DVX100A is a good start.

I'm using a Sony Pd150 , Century optics 16:9 with mattebox and 2 filters all the time. If I have to move with the camera I use a DVrigPro or Glidecam 4000 Pro. Otherwise the camcorder is on a Libec stative.

If the Xl2 as good ballanced as in the test than you don't need the DVrigPro. It has nativ 16:9, you don't need an anamorphic adapter.

Canon XL2 Body-only Kit is $ 3,999 now. http://www.xl1solutions.com/sample_outtakes_of_a_canon_comme.htm It works for the XL2 as well I guess.

I'm also looking for a second camcorder. If it gonna be a Panasonic DVX100A or a XL2 is hard to tell now. But at this time I'm going for the XL2.

[Haakon]

Haakon - it gonna cost you more than $5.000! If you have ever tasted the nativ 16:9 than you never gonna use a 4:3 again.

With all due respect, I think you've read me completely wrong. The $5,000 jab was mere sarcasm relating to my decision not to buy the overpriced and arguably underperforming XL2. Obviously, one could spend and spend forever and still never get to where they might ultimately want to be - but I can get true 24p footage with the DVX at a MUCH lesser cost than if I shell out for an XL2 (and with many more benefits, in my opinion), and then I have the extra money for other hardware like cranes, matteboxes, stablization units, etc. Personally, the 'native 16:9' issue is pretty moot... all of these cameras have already been trumped by vastly nicer looking HD models, and although there isn't a high performance HD camera that's in a consumer range, it will only be a matter of time before it does happen one day. To add to that, "native" 16:9 footage is useless if it's full of chromatic abberation, jagged artifacts, excessive noise, and has the gamma qualities of a $200 home video camera.


Canon XL2 Body-only Kit is $ 3,999 now.

Uh, yeah... and were you planning on shooting video without a lens? I guess if I did that I could save some cash... ;)

Seriously, you're looking at a $5,000 commitment *minimum* with the XL2 vs. around $3,400 for the DVX. And despite its lower resolution, it's got much better gamma and color performance (at least in my opinion). That fact, coupled with the reality that I now have extra money to spend on other things that only further justifies my reasoning to get the DVX. Obviously there's no "end all" answer to all of this, but I'm surprised that people like Matt McDermitt are chomping at the bit to trade in their DVX for an XL2... they may be in for a pretty rude awakening.

[Jestorius]

Häakon - DVX isn't just 3.400 ,- if you like to have a 16:9. I guess you end up with 4.200,-. And you gonna need some kind of support to walk with your DVX, like a DVrig? Now the total is ... 4.800,- ? XL2 has a shoulder support.

Nobody is planning on shooting video without a lens! http://www.xl1solutions.com/ shows you what you can do.

Read this: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=99250b981884f113b391ce25a6bfb432& threadid=31360&perpage=15&pagenumber=3 - at least one who already has an XL2 .

And the size is a metter. Your customer would like you to have something he hasn't got at home.

But to DVX isn't a bad solution for anyone!

[Haakon]

Dear Jestorius,

You're right about the 16:9 issue. *I have my own qualms about that one, but I don't think anyone really does it right so it's pretty irrelevant. *Like I noted earlier, though, the resolution on these cameras has already been eclipsed by all of the HD cams, and it's only a matter of time before consumers have some sort of reasonable HD option. *(HDV is already here, for instance, and although the worthiness of the format has yet to be seen, there's no doubt other options will also be available sometime soon). *Also, like I pointed out, resolution will only get you so far... it's nice that the XL2 has "native" 16:9, but it has other shortcomings that weaken the usefulness of that feature.

The size of the camera is probably more important to some people than others... it's kinda like cars, where everyone always wants the biggest, "coolest" one to show off. *(And though I actually really like the DVX's looks, I can certainly see how some people might prefer the style/size of the XL2.) *I think that it's the footage that you ultimately end up with that's important, though, and not how sexy your camera is... the DVX might be small(er), but it can still certainly hold its own when it comes to making films... and that's what this whole thing is about, right? :)

That brings me to the other point... obviously the XL2 isn't going to be a "bad camera," or an "unworkable solution" for anyone. *All I was saying is that it doesn't really look to offer much to the end user over the DVX, and at $1,500 more in cost, that's a big chunk of change to have to justify. *The only real advantage I see that it has is interchangable lenses, but if you can afford the extra cash for the privelege of being able to swap lenses that cost upwards of $2,000 a pop, you can probably afford a better camera.

P.S. - Have you lived in Norway your whole life? *My family is Norwegian (hence my unamerican name!) and I absolutely love it there! :)

[kbar]

Ok, heres the facts that we know so far about the differences between the two cameras with what you get in the box for the price asked:-

First, what the XL2 has that the DVX doesnt-

-Native 16x9
-Significantly higher resolution in 16:9
-Interchangeable lens system
-20x zoom over 10x zoom
-Shoulder mount
-Included mic in the mic holder
-Much cleaner and more efficient lowlight performance
-Ability to change software for Gamma settings and others
-Professional looking style (definitely matters with some clients)

Second, what the DVX has that the XL2 doesnt-

-Very practical wider wide angle
-Slightly higher resolution in 4:3
-Approximately $1,500 less expensive
-Smaller body (Useful for certain situations that call for it)

By the way, i havent given the DVX "better color performance" simply because we dont know what the XL2 can do yet when properly adjusted.


So, considering the above facts, each consumer must decide whether the difference of $1,500 is or isnt worth it. --- AND THATS WITHOUT ADDING ANY EXTRAS TO EITHER CAMERA, BECAUSE THEN THE PRICE DIFFERENCE CHANGES.


Saying all of that, i will most likely be purchasing 2 dvx100a's, more than anything because I dont have enough money to buy more than one XL2 along with the extra accesories i need- and i need 2 cameras for weddings- and from what i read, the dvx is a great camera anyways.

Cheers, (i like that word)

kevin

[Jestorius]

Your name should be Håkon or Haakon. I'm not norwegian , I'm from Hungary. I have kids in Norway so I'm a norwagian citicen now.

The DVX is a good camcorder. Maybe it is better than PD150 what I have. http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/filmstylePD150.html does it looks like a palmcorder?

[Kidster]

kbar,

And you will probably have the best looking wedding video that a customer can ever expect (with the DVX). I would think that most guys are shooting weddings with camera's like the PD-150 or VX-2000, or maybe even with a less res camera 1 CCD. For weddings, I think the DVX is more than anyone could ever ask for.

With anyone wrestling the idea of buying a DVX or XL2. Ask yourself this....how important is shooting 16:9. If it is important, then ask yourself...do I want true 16:9, or can I put up with the limitations of using the anamorphic adapter. To me, that is the main difference between the two camera's. If (true 16:9 without adapter) is what you need, then splurge and spend the extra bucks for the XL2. If not, then buy a DVX and save.

[kbar]

i know this is extremely off topic, but ive tried getting this answered in the right place and no one answered me... so maybe one of you who have an answer for me can help me out.

Whats a good example of the dvx100a at work - a movie i can rent at blockbuster or something- i wanna see some good footage before i decide to buy.

thanks- all i need is one person to reply, thanks

[Jestorius]

or you can make your own and film like this: this:http://www.marlathemovie.com

I'm making corporat videos with anamorphic 16:9. The 16:9 is very important becouse the final product is a DVD. I have all those extras on the camera not just to impress the customer. I use filters and anamorphic lens, but to impress the customer is also very important. You must have something they don't have at home.

I'd like to have filmlook in my palmcorder as well but the customer doesn't. They prefer sharp pictures. They want video.

Now when I'm looking for a second camcorder, I have to choose between DVX and XL2. All those pictures and videos I have seen on the internett looks allmost the same high quality to me. I'm impressed of the "filmlook" they have. But most of the DVX-movies was color corrected. Why , if it has the filmlook?

Anyway, for me it gonna cost allmost the same if I buy the DVX or XL2. Maybe the DVX will be cheaper now. But it's hard to make a dissition.

[Kidster]

kbar,

I don't know of any DVX stuff that can be rented at blockbuster, since the camera and it's 24p technology has only been out about 2 years. There are some coming soon however. I saw a few really terrific 3 min shorts done by a member here. "iam