a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2

[Guest]

if you ever wanted to steal shots, the xl2 is so clunky and draws too much attention to itself. The dvx looks like a home camcorder. cops will just assume youre a tourist or something.

[Glenn_Gipson]

Excellent point...never thought about that.

[Glenn_Gipson]

But then again...if you're going to be out somewhere with a boom pole, actors, and a crew then that will draw more attention then any camera.

[Mike_Donis]

Also, people seem to think the DVX is pretty impressive anyways - I was shooting something the other day, and we had people ask us which news crew we were with :D

[Chris Messineo]

Personally, I hope the XL2 is amazing.

While I love my DVX, I think the competition benefits all of us.

We end up with more options and more tools.

[Gary_McClurg]

Well, spoken.

[Mike_Donis]

I hope the XL2 is awesome, as well!

I was just saying how the DVX looks pretty good from an aesthetic point of view in the eyes of the public ;) ;D

[Kidster]

I think after looking at Johnnie's footage day and night..the XL2 is AWESOME. I think it's the best stuff I've seen come out of a 1/3 3CCD miniDV. Gorgeous native 16:9.

[dogstarman]

Yeah but that reverses just as easily. Sometimes its desireable to look professional.

[boo]

yeah, too bad the dvx doesn't look professional...it definitely doesn't scream, "shooting permit!":P


Yeah but that reverses just as easily. Sometimes its desireable to look professional.

http://www.kylestauffer.com/dvx/shoulder1.jpg

http://www.schranzhofer.de/dvx_steroid_2.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/joeboo/.Pictures/dvx5.jpg

[Caution]

Cant wait to get my hands on an XL2 it looks just amazing :o

[Antoine_Fabi]

I must admit i like his "film camera" look.
...imagine it with a black manual lense... ::)


...but not until i see DVX100A / XL2 framegrabs of the same image...


...and i like DVX's dark and serious look too...

dammmmm..... ! *

maybe own one of each ? ???

[Glenn_Gipson]

Outside of the native 16:9, this is why I actually would like the XL2 over the DVX100.

After shooting with the DVX100, and then playing back that footage on a production monitor (it has 750 lines), I have come to the conclusion that the DVX100’s image is too soft for my taste. And yes, everything was in focus, but yet and still, there is a softness to the DVX100’s image that is probably due to its quest to replicate film (maybe, maybe not.) This softness becomes even more apparent on wider shots, with more information detail in the frame. So how do I know this softness issue to be true? Because I plugged in some simple outdoor footage (a wide shot) from a Canon Optura into my production monitor, and the footage looked sharp and brilliant (not to mention colorful, which is something that the DVX100 also lacks, IMO.) Now this inherent softness of the DVX100 is really subjective, as obviously many people like it. I never really liked it, and I often found myself going after hard lighting setups instead of soft ones in an attempt to “bump” up the DVX100’s sharpness. This is why I am looking forward to the XL2, because IMO, film is suppose to be sharp and colorful straight from off the camera, and not soft with drab colors.

PS. I'm not trying to trash DVX100s, I still think it's a great production camera, by the way.

[alpi69]

whenever we get footage from a canon miniDV (XL1, GL2, XM2 or whatever they are all called) they all are so sharp. they are clearly canon. SONY DVcams do not show that sharpness. the canon sharpness is not good looking at all. when you see Betacam material you won´t see it as "sharp" as the canon DVs. dunno what canon does, but to me it looks "videoish" all over. a 35mm cam never makes sharp images. in focus yes, but not with edges. it is hard to explain (esp. in a foreign language) but i prefered Sony pics over Canon pics always. the DVX is "softer" like the SONYs, only with a few extras on top of that.

[scharky]

Wow, thats the first time I have ever heard the dvx called soft. I remember when the DVX first came out, and people were sticking up for the XL1s. "the XL1s is better because it has that "Soft" image that people like to see, the DVX is just way to "sharp" to be convincing as having the film look".
Well, I guess it is all subjective.
BTW, the DVX does have sharpening controls, you can get that sucker really really sharp. Does it look good like this, I guess it depends on your application, but I guarantee, that the DVX with the Anamorphic will be no less sharp than the XL2.

[Antoine_Fabi]

yep,

the "thin" v detail setting looks a little softer than other setting, but it is certainly not "too" soft.
Plus, you can dial some detail steps like +2 or +3, but above that point, it's just really too sharp.
If you absolutely want a razor sharp image, then choose "mid" v detail setting on the DVX100A, EXTREMELY SHARP...too sharp in fact.

But the DVX100, and especially the 100A, can deliver razor sharp images, no doubt.

Edge enhacement creates a false perception of resolution.

[scharky]

Antoine, just thought I'd point out, that while the mid may look more sharp on a standard monitor, it infact does have lower resolution than the "thin" line detail settings, so if your having a problem with things being to soft, I would always shoot thin. *

But this is off the subject, so continue on with your normal conversation.

[Barry_Green]

I have come to the conclusion that the DVX100’s image is too soft for my taste. *And yes, everything was in focus, but yet and still, there is a softness to the DVX100’s image
Like others have asked, I have to ask: did you adjust the "detail level" setting? You can get the DVX image so sharp you cut yourself on it. The stock 24P presets come with detail set at about -3, which is a noticeable softening. You can go all the way to +7, which is very very very sharp -- too sharp for most purposes, with artifacting and edge enhancement.


(not to mention colorful, which is something that the DVX100 also lacks, IMO.)
Again, this is an area where the DVX excels, rather than where it lacks. With some manipulation of the settings you can get super-saturated colors, a look that is reminiscent of Fuji Velvia reversal stock. Start with Normal Gamma (not Cine), then switch on Cine Matrix and pump up the Chroma Level to +7, and you'll have extremely saturated colors that will overdrive most NTSC televisions.


This is why I am looking forward to the XL2, because IMO, film is suppose to be sharp and colorful straight from off the camera, and not soft with drab colors.
Those looks are easily accomplished with the DVX. Film has many different looks depending on the stock, a reversal film like 5285 is punchy, high contrast and saturated whereas a soft-contrast negative like 5277 is soft, flat, muted... the DVX can match all those looks. It's all in the settings you choose. But the F5 and F6 presets seem to aim towards the softer, muted look. You have to change the settings to draw out the punch.

[Glenn_Gipson]

Thanks for the suggestion guys!

[skippyfetus]

Well, it's not small enough to not draw attention to itself. If you want to "steal shots", get one of those tiny new camcorders you see at Best Buy... you can get away with filming almost anywhere with one of those.

[Antoine_Fabi]

Sharky,

On the DVX100A, the "mid" v detail setting gives the full 480 lines of res on a res chart, but it adds some edge enhancement.

Now, i prefer the look of "thin" v detail setting, and just play with detail setting.

I agree with Barry..., right of the *box, the DVX100A looks too soft because the detail setting is set at -3. When i adjust it to 0, then it is sharp enough. But i would never push the detail level over +3 because it becomes too sharp.