ways to equal the scales

[LaFinDuMonde]

Damnit. I just bought the DVX100A less than a month ago(sure you guys have heard that story b4) and now news of the Canon XL2 comes out. I'm not sure that its better, but I would have like to check it out. However, now I just want to make my DVX on the same playing field as the canon, however, easier said then done.
Somethings don't bother me: the canon's better manual zoom lens, and a couple menu options.
Things that piss me off: built-in 16:9. built-in shoulder rest.
I no I can just get the anamorphic adapter, but unfortunately doesn't that mean all my handheld shooting(requiring OIS) will go down the drain? Anysort of good shoulder mount(not uber-expensive to compensate? Any plain old techniques to get steadier shooting? Will century optics upcoming adapter somehow bypass this issue? My movie is rather guerilla, and although I will use a decent tripod most of the time, there are some shots and times when handheld(and DIY dolllies YAY) come in handy, and I want stability.

Wouldn't it BE FREAKIN AWESOME if Panasonic offered a special operation where you sent your DVX back to them and they modify it to use an oversized chip design similar to the canon? (...and maybe a better zoom lens...). Too bad that's never gonna happen. A lot of people would go for that...(wink wink-hint to panasonic people listening in)

[Barry_Green]

Wouldn't it BE FREAKIN AWESOME if Panasonic offered a special operation where you sent your DVX back to them and they modify it to use an oversized chip design similar to the canon?
Oversized? You mean undersized, right?

The Canon never uses the full 1/3" of the CCD. It uses two smaller areas: a 1/3.3" 16:9 patch, or a 1/4" 4:3 patch. I wouldn't say that it would be awesome to lose 25% to 50% of the CCD... we'll have to see how the image holds up to the undersized utilization of the CCD.

[LaFinDuMonde]

ok i stand corrected. It would be awesome if panasonic could stick in(and make it work with the rest of the camera) truely OVERSIZED ccds, that used a resolution = to the current resolution(or better) for 4:3, and then could increase the width to get true 16:9.

[Barry_Green]

That would, indeed, rule. I think it'd take 1/2" chips to do it though. Not likely to happen anytime soon, as the lens and prism and everything would have to be redesigned.

I'm still looking forward to seeing how well the XL2 performs in 16:9 mode. They've had 2 years to improve the state of technology since the DVX came out, so maybe it'll have great 16:9 performance in spite of the megapixel CCD's...

[LaFinDuMonde]

ya, i would pay at least $1000 bucks, if not more for such a major upgrade.

[Mike_Donis]

All of us would ;D
But I'd bet that the upgrade would cost closer to 10 Gs

[LaFinDuMonde]

y 10? i could see somewhere more like 3000

[Mike_Donis]

Perhaps...
but the SDX costs $26,000 with 2/3" CCDs

[Barry_Green]

SDX also includes Digital Betacam-quality 4:2:2 3.3:1 DVCPRO50 though. A more direct comparison would be the DSR300, a 1/2" camera that costs about 10 grand, or the JVC DV5000, a 1/2" camera that costs about six grand. Neither has progressive scan or 24P, but heck, no 1/3" camera had that until the DVX came out, and it doesn't cost much more than other 1/3" non-proscan, non-24P cameras. Taking the JVC DV5000 as a model, a 24P 1/2" DVX could maybe cost $7000 or so (recognize that we're totally talking out our hats here, as none of us is a camera manufacturer!) :)

[jrv3034]

...Taking the JVC DV5000 as a model, a 24P 1/2" DVX could maybe cost $7000 or so...

That sounds like an untapped market right there... Would it be SD MiniDV, HDV, DVCPro something?

Or is that what Juan P. is doing over at DVinfo.net with his modified DVX100? ;D

[Terry_Lasater]

Juan P.?... modified DVX?... ???

[LaFinDuMonde]

ya i looked at that. Sounds cool, other tahn the possibility of messing up your precious DVX. However, all the after CCD settings(cinelike, gammas, etc.) are unusable.

[APDieb]

*Taking the JVC DV5000 as a model, a 24P 1/2" DVX could maybe cost $7000 or so (recognize that we're totally talking out our hats here, as none of us is a camera manufacturer!) :)

Why not take an existing 1/2" CCD Panasonic model and improve upon it. DVC200? I have one and absolutely love it. Albeit, standard 60i. I personally think it is a top notch camera in both capability and build quality. The JVC's build quality is not up to the Panasonic in my opinion.

I know this is just a pipe dream, but if they did choose to make one, the DVC200 would be an excellent starting place.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media

[Barry_Green]

It would indeed. Replace the chips with 16:9 CCD's, add progressive 24P, and you'd have a heck of a camera there!

[Zoomforce]

That sounds like an untapped market right there... *Would it be SD MiniDV, HDV, DVCPro something?

Or is that what Juan P. is doing over at DVinfo.net with his modified DVX100? ;D

P2 baby.

[jrv3034]

Juan P.?... modified DVX?... *???

I was referring to Juan P. Pertierra over at DVinfo.net. Basically, he's figured out a way of capturing 4:4:4 12-bit uncompressed footage from his DVX100. Incredible stuff.

Check out this thread.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20332

You may want to set aside a whole afternoon, though... It's 69 pages long, and counting.

[hvpz]

... your precious DVX...

"Your" is now "Our" since you bough a dvx...
If you're not happy with the dvx : sell it and go away...

In a filmmaker guerilla, a dvx is a great weapon (even for 35 blow-up) whatever you think...

But as everything you have to practice. (And you'll need it with the anamorphic adapter)

So, stop screaming and shoot...

herve

[LaFinDuMonde]

um...wow you took that the wrong way.
Jaimes Valles posted:
"Or is that what Juan P. is doing over at DVinfo.net with his modified DVX100? "
I said in response:
"ya i looked at that. Sounds cool, other tahn the possibility of messing up your precious DVX. However, all the after CCD settings(cinelike, gammas, etc.) are unusable. "

I said the project that Juan P. at Dvinfo.net is involved in to get 4:4:4 uncompressed video from the DVX100A's CCD's is a cool idea, if you're okay with messing around with "your precious" dvx. I meant b/c YOU COULD BREAK IT. THE WARRANTY BECOMES VOID. I OWN A DVX, I'M NOT SURE I WOULD MESS AROUND INSIDE OF IT.
seriously look back at the message at read it again.

[LaFinDuMonde]

i forgive you tho for your unwarranted outburst.
Perhaps you're english isn't perfect and that's understandable.

[hvpz]

Really Sorry, lafindumonde

Please accept all my apologizes.

In fact, i took the topic on the fly...
So, I was a little sarcastic...

When you buy something you have to be prepared to hear that something possible most powerful will be soon on the market.
That's life.

btw, I would be nice from pana to include the possibility to record the signal without compression to dv format. I think this could be a better evolution than possibility to change lens.

Again all my apologize :-[

[LaFinDuMonde]

awww dont worry about it. No problem.

[hvpz]

Thanks

[Zoomforce]

If it makes you feel better.. I just bought another DVX this week, knowing perfectly well the XL2 will be out in 2 weeks.

[turk]

Jarrad: Bought another 100A?

Heh...heh. The xl2 with a 20x zoom? The GL2/3 already with 20x zoom? (It'll be interesting to see what Canon does with the GL2/3--all they need do is add xlr, 16:9, 24p, and they could rob the Pany/Sony bank while maintaining XL2 as a production solution. The Pany 30 with 16x Leica zoom? Wait...wait--my crystal ball is clearing. I see the Pan200 in the spring of '05 with a 16x zoom and some sort of perfected gizmoized 16:9! I don't really care how they get to 16:9--lenses, software, chips, pea under a shell--just as long as it's GOOD to industry standard.

I like the xl2 specs. But a 20x zoom doesn't answer its wide angle capability. I'd like to see the next 16x Pany with 24-28mm x 16 plus 16:9 that's a bit better than the squeeze. The HD stuff is another realm. So is memory media. The xl2 with 20x zoom, WA lens too rich for my blood. That's a true multipurpose production camera solution. Give me 24mm x 20, 16:9 in camera and I'll take it to my grave like a 16mm Eclair. :o

The scale may never be equal. But it's interesting to see them clip at one another's heels to our benefit. The next Pany will probably be the last iteration (into 2006) of the series before the technonlgy shifts toward HD/memory media. Once they tap out 24p. 16:9, WAZoom they'll shift technologies.

Time to off the GL2 setup. I'd do the Pany before the XL2. You gotta know what you're getting into with an XL2...

I suspect you know!

turk

[APDieb]

Didn't Canon state this was their last SD model 3CCD camera? That would imply that there will be no GL3. I could have sworn I read that somewhere. Perhaps I was just dreaming though...

After my experience with my GL1, I choose not to be a Canon customer again anytime soon. Heck, I even went Nikon on my dSLR camera purchase. I am kinda like that though...If a product/company disappoints me, it takes a whole lot to regain me as a customer.

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media

[Zoomforce]

Canon doest do 3's ... L1, L2, XL1, XL2, Elura 1, Elura 2. The next thing from Canon will probally be a GL type camera but HDV

[turk]

The GL-HDV with xlr would be 'a good thing'.

My biggest complaint with cameras isn't long zooms; it's what is at the optical quality at short end that really counts. The 32mm Leica is interesting--at the cusp. I'm not sure what the squeeze mode offers but we all know an anamorphic lens will give you another 4-6 degrees to the lens angle of view. So in a sense one can cheat to a slightly wider angle by going anamorphic glass. So 32mm might be, say, 26-28mm anamorphic. If the squeeze function does the same thing--as opposed to letterboxing to 16:9 at the SAME 32mm angle of view then it's okay but doesn't add much. The solution I'd like to see is the one that gives me in camera anamorphic angle of view to my widest lens setting. It doesn't matter if it's with an extended 4:3 chip. All I'm interested in is raw information at true 16:9 anamorophic glass solution.

If you're getting my drift: I hate expensive lens adapters which often have their own limitations, add on this, add on that, no zoom thru, etc. I know that if I want to go below 28mm I'll need another lens or add-on solution. I can live with that. What is upsetting in all the cameras I've seen is the 35-40mm normal lens x16, x20 x-whatever solutions we're offered. The long end is nearly irrelevant--just a selling point. The camera that impresses me is the most usable range without an adapter. Pany/Leica problem is an Angenieux mindset 10x, 12x zoom problem--great for 16mm documentary/news but not quite what one needs for film--the 28-32 range to shoot wider compositions. I hope Pany/Leica gets the drift with the next 100A iteration--x16 zoom at (I'm on my knees praying) 32mm less another 4-6 degrees anamorphic--though I'm not sure how they can do it with the same lens.

Hey, I can dream too!

And hey, Andrew--you'd be thinking twice about switching nikon dslr if you have 6-8 $$$canon optics in your bag. OPTICS trump bodies--though I understand the megapixel conumdrum...

[Zoomforce]

you gotta remember that since its a 1/3 inch CCD, extra mmphh is added to the focal length. The easiset way for them to get to your requests is to make 35mm CCD's. also, Its not imposibble to make a 28-280mm zoom, they have done it for years.

[APDieb]

The GL-HDV with xlr would be 'a good thing'.
And hey, Andrew--you'd be thinking twice about switching nikon dslr if you have 6-8 $$$canon optics in your bag. OPTICS trump bodies--though I understand the megapixel conumdrum...

Glad I didn't have any money invested in Canon still lenses...
I like Nikon optics and for similar money, the new Nikon body performed better for my purposes (IMO).

I do have a $4000 Canon lens on my DVC200.. I like it a lot. *I also like my Nikon lenses on my D70. *Both great lens companies...

Seriously though, I promise not to go off topic any more. *Canon/Nikon....Apple/PC...Canon/Panny/Sony... *To each his own. *They're just tools. Not religions like it seems to be sometimes. *:)

Andrew
Crystal Clear Media