READ THIS IMPORTANT

[J.R. Hudson]

Okay its not that important. *I just wanted to calm some waters as the release of the Xl2 is causing quite the excitement and panic. *All over the NET people are running around like maniacs trying to get to the bottom of this XL2 -vs- DVX100 conundrum.

Including threads like this:

http://www.creativecow.net/index.php?forumid=59

I want to say for the Record that I could care less if the XL2 is better or worse than my DVX100. *I bought my DVX almost a year ago for one deciding factor:

24p

I am in no market for another camera at this time due to all practicality. *I guess what is pissing me off are the people that are starting threads or writing threads in other forums and Generalizing "Those Dvxuser.com people...." or "Those Pani guys are bashing the poor little Xl2..."

I am stoked that another camera hit the market in 24p. *For the record I want to say "I welcome Canons Xl2." *Someone put it to me this way once "Give one guy a brush and he'll create shit; give another guy the same brush and he'll give us a Rembrandt."

Pick the camera that best suits your needs guys. *There are very few of us here (And Im not one of them) whose techincal knowledge and skills warrant such scrutiny over the details. *

Sorry. *Venting. *

I am not threatned, I am not afraid, I am not "SHOOK and SAD that nobody will care about them or gawk at their equipment any longer..."

Bunch of maniacs. *

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!

[MovieSwede]

Well I think some people cant se the difference between discussing the pros and cons with bashing...

Lets face it there aint gonna be a perfect camcorder for under 5000$ the comming years its always gonna be a compromise. Just because we dont think the XL2 is the best cam ever designed (according to its specs) doesn´t mean it aint gonna be a good cam.

I´m mostly intrested how good it can interact with my anamorfed DVX. If the pictures will look alike i can create an intresting production value. Becaue it has the advantage of 20x zoom.


If annyone wonders why my postings has increased by 300% has nothing to to with my need to bash XL2, just that im boored on the nightshift here. This is one of the few communitys that has some activity at night ;)

[J.R. Hudson]

I think too many people are mistaking the 'conversation of pros and cons' and 'what we would like to have seen' -vs- 'we've already seeen that' as BASHING.

Yeah, this board is always active. Cracks me up.

[nullphonic]

I agree, it's strange, I still don't get the bashing thing. Maybe it's just the difference in individual perception of what constitutes 'bashing' i.e. a statement like 'well, it's a bit more than I can afford right now so I'm going with the DVX' can be taken like 'OH, so you're saying it's overpriced aren't you?!?'.

(Maybe that's an extreme hyper critical statement on my part but something along those lines)

It's just a different tool and I'd like to personally own both potentially (again, no ones seen footage yet, that's the real test. I'm sure it'll be great however imo, Canon doesn't make crap, maybe not to everyones tastes but one persons BMW is anothers tricycle) , just as SLR photographers have several cameras whether it be for capture differences or some physical trait of the device that makes it more appropriate for one shoot than another etc.

(*) Competetion is good for all of us.

(*) I think the quality will be comparable, possibly better in some areas, maybe not so good in others but a great tool all around, maybe with the potential to mix DVX / XL2 footage for an artistic style possibly in one project. (In a feature or a DVD where 'behind the scenes' was shot for the aesthetic of one and the feature for the aesthetic of the other, etc)

(*) What one considers bashing is just simply maybe a discussion of points viewed to critically however 'long live opinions!'. Some people are more passionate than others and this may be another MAC vs PC topic from now on.

[J.R. Hudson]

Well put NP (nullphonic)

[MovieSwede]

When i bought my DVX. I read everything I could about the cam. Both the good things and the negative. That help alot to deside that this was the cam i wanted. And thanks to that I knowed its weak sides, I wasnt dissapointed when i got it. I was even stunned how good it actually was when i shoot in right lightning condition.

So the more we discuss these cams the more will we help buyers to decide what they should buy.

But of course a good test will give greater info.

[taubkin]

"Give one guy a brush and he'll create shit; give another guy the same brush and he'll give us a Rembrandt."

Especially true if the second guy's name is Rembrandt... :D

[J.R. Hudson]

LOL :D

[Terry_Lasater]

XL2 sucks! :P ::) ;D

I just had to go against the grain...™ ;)

[Harry_Destin]

I dig its design!

[Terry_Lasater]

Yeah, it kinda looks familiar...™

[J.R. Hudson]

Love your Trademark!

[dvpixl]

XL2 sucks! *:P ::) ;D

I just had to go against the grain...™ *;)



XL2 SUCKS BIG TIME!

[dvpixl]

i read that thread at COW. how immature of them to take notice and be worried about it. then the next guy asked "how old are you?" that was a funny follow up.

[J.R. Hudson]

kooks.

[Barry_Green]

I do think we try to be more mature here -- heck, go read the forums at dv.com if you want to get into some flame wars.

I have seen much caution here, and very little brand "flag-waving". One would expect a bunch of DVX users to want to flay the XL2, but not this group -- heck, I'd like to buy one, if it proves to be worth it! Let's give it a chance to prove itself.

[J.R. Hudson]

I concur Barry.

I actually hope the XL2 does kick ass so we dont have to see anymore 'films' made with the XL1.

LMAO

Sorry, I couldnt resist.

[Antoine_Fabi]

"... heck, I'd like to buy one, if it proves to be worth it! *Let's give it a chance to prove itself. " dixit Barry Green


...that's also the way i see it.

It's only a tool, if it is inferior to the DVX100A, then i have no interest.
But IF it is better...then i'll give it a very close look.

[Harry_Destin]

I second that.

[shAi]

you know... i think we all just hoped for a little better xl2.. something to push the envelope. instead, we got Canon straighten up with DVX100A and not even an inch farther. my little frustration is to see how Panasonic, especially now, doesn't really have a good enough reason to bother with a new DVX200 in the near future, and i can only guess that this point of view is shared by many of those who sounded somewhat bitter about xl2.
if anyone is fool enough to blame dvx users of being religiously attached to their camera.. well.. so be it.
if xl2 would offer something new, i would be the first to buy one.

[Barry_Green]

The funny thing I find in all this is, prior to the DVX, I think most video users couldn't really give a hoot about Panasonic gear. You had your Sony loyalists, certainly... but was there anything such as a Panasonic fanatic? Can anyone even NAME a Panasonic DV camera prior to the DVX? (AG-EZ1 is all I can think of).

With the introduction of the VariCam, then the DVX, then the SDX, Panasonic has really established itself as a company that's in-tune with the consumer. That's why they've got a fan base now. And they'll have to maintain that to keep their fan base. And the 100A was a great way to do that!

I think more people are more pragmatic now, and look for the best tool for the job. Right now Panasonic has somewhat of a lock on the we-want-it-to-look-like-film crowd. The XL2 is a promising new contender. Panasonic can't just sit back and say "we're Panasonic, everyone will always love us and always want to buy our product and even pay more for it even if we don't give them the features they want" -- that's Sony's trick. And Sony's paying the price for that attitude now.

I think the XL2 is a noble effort to give people exactly what they asked for. It totally missed the boat on one thing I find vitally important, which is lens control & feedback (give me that 20x lens with true manual zoom and manual focus, with readouts in the monitor/LCD, and it would be nearly perfect!) It's a good sign on Canon's part that they came so close, and who knows -- after actually using it we may find it irresistable. I do hope Panasonic responds with even better cameras. Remember, the DVX100A was basically unmotivated by competition -- nothing new came out that drove Panasonic to have to respond, they just came up with better product so they brought it out. Even if the XL2 doesn't drive the DVX to respond, Panasonic may do so anyway -- they seem to be in a really innovative, customer-driven mood right now! ;)

[rocketscience]

wow. i just read that post on creativecow. 1st off i'd like to say everyone here has been really mature. No one has been (seriously) bashing the canon. I think anyone who owns a dvx and is not in the market for another cam just doesnt see the value for dollar in upgrading. If it is upgrading (same caveat--need tests).

Now. Some guy took a quote from this site that was made in jest (I read that post) about how canon took the internals from a dvx and put it in the xl2. Now he used that kind of statement as non-joking ammo to bash the people on this forum and I guess indirectly, Panasonic. Who's bashing who again? I dont think anyone here needs to defend themselves when accused of bashing Canon. Just dont see it. Did he not SEE all the smileys?

:P ;D :D ;)

edit: it was really only 1 individual. No worries.

[MovieSwede]

Well must agree on that the thing that impressed me most of Panasonic is that they listen to the customers demand. How many havnt tried for years to create movie look with video. And Pana was the first that really made a cam that gave us exactly what we wanted 24P (well not everybody i only got 25P)

The sad part is that this type of cam could have come much sooner to the market if the other manufactures really wanted to make them. And i guess i thanks to Panasonic that Canon actually made the XL2.

Well next cam i want is a 2/3 ccd HDTV in the prosumer market, lets se whos gonna make that possible. There is only one way to win thats is to give the customer what we want.

[Barry_Green]

JVC's announced such a product: three 2/3" CCD's, 16:9 native HDV, interchangeable lenses, switchable resolution for 1080 or 720, and full 24P support.

$20,000 price tag, which sounds outrageous until you consider that an SDX900 is $27,000 and it's just standard-def, so a camera with all the features of the SDX, plus high-def, at $7,000 less... seems very interesting.

But it's just an announcement, not even a working prototype, so it's probably at least a year away.

[MovieSwede]

well thats still a bit to much (they add another 25% in tax here) :'(

But of course its a good step on the way. :)

[J.R. Hudson]

Isnt JVC related to Panasonic?

[Haakon]

JVC's announced such a product: three 2/3" CCD's, 16:9 native HDV, interchangeable lenses, switchable resolution for 1080 or 720, and full 24P support.

Yes, but all of the HDV cams I have seen (including the new Sony prototype) record to MPEG-2 on MiniDV tape. *I'm not sure if the compression scheme is part of the "HDV" standard or what, but the whole point of having HD resolution is to step up picture quality from our "standard" DVD picture. *If they're all just going to use antiquated MPEG-2 technology to compress the hell out of it, I have no interest in HDV whatsoever - no matter what brand is putting it out. *There are oodles of new, huge capacity formats out there now (including Blue-Ray and HDD storage), so there's no reason for them to be developing HDV in this manner. *I really hate it when a company improves technology significantly in one manner, and completely takes a step backward in another.

That's pretty much how I feel about the XL2 in general, but I guess it doesn't really matter. *It will probably be a decent camera and help strengthen 24p's presence in the "prosumer" field (which is probably the biggest plus of this camera). *I agree completely with shai's post, however; I think a lot of people were hoping for something a little bit better than what is actually being released as the XL2. *Now I just hope Panasonic will up the anty even further... at this point they're already caught up with the game, and if they released another, more evolved camera, they'd secure the market pretty solidly I think.

[Barry_Green]

Isnt JVC related to Panasonic?
They share a parent company. Doesn't mean they share everything though. The JVC BR-DV3000 deck is identical to the Panasonic AG-2500 deck... but I don't know of any cameras they share, etc.

[Barry_Green]

Yes, but all of the HDV cams I have seen (including the new Sony prototype) record to MPEG-2 on MiniDV tape.
All HDV product will always do that. The HDV standard specifies that all data is recorded in MPEG2 on DV tape. 19 megabits for 1280x720, 25 megabits for 1440 x 1080. There will never be an HDV product that functions otherwise.

Panasonic is not currently part of the HDV consortium and may introduce something on its own, but if so it wouldn't be compatible with any HDV equipment.

There still is no actual HDV product on the market yet (JVC's camera actually pre-dates HDV by 6 months, and was kind of "grandfathered in" to the standard) so we still don't truly know what HDV can look like. JVC's implementation on the HD1 can look brilliant, or it can look artifact-y and shoddy. I'd reserve judgement until the "real" HDV cameras come out, but I do remain optimistic.

[Terry_Lasater]

I do think we try to be more mature here -- heck, go read the forums at dv.com if you want to get into some flame wars.

I have seen much caution here, and very little brand "flag-waving". *One would expect a bunch of DVX users to want to flay the XL2, but not this group -- heck, I'd like to buy one, if it proves to be worth it! *Let's give it a chance to prove itself.

Just to clarify...™ My post about how the XL2 sucks was my *attempt* at humor based on the comments that preceded it. I'm not actually trying to start an argument or encourage flamers. Just my sense of humor which most of you are probably tired of anyway...™ ::)

Heck, I wouldn't mind having an XL2 either if the reviews look good.

I have a Sony PD150, a JVC DV500, and a Panasonic DVX100A. I might end up getting a Canon XL2 also.

But that will probably come after the Arri S package I'm currently having built for me. :P

[J.R. Hudson]

But that will probably come after the Arri S package I'm currently having built for me. *:P

Bastard! >:( :D

[Caution]

But that will probably come after the Arri S package I'm currently having built for me. *:P

Mind me asking you said Arri S are you talking about the old s/st non sync that can be modified to a crystal sync motor or you mean the arri sr3 ?

Just curious :)

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, I am as well... an Arri 16S or ST is a wild-sync noisy camera. The SR3 (and the SR2) is the current "gold standard" in 16mm sync-sound cameras. SR3 kits can be $30,000 or so (don't really know, I haven't looked in quite a while) whereas a 16s is probably down around $1,000-$1500.

[Stanrick_Kubley]

The XL2 is definitely good for low-budget filmmakers. It means manufacturers take seriously the demand for 24p. Until someone makes a major advance over the DVX, I see no need to switch. I've seen the DVX blown up to 35mm, have concluded that it's perfectly fine for shooting even a feature, so I feel squared away.

Surely another breakthrough camera will come along, and everyone will jump on it. I mean, in the last few projects I've shot, I've used a different camera each time (and different mediums as well). Ultimately, we need a tool that can do the job, and the DVX works. Anything better will be gravy.

[Terry_Lasater]

I'm just talking about an Arri S or Arri S/B, but it will be in great shape and completely overhauled with a *new* Tobin crystal sync motor with frame rates of 6, 12, 20, 24, 25 (PAL), 30, 40 and 50 frames per second - all crystal!

It will have either a standard zoom or (3) primes (maybe both).

Plus, as far as I know...™ It's the best of the cheapest pin-registerd 16mm cameras. I'll pay $2,500 for it...™ not bad, huh?

However, I do plan on stepping up to at least an Arri SR(1) within two years. I'm on a fast track due to my age. *:P *... and the pending antiquity of film itself.

[Barry_Green]

An Arri 16S/B would be a much better bet than an Arri 16S, you want the bayonet lens mount. But it's still going to be noisy noisy noisy. In Arri's you have to go to an SR before you get a quiet camera (yes, I know about the 16BL but the lens blimp is just too impractical, unwieldly, bulky...)

Do you have the ACL yet? I think you're woefully underestimating the importance of a silent camera... all that I've seen you mention so far are R16's, 4008's, Arri S's... all nice for what they do, but all very limited in what you can do with them because they're so NOISY. Once you play with the ACL a bit, you'll understand...

[Terry_Lasater]

Actually, the seller of the ACL backed out after initially allowing me 10 days to make payment in full and relisted it.

I knew the Arri S wasn't considered a sync camera, but didn't know how loud they were/are. BTW, it is an Arri S/B that I'm thinking of getting.

Barry - what 16mm film camera (under $5,000) would you recommend as being most versatile and professional for most filming applications?

BTW, I was thinking about keeping a few 4008's and (maybe) the R 16 as MOS cams.

But there will be plenty of Beaulieus left over for me to sell on eBay. I now have (3) 5008S's and (4) 4008 ZM II's (one is actually a ZM IV).

Damn! I did go on a tear, didn't I? *::) *

[Barry_Green]

The Arri S is about as loud as a coffee grinder. Blimps are a royal pain in the butt, but you could blimp it. But don't, it's just too much hassle.

Hassle-free cheap, quiet cameras: CP16/R, Eclair ACL, Eclair NPR. I've had or used all of 'em. I've had maybe six CP16's in my day, and they're my favorite of the bunch. Eclairs are great cameras but just too fragile for my taste. You could bash someone over the head with a CP (which would of course kill them) and use the CP to film the event while you did it, and it'd never skip a frame. CP's are indestructible news cameras. Heavier and bulkier than the Eclairs. About the same quiet-level. The only feature the Eclairs have that I wish the CP had would be the quick-change magazines. CP's are crystal-sync at 24fps, and variable-speed from 12 to 36. Plus you can get accessory gearsets to make 'em PAL-compatible, or 30fps sync (with variable speeds up to 45fps).

CP's have their own lens mount, but CP made some exquisite superspeed prime lenses (licensed from Kowa) in 9mm, 12.5mm, 16mm and 25mm lengths. Those lenses are extremely sharp. And CP make a Nikon mount adapter, and also you can get Arri Standard and Arri Bayonet lens mount adapters so you can use all the best Arri-mount glass on a CP. Most CP's include the coke-bottle Angenieux lenses, most commonly the 12-120 but sometimes the 9.5-57 or even the 10-150. But you don't want any of those.

The NPR is a bigger camera than the ACL, includes a two-lens turret, one with a mount for c-mount lenses, the other for Eclair cameflex-mount lenses. The Eclair mount is a good strong bayonet mount, but you won't find many lenses in it. The most common you'll find is the reprehensible Angenieux 12-120. The c-mount is nice for putting on something like a 10mm Switar though.

The ACL is a newer, smaller version of the NPR. Initially it was designed with several limitations (only 200' mags, only 24fps, etc) but they later released what they call the ACL II, which came with a heavy-duty motor with variable speeds and the capability to handle 400' mags. An ACL with the original motor, 200' mag and a 10mm prime lens is almost as small as an A-Minima. With a 400' mag and a multispeed motor and the inescapable coke-bottle Angenieux 12-120, it's a fairly sizeable camera. It has a c-mount and a locking collar that can accept alternative mounts (like Eclair Cameflex mount), so it's almost as flexible as the NPR.

Eclairs are good cameras, as long as they're kept maintained they can deliver nice solid images with quiet running. The ACL had a fairly unique "pendulum" shutter, probably akin to the Beaulieu "guillotine" shutter. I like 'em, they're good, but -- I sold the ACL and kept the CP, if that tells you anything. I don't live in L.A., it's expensive to get cameras serviced, and the CP is indestructible. The Eclairs are newer, lighter, and I love the quick-change mags, but the CP is the pinnacle of reliability, and out here in "the boonies" that's what I valued most.

ACL's and NPR's are both convertible to Super16, costs about $1000 to $2000 to do it. Some CP's are easier converted than others, both Visual Products and Les Bosher say they can do the job.

The other great thing about CP's is they have on-board battery packs, so no need for an external belt or battery supply like you have to have with the Eclairs.

Early CP cameras were non-reflex (the CP16 and the CP16/A). You don't really want one of those. They're good cameras for what they are, but they only run at 24fps (later ones included the ability to switch between 24/36) but you can't see through the lens. You can get a "snorkel" Angenieux or Som Berthiot lens that has a reflex tube attached to the lens itself, which is a sort-of-reflex system (provided your backfocus is precisely collimated) but then you're stuck using a substandard Angenieux or Som Berthiot lens... skip it and go to the good stuff, the CP16/R.

Hassle-free expensive quiet cameras: Aaton & Arri SR series. The Aaton ProD, LTR7, Arri SRII & III... these are "real" cameras, and "real" expensive. Aatons are an outgrowth of the Eclairs, and the Arri cams are the current standard. These are what you want. But you won't likely find one for anywhere NEAR your $5000 target.

Hassle-full sorta-cheap quiet camera: Arri 16BL. The 16BL was Arri's first attempt at a silent 16mm camera, but it relies on a big bulky lens blimp and is just not as convenient to use as other cameras. Not bad, but I never found it worth the hassle. Usually a lot more expensive than the CP16/R, and I'd take the CP any day over the BL, especially because you can change lenses and lens mounts on the CP with no worries about a lens blimp.

Hassle-full way cheap quiet cameras: Auricons. Auricons are the cheapest quiet cameras you can find. They are news cameras through and through, huge massive heavy heavy heavy beasts, but they're not crystal-sync: they instead use AC synchronous motors, motors that derive their timing signal from the 60hz wave of alternating current electricity. (in short words, you have to plug 'em into the wall: no batteries). Also no reflex through-the-lens viewing. But, they're indestructible as well, and CP's are actually repackaged Auricons (the Auricon movement and innards are retained, but Cinema Products made the body lighter, shoulder-mountable, battery-powerable, and added true reflex viewing and crystal sync).

CP's and Auricons can record sound right onto the film (single-system sound) but mag-stripe sound film stock isn't made anymore. Some Auricons had optical sound capability that can still record sound-on-film today.

Among "wild" cameras (i.e., non-sync) you'll find the Arri 16s, B&H Filmo, Pentacon, Beaulieu R16, and the Bolexes, among others. Wild cameras have their uses, but there's a reason that everyone shifted to quiet sync cameras. You can try to fudge around the wild camera's limitations (I tried making a homemade blimp for my R16, and it sorta worked...) but eventually you'll say "why am I messing around with this crap? Why not just do it right?"

[Terry_Lasater]

Barry,

Thanks for your straight-shooting advice. I've picked up a few of the points you've made within the last few weeks of online research. However, I didn't have anyone offer the overall insight you've just given. Much appreciated! ;D

I haven't committed to the Arri S/B just yet. I'm glad I read your insight.

Funny thing is...™ I started working at a local CBS affiliate in 1987 at a time when they had made the complete transition from 16mm film to 3/4" video. My second year there I helped with the production of some political spots (1988) that were shot on some of the holdover film cameras the station owned. Anyhow, the director was hand-holding some shots of a candidate for Lieutenant Governor touring the inside of an aluminum products factory when the take-up belt broke on the CP-16. He just had me walk along beside him with my finger turning the pulley on the take-up reel. It worked fine and there were no problems with the film. One of my funnier memories of working with that director who just happened to pass away two weeks ago.

Whod've thunk that would be the same camera recommended to me 17 years later? :)