XL2 Camera test

[Chayse_Irvin]

Thought I might repost this so to give some life to the forum mb. I've done some more work on the Colours.
http://www.chayseirvin.com/video/loco.mov

[adamblakecarver]

I really like this. This video was the main factor in allowing me to bring the xl-2 into the race and convincing me to rent the camera before i decided to buy either it or the dvx-100a. I'll be purchasing the XL-2 in the next month! Great footage. I especially like the tracking shot at the beginning and your adjusted colors!

[Wivellicious]

Is there anything more to this? Is it a test for a short, or was it merely something fun to shoot?

I love the look, and even those few seconds made me wonder what a whole short would be like starring that guy.

Good work.

[Chayse_Irvin]

It is a cam test to prep for a short film working on. Im hopeing to get a micro 35 adapter for it, so I will be running test when that comes in, and we will also running motion control and compositing tests.

[ecking]

That shit looks cool man, real interesting, I have a dvx but I've always liked the xl2, u just reminded me why

[J.R. Hudson]

Ecking

You are aware the beauty of this shot is from Chayse himself? This isn't a DVX / XL2 issue but the skills of Mr. Irwin.

[dvpixl]

couldn't agree more, dont mess with the DVX like that.

Irvin, where'd you hide those lights? :shocked:

[J.R. Hudson]

If aything this should remind Ecking to practice.

[Chayse_Irvin]

Honestly... DVX blows XL2 out of the water. XL2 is too dumbed down menu/image in-camera control wise, the manual zoom sucks, it doesn't have a LCD, its bulky, its too expensive and so are its accessory's... You could easily get this same image if not better out of the DVX. It was all Digital Colour grading in layers in FCP. Even did fake depth of field work with blurring effects.

Somehow I've been lucky enough to get trained to do digital colour grading using DaVinci 4k/2k at Rainmaker here in Vancouver, and I have also been lucky in the fact that I get free grip and lighting gear because work as a light repair guy at William f. Whites. I also work as a iaste lamp op on features in vancouver where I learnt how to hide lights and the power going to them. But my background and passion are cameras and in my opinion the DVX kills the XL2. I would get the DVX and a Guerilla35/Micro35/Mini35 system over a XL2 any day. When is that HVX coming out anyways... you guys should save up for that and the mini 35 + prime lens package.

[dvpixl]

damn.

[Pais]

Cool! My only (technical) comment is that there are some noticeable interlacing artifacts in the brief sped-up clip. Other than that, I like the 'feel' -- but if you prefer the DVX, why did you use the XL2? Just curious ...

[J.R. Hudson]

We need to get you and Ash in the same thread (Check the XL2 Main thread). That would be a nice debate!

[AshG]

People are never objective in general, even when something shot on the camera they are not a fanboy of looks good, they have to find some reason to rip it up. If you think DVX blows away the XL2 you are merely ignorant, surprising given your skill and general knowledge. Why dont you just say you like it better? Blows it away? PSH!


ash =o)

[J.R. Hudson]

Heh heh heh heh

Predicatable response Ash


Look man. You're running around pointing fingers and screaming "Fanboy Fanboy Fanboy!" when as I already stated "Don't be bitter because we choose the DVX."
Now you're calling out 'Ignorant!' because someone has an opinion that is contradciting your own?

For many of us the DVX100 does 'blow away' the XL2. Let me repeat and rephrase for your graspage:

For many of us, given our needs and particular desires the DVX100 blows the piss out of the Canon XL2. It blows it to another planet in most respects. For us, Ash. It is merely our opinion. For many of us the opinion we carry is that we would not fathom using the XL2; for our needs.

Don't take it so personal. It's a machine. It's a tool. Ford/Chevy, Mac/PC, Black & Decker/Stanley........

The DVX Kills the XL2. To me. To some other's it's the XL2 that is the bomb. Who cares? It's an opinion. Please don't resort to yelling "Fanboy's!" and "Ignorant!" when there really isn't a need to. You're the one that sound's like your on the Crusade.


Choose the camera that is best for you and be happy with it.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1034/fanboy0jw.jpg

[Jay Rodriguez]

Wow, that small clip is powerful in many ways! I love the look that you birthed and the music with it is fantastic. Lighting IMO is 100% excellent.

Creatively, I think it would of been so freaking cool if at the end during your dolly pull out (is that how you say it?) you revealed someone tied up in a chair to his right. But overall, wow!

[Jay Rodriguez]

oh and as for the XL2/DVX battles, I love the DXV but the XL2 was my first love..... ;)

[AshG]

Well, I use both, and objectively, they each have their good point and bad. I just hear DVX users all the time saying things that make no sense. If you want a small camera, that is great but just because a camera is bigger doesnt mean it sucks, I mean, does the SDX900 suck?

I have no problem with someone saying something is better for their own needs but this often is not the case, when someone says "XL2 or DVX" you generally have post like "DVX OWNZ" "XL2 SUX" "DVX IS THS SHIZZ"

When I say ignorant, I dont mean stupid and I am not insulting anyone. It is a matter of fact that most people disparaging the Canon XL series have either NEVER used it or used it so little, they were not able to form a legitimate opinion of its capabilities.

The DVX is wonderful in that regard, within a few hours of use you can get most the benefit of the camera. It then adds custom controls that can grow with the operator. There are no training wheels on the XL2 and people who fall off on the first few rides, should not dismiss it so quick....



ash =o)

[J.R. Hudson]

"DVX IS THE SHIZZZ" L M A O . That's funny.

"Within a few hours you can get most of the benefits from the DVX?" Let's not confuse the young-uns less they assume its a plug and play camera. I personally have never used the XL2 but having more 'nobs and buttons and things' doesnt automatically make it 'cooler and more pro'. I dont recall any training wheels on the DVX when I opened the box for the first time.

I'm thinking it's a wonderful thing the DVX100 has the Voodoo built in. Let's all think about it; its from the makers of the Varicam and the SDX900; heeellloooooooo?

Honestly I am still waiting for that Magic XL2 footage. One thing I do see alot of is people saying "It's a cool camera that does the trick.." but someone, somewhere please show me some footage. It has its uses for sure; but I have YET to see footage that blows me away. Someone show me it please?!

I dont know about being bigger. I wish I could use my DVX shoulder style personally.

[disjecta]

Man, my heart just starts pumping at an unbelieveable clip when Hudson gets going. I love it :)

I prefer the DVX because it has more of an organic feel to it (typical of film) than the XL2 which looks much more like digital to me.

The best example of XL2 footage is right on this forum, the cleverly named thread "Homage to Disjecta"... as it so happens. :)

[Isaac_Brody]

Ash, I hope you post a little of the 5000 hours of dv you've shot. I have to admit that imagewise I'm pretty biased for the dvx. Perhaps that's because I haven't seen any footage from the XL2 that absolutely blew me away.

I think the best way to "objectively" convince people is to put up the footage that will blow the dvx away, or at least shutup the fanboys. If you can do that...:beer:

People keep saying that they can replicate the dvx look in post, but no one ever backs up that statement with footage. C'mon Xl2 people, post some stuff.

[MattC]

I think this footage here is outstanding, myself. But I like that look a great deal. That's another whole issue to the equation, what "look" are you after...

[Chayse_Irvin]

I never said the XL2 sucks. I said it's manual zoom sucks... and if your here to stick up for it's shitty zoom I should be the one calling you ignorant.

[icicle22]

I never said the XL2 sucks. I said it's manual zoom sucks... and if your here to stick up for it's shitty zoom I should be the one calling you ignorant.

The Xl2 itself does not have shitty zoom. The 20x lens "in your opinion" might but the XL2 doesn't. The 16x manual has a real zoom. And once again "shitty" is subjective. What if what you really need for a particular shot is a really slow creeping zoom or pullback? The 20x lens has a super great slow zoom for just that. The DVX has a decent one but this one crawls like a slug...almost undetectable. I don't think that is shitty.

The fact is that you can change the lens on the XL2 if you don't like the stock lens. In fact the zoom on the 16x manual feels just like the DVX. You can engage and disengage the zoom motor at you leisure. Like Gibby says in all of his threads.....different brushes for different canvases.

For what it is worth I don't see any DVX footage showing up that blows my mind. IT looks really good but 99% of that is the cinematography and DP. Not the camera. Also.....we have all started to become "used to" the 24P look. I am no longer blown away just by any old 24P footage. The majority of footage from the XL2 has been tests in peoples back yard or fly by the seat of your pants demos. In contrast is the DVX clips that are part of full productions and have significant talent working in fornt of and behind the camera.

I guess at this stage of the game I can't imagine what kind of footage would actually blow anyone away!

[J.R. Hudson]

True Ice

For me it has GOT to have that 24p Cadence. It just has too. Period. Thats where it starts. I cant even look at 60i anymore. Even on the news it pisses me off.

And its true; the Director and/or DP is the person making the magic happen. Maybe its just that we have seen more with the DVX? Maybe its become the choice camera for indie filmmaking and this is what we are associating it with?

Rich's Video to this day blows me away. Dman's nature footage always impresses me. Novemeber looks sharp obviosly (I havent seen it on filmout yet).

Still; there's still a kind of pasty/translucence to the XL2 for me. And I dont care what anyone says (Even Barry Green; Cue Thunder Roll) the 24p motion on the XL2 seems off to me. I dont know; its more like 30p or something....?

(The circle begins again...)

[icicle22]

John...just a little note...

I intercut DVX100 (non A) and Xl2 footage on a 90 minute project and the cadences are identical.....side by side you cannot tell one from the other (A-B edits on the entire piece). I however had the XL2 at default sharpness (too sharp). That jumps out at you and tells you which was the XL2. I applied a .5 gaussian blur to the XL2 and crushed the blacks a little, boosted the saturation and the 2 are almost identical. Unfortunately this was a live event lit for a "stage" and does not show off either camera to their fullest extent. But the 24p cadence looks spot on.

[Isaac_Brody]

Show us a short clip. People keep saying that you can intercut them and match them identically, but I don't believe you. Show a clip...:)

[Chayse_Irvin]

So i have to buy a 16x manual zoom lens to get a good maunal zoom shot?... thats weak. I guess I was ignorant. But now I'm even more disapointed in the camera.

The Xl2 itself does not have shitty zoom. The 20x lens "in your opinion" might but the XL2 doesn't. The 16x manual has a real zoom. And once again "shitty" is subjective. What if what you really need for a particular shot is a really slow creeping zoom or pullback? The 20x lens has a super great slow zoom for just that. The DVX has a decent one but this one crawls like a slug...almost undetectable. I don't think that is shitty.

The fact is that you can change the lens on the XL2 if you don't like the stock lens. In fact the zoom on the 16x manual feels just like the DVX. You can engage and disengage the zoom motor at you leisure. Like Gibby says in all of his threads.....different brushes for different canvases.

For what it is worth I don't see any DVX footage showing up that blows my mind. IT looks really good but 99% of that is the cinematography and DP. Not the camera. Also.....we have all started to become "used to" the 24P look. I am no longer blown away just by any old 24P footage. The majority of footage from the XL2 has been tests in peoples back yard or fly by the seat of your pants demos. In contrast is the DVX clips that are part of full productions and have significant talent working in fornt of and behind the camera.

I guess at this stage of the game I can't imagine what kind of footage would actually blow anyone away!

[J.R. Hudson]

icicle22

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT TOO! (Sorry Caps)

I wonder if it is the sharpness on the XL2? What is it? Damn it!

I believe you about cadence being identical (Even Barry testifies that one) I just need to know exactly what is making it 'off'

Is it the motion blur? Is it the gamma? No one can deny it looks entirely different? (It is a good look but indeed different MattC) Is it those damn fluorite thingy lenses Canon has? What damn it?!

Sorry. Rant.

[MattC]

Yes, the 20X does have a great auto zoom (real slow) and yes, it sucks royally to use it in manual mode, that's why I have the 16X lens. And yes, I know you can get used to it, you can get used to sex with a condom, but it still sucks...

I think that this clip and the Hawaii footage that Dman mentions are as nice as anything I've seen come from the DVX. Not the same maybe, but certainly as nice. I happen to think that this clip is simply outstanding.

But let me be clear on why I don't really care about the camera so much and why I recommend the DVX for certain things and the XL2 for certain things - I think both cameras, when used in a "point and shoot" fashion (which is how 95% of the clips grabs I see here and elswhere are done) they both look like crap. And I certainly don't see much "MOJO" in the DVX then. Now, when I look at Dman's stuff? UBER MOJO. So is it the camera? Well, yeah, in part a least, but WAY more of it is about HOW it's shot. This clip here is fantastic. It's fantastic artistically in the lighting, the dolly shot, the art direction, the color timing - it really is quite good and to me that's what makes it filmic. My XL2 footage certainly doesn't look that good yet. Why would I believe that if I bought a DVX it would all of a sudden be great? It wouldn't.... But as I learn, as I grow, yeah, my shit will become more an more filmic, because I will be incorporating all of those principals that make a film more than an image captured on celluloid.

All of that said, John, you are a fanboy! :-) And I love you for it man!!! You're consistent! Seriously, the DVX is a great camera, it offered low budget indie filmmakers groundbreaking technology and the company supports the hell out of it's user base. Why wouldn't a DVX owner be a "fanboy"??? But you sometimes have to step back and see the merits of other equipment and the shortcoming of your own, it's how progress gets made. If you check out some of what Ash is posting on DVInfo regarding the XL2 (the dude does know video) he's coming up with some good stuff. I'll reserve final judgment until I see clips, but it's encouraging to see the camera being used by folks who can really do something with it, because this is how we'll know what the limitations are.

I don't know how you they'll intercut either, Isaac, that is something I'm dying to see as well. My instinct tells me that the only way to do it, is if it is a highly stylized shot, but I don't really know.

Matt

[Barry_Green]

And I dont care what anyone says (Even Barry Green; Cue Thunder Roll) the 24p motion on the XL2 seems off to me. I dont know; its more like 30p or something....?

Ooooh, John, I don't think you oughta said that, 'cause I can put you to the test. I believe I have a whole bunch of side-by-side XL2 and DVX footage that's identical subjects (from the 3-way test). I should put together some segments and make you pick which ones are the DVX and which ones are the XL2, just from cadence! :evil:

[MattC]

Sharpness is HUGE on the XL2 - I'm taking to disabling it entirely... It is just WAY over the top. Also, shooting with a very slight diffusion filter makes a big difference I'm finding. To me it is the sharpness more than the gamma that throws the XL2 footage "off" for me...

[icicle22]

So i have to buy a 16x manual zoom lens to get a good maunal zoom shot?... thats weak. I guess I was ignorant. But now I'm even more disapointed in the camera.

WTF? YOu don't have to buy anything! IF I complain about the DVX having a poor 16x9 and someone suggests the 16x9 anamorphic adapter as a workaround should I come in here and say " thats just weak". JUst because the DVX has a built in manual zoom doesn't mean the Xl2 automatically has one. The truth is if that was a priority for you then you should not have been using the stock lens.

16x9 was my priority so I went with the Xl2. I invested in the manual lens for just those occasions where I need full manual everything.....including zoom.

If I had purchased the DVX I would not have come on these boards bitching because it doesn't have a 20x zoom or higher res 16x9 when I kenw damn well ahead of time what to expect. If manual zoom is so important why use the Xl2 with the stock lens? Really?

Your footage looks great. I love all of it. And I seriously doubt it would have looked any better or worse with the DVX. Maybe you could have done a few more manual zoom shots or something.....but overall it looks great.

I guess I don't see why you feel the need to bash the Xl2 so much when you obviously got great results with it.

[Isaac_Brody]

Barry could put together a DVX/Xl2 blind test. We could have a poll with about ten options to decide which is which to see if people can tell the difference.

[J.R. Hudson]

Barry has educated me once before on the 'perceived XL2 cadence' I seem to have. He has set me straight in the past as he is doing now.

I wonder if it is the Sharpness then as MattC suggests?

I guess I am a fanboy. LOL Fine. I admit it. Bastids! But but but........

I hate to go back to this particular one; 28 Days Later; shot on the XL1 and it is simply a wonderful film. Content is king. Content is king. Content is king.

Let me ask you? If going to DVD then take out sharpness on XL2 right? What about going to filmout which would eventually go to DVD?

[MattC]

Well there's the rub, now isn't it. When I was at Able Cinetech the guys there suggest that if going to a film out - or more precisely to be "blown up" to 35mm - leave it sharp as that will be good when shown on the big screen (and they seem to really like the XL2 for that purpose) They went on to suggest that it would have an added benefit when using the mini35 which also softens the image. Ok fine, but I'm not doing either of those things so for me I think the sharpening has to be turned down, er.. OFF.

You make a good point about the flourite lens, I do think the 20X lens is sharper than my 16X manual lens. I can't prove this (nor would I know how) but it is how it feels to me. And by the way, sometimes that's good. I mean if you're shooting footage for "News at 11" it provides a great image, but for narrative stuff, I think the 16X manual has a nicer feel to the image. But I could be smoking crack on this one...

Chayse: Dude, that's the whole point of the camera. I don't see why some folks don't get that? If you don't want to buy additional lenses, this is not the cam for you. The 20X lens gives you some great advantages, like OIS that is to die for and a great auto zoom. So you use that lens for those things, if you want manual, you can put a really, really nice manual lens on it. That's the point of a system camera, no?

Matt

[MattC]

And yeah, I think the "oversharpness" affects the perceived motion blur and that, might affect how the cadence looks. Again, I have no scientific evidence to back this up other than to say when I shoot with the sharpness of or diffusion, it looks more film like to me.

[Chayse_Irvin]

IF I complain about the DVX having a poor 16x9 and someone suggests the 16x9 anamorphic adapter as a workaround should I come in here and say " thats just weak".

Sounds like a fair complaint to me.

I have no problem with the XL2's footage. In this case it looks just as good as DVX and vice-versa. Menu/image in-camera control, manual zoom, LCD, size, costliness are the factors I asses when shooting with a camera... with those facts... DVX blows XL2 out of the water with a big fat cannonball with panasonic written all over it.

http://www.chayseirvin.com/panavscan.jpg

[Chayse_Irvin]

Chayse: Dude, that's the whole point of the camera. I don't see why some folks don't get that? If you don't want to buy additional lenses, this is not the cam for you. The 20X lens gives you some great advantages, like OIS that is to die for and a great auto zoom. So you use that lens for those things, if you want manual, you can put a really, really nice manual lens on it. That's the point of a system camera, no?

Detachable lens are great... and thats one of the coolest things about the XL2. In that respect XL2 smokes DVX. But I wish all their lens had good manual zoom capablities. But in my case I'm stuck without it and it sucks. I miss my DVX :( .

[MattC]

I would seriously look into getting a used manual lens. You also could have bought it with the manual instead of the 20X, but I do think the 20 is nice to have (of course I also think the 3X is nice to have, but I'm crazy like that). I bought mine used, and it's great, hell you might even be able to sell the 20X.

But I have to say, what you did is SO good, I'd think twice about getting rid of anything! No but seriously, your imagery is really, really nice - kudos to you.

Matt

[MattC]

Oh and one more thing John, I have found that for DVD only adding the slightest bit of grain (an almost non-perceivable amount) also helps. I'm not talking about enough so that you say, hey, there's grain - just a tad to soften it. But really with the right lens/setting I think this can be avoided. Then you're left with the gamma issue. The Able guys said if going to film, obviously avoid adding grain at all costs.

[Chayse_Irvin]

I would seriously look into getting a used manual lens. You also could have bought it with the manual instead of the 20X, but I do think the 20 is nice to have (of course I also think the 3X is nice to have, but I'm crazy like that). I bought mine used, and it's great, hell you might even be able to sell the 20X.

But I have to say, what you did is SO good, I'd think twice about getting rid of anything! No but seriously, your imagery is really, really nice - kudos to you.

Matt

I would if I could. But its not my camera. In-fact I don't own any cameras but a old Cannon GL1, so DVX aint a option either. Im really focusing on trying to get the production to buy some 35mm adapter system and a primes kit for the XL2... any suggestions?

[MattC]

Well the only footage I've seen was done with an XL2 with P+S Mini35 and Zeis primes (I think) again at Able. That was truly (for me at least) the holy grail of DV, I mean it looked fantastic. Now, granted, everything else was perfect, I'm sure they had a full crew did tons of post and it was all done by pros, so your (or rather MY) mileage may vary... But that's 10 grand just for the mini35.. Of course you could rent it with the lenses for much less. I see that there are some new options coming up from guys on the boards, I would look into that, although for the XL2 I would prefer one that attached directly to the body and not to one of the lenses.

I read that some cats were using old sets of primes that came out of Russia and were relatively cheap, but I don't know enough about that other than to say you might want to research it.

Matt

[Chayse_Irvin]

Well the only footage I've seen was done with an XL2 with P+S Mini35 and Zeis primes (I think) again at Able. That was truly (for me at least) the holy grail of DV, I mean it looked fantastic. Now, granted, everything else was perfect, I'm sure they had a full crew did tons of post and it was all done by pros, so your (or rather MY) mileage may vary... But that's 10 grand just for the mini35.. Of course you could rent it with the lenses for much less. I see that there are some new options coming up from guys on the boards, I would look into that, although for the XL2 I would prefer one that attached directly to the body and not to one of the lenses.

I read that some cats were using old sets of primes that came out of Russia and were relatively cheap, but I don't know enough about that other than to say you might want to research it.

Matt

Whats the difference between a P+S Mini 35 and a RedRock Micro 35 if I rent cooke primes? $9500? or somthing more valid?

[J.R. Hudson]

Oh and one more thing John, I have found that for DVD only adding the slightest bit of grain (an almost non-perceivable amount) also helps. I'm not talking about enough so that you say, hey, there's grain - just a tad to soften it. But really with the right lens/setting I think this can be avoided. Then you're left with the gamma issue. The Able guys said if going to film, obviously avoid adding grain at all costs.

Honestly I love Grain. Anything that has a filmic emulsion vibe I dig and gain can sometimes help wit htis illusion

[MattC]

Grain is something I'm learning to appreciate in small quantities, but to be honest it's not something I would have normally said I dug. But I am seeing how a very little bit of it can help. I know you like the look of it, but in film today you really don't see much if any grain in the emulsion anymore do you??

Chayse, I'm not qualified to answer that. Hopefully someone else will.

Matt

[icicle22]

Matt...I agree about the 16x lens looking less sharp. I shoot with it almost exclusively and find that I got good results with sharpness at default. When I shot this live event (essentially a play) I knew I was going to have to zoom for some shots and also wanted to do handheld so that I Could easily move around to get more interesting angles, so I chose the 20x. It was a last minute gig and I was not educated on the flow of the play so I was guessing when and where actors woud be at all times. This was not a time for pulling focus and racking so I left the 16x manual in the case.

I was surprised at how sharp the image was. Especially having come from the 16x manual which had been delivering great smooth images. I have since dialed the sharpness back even when using the 16x. IT does look more film like. However sometimes it is great to watch that sharp clean footage on a big scrren TV and be able to say 'Holy crap that looks freaking hi res!" Sorry if this is upsetting to DVX users but the XL2 really seems to capture a heck of a lot more detail than the DVX. However that same detail and clarity also hurt it's apparent filmlook a little too.

[MattC]

Yeah, like I said, if you're shooting news footage the XL2 with the 20X is outstanding, but it is a different look.

EDIT: And yes, it does look amazingly high-res, truly outstanding - but not film like.

[disjecta]

In my experience, it's easier for my eye to get used to perceived lower resolution than to perceive a digital look as film.

XL2 wins in higher perceived resolution.
DVX wins regarding film look.

Just my 2 cents.

[AshG]

Of my 5000 hours of DV, only about 200 is on the XL2 and almost all of it has been DP work for others. I really need to get a reel together, I will try to post some stuff soon. I dont know why it always has to come down to DVX vs XL2. Neither is better for everything.

They DO cut together just fine but you have to increase the contrast on the XL2 and diminsh the detail as well. I find it looks better to use the XL2 as your wide and the DVX as your tight if you plan on cutting them together.

The DVX has a better in-camera cine-gamma color curve, my only complaint is the flaming reds and illegal colors in general. The XL2 is much more suited to interviews, TV or corporate work as the sharpness and increased detail across all ranges lends itself to this kind of work. Of course, this can all be adjusted once you understand the inner-workings of all the settings.

Icicle is correct about the detail. I have posted on this and other forums many times. The detail that the XL2 is capable of is just not possible with a DVX, period, endstop. However, that doesnt make it a better camera. In fact, people are so used to NOT having the detail, it can make the image look flat or milky. When you set the XL2 knee to low and black to stretch, the detail is unrivaled in the 1/3" CCD world. Many people prefer to do this to get the cleanest, clearest image to tape, then adjust in post.

Ultimately, most people ARE going to post with their projects. There you can make anything look like anything, for the most part. That is why framing, composition, lighting, focus control, etc. are WAAAAAAAAAAAY more important than what camera you are using... especially at this level where we are comparing 2 excellent cameras....




ash =o)

[MattC]

disjecta,

I think the increased resolution is real, not just percieved. Am I wrong in this? Personally, I would love to see the stuff you shoot, shot with the XL2. I would think that would be a fantastic application for that camera, especially with an EF lens for increased reach. But different strokes for different folks. Again, I really like your stuff, but I don't think your stuff looks the way it does because it was shot on a DVX.

Matt

[icicle22]

In agreement with Ash on one important thing that all of my production colleagues have always done, even before the XL2. Turn all of the settings that really color or affect the image down to a flat point so we can really tweak in post. Even with the DVX we did this and did all of the curves and looks in post. So for me, when I go to intercut XL2 and DVX we are starting at a very neutral point on both. I am not trying to make the XL2 look like the DVX or vice versa. I am trying to make both look like a particular style that I have decided on. The way I apply curves and levels and saturation to achieve this effect is different for both. But in the end they look the same.

TO be clear I am not saying that I directly make the XL2 look like the DVX. I just use both to achieve a very film-like look.

I can, get the XL2 very close to looking like the DVX. Very close. But the truth is I never leave the DVX footage as is. I always tweak it to get the look I want anyway so for me the point is moot!

Peace!

[Landon D. Parks]

My biggest reson to choose the XL2 over the DVX is the fact that: #1: It has 16:9 Chips, the DVX has 1.33. #2: The XL2 is bigger, and more professional looking than the DVX, which to many looks like a blwon up cosumer deal (at least to me). #3: The Canon has interhangable lenses, the DVX does not. I can ad an EF adapter (thats what its called right?) and use a full range of Canon still lenses on the camera, can't do that on the DVX. #4: 16:9, 4:3 modes and 60i, 30p and 24p are available as "Turnable switch's" right on the side of the camera (aka: No menu to navagate to to get the settings). PLUS, as I said before, a decked out Canon XL2 with a mini35, cine zoom lense, matt box, follow focus, camera mount monitor (7") is gonna look more professional than the same setup in the DVX, if its even possible to get the same setup with the DVX.

Lets face it, when you show up on set with a professional looking camera, people respect, rather they know the difference between miniDV and Plasma TV.... Show up looking like you just came from Circuit city, well, gulp.

Of course, none of my argument is on the looks of the camera image, as I have never worked personally with either camera, and I can only go by the footage I seen on the web here, But I think to say either camera blows either one out of the water is fare fetched... There both MiniDV camcorders, both record 480p, both have the same compression, color space, etc... Why should one camera "produce a better image" than another.

Then again, all the DVX support could be because the name of the forum is DVXuser and not XL2user...

Just my $0.02, let the bashing start...

PS) The P+S tecknik adapter is $6,000.00 new, not $10,000 (minus the lense). I think a nice Nikon Still manual focus lense will serve the purpose for a miniDV camera, theres no need to go and buy Zeiss lenses. BH Has some nice Manual Nikons for $150.00-$300.00/ each (primes), and with the Mini35, you will still get the shallow DOF as you would with a cinema 35mm lense.

[Chayse_Irvin]

Sexyness is important and the XL2 is sexy.

[FindingMattch]

Definitely still looks great, and still reminds me of Boondock Saints lolx.

Good good stuff, great pacing on everything that's going on, the smoking, et cetera, it has a real natural feel to it.

Makes me feel a bit better about having to use an XL1s on a short here at college.

[Spartacus]

OK,
I´m a canon soldier.
But, one thing that REALLY sucks about the XL2 is its viewfinder. If I ever meet that sake-addict who constructed it, i will give him a lesson in all the martial-arts comming from his country.
Again, you can buy a wonderfull b&w viewfinder, but after buying all the accessories for the XL2 (manual and wideangle lens, b&w viewfinder) you need to work comfortable with, you´ll have to compare a 10K(XL2) with a 5K(DVX) camera.
Image wise I always prefer higher resolution compared to out of the box filmlook.
I used the XL2 with the P+S and the image was sometimes to soft for my taste - If the DVX would even be more soft, i just could stop focusing at all and just guess...
I think the "filmic softness" everyone is talking about has a lot to do with DoF, an all-sharp shot will probably look more filmic on the lower res DVX than on the XL2...
Back in the days (just like the phrase, I´m not that old...) we used to blur our footage or even degrade it with analog copying, just to get the videosharpness out...
On the other hand, if you watch any current DVD with superb transfer, close ups will prob. look super sharp - the out of focus BG will give that soft feeling.
well, just my 2 c.

[330ceo]

Irvin got skills! Love this piece.