Exodus

[PANA-MAN]

Link good. website back up!!! :thumbsup:

[Shiloh Arts]

site not available message...what's up with that?

[Hectorxd]

yeah, not much of a forum going on over there. thats why everyone should stick with dvxuser.com :)

[PANA-MAN]

Sadly enough it appears the website got pulled. What timing! Oh, well...

[Isaac_Brody]

Oh the irony...:evil:

[PANA-MAN]

Yeah, bad timing. Even kind of sad, actually.
But, no more sadder than the deafening silence coming from yourself or many of the other XL2 protractors when it comes to icicle22's DVX/XL2 comparison you've all been so vocal about wanting to see.
Now that may not be irony. But is sure is darned funny.
:laugh:

[Isaac_Brody]

Ok...

I actually hadn't seen Icicle's comparison till you mentioned it. I'm glad Icicle posted that. It's obvious that the XL2 is a great camera in the right hands. That piece was well lit with good production value. I still think it just takes a lot more post production time to get what the DVX produces in camera.

I don't see why XL2 users need to have their own seperate website, maybe you don't feel welcome here? And it doesn't seem like a good move to post about that here.

[icicle22]

Yeah, bad timing. Even kind of sad, actually.
But, no more sadder than the deafening silence coming from yourself or many of the other XL2 protractors when it comes to icicle22's DVX/XL2 comparison you've all been so vocal about wanting to see.
Now that may not be irony. But is sure is darned funny.
:laugh:

LMAO. It did seem odd that when poor XL2 footage is posted it gets bashed out the wazoo and the thread gets about 5000 posts to dog it and sing the praises of the DVX and its mojo. But when it's in a piece with the DVX and both are looking mighty good nobody has anything to say.

I found it odd that nobody who claimed to want to see XL2 and DVX100 intercut even commented on it.

[Isaac_Brody]

Honestly, that footage posted was alright. In a lighting situation like that it's much easier to match footage with stroby lights. I thought the editor did a pretty good job of matching, but when I watch that piece something about it doesn't quite mesh properly. It looks good, but it just doesn't match.

Icicle, you already commented about how terrible lighting makes both cams look like shite, and I agree with that. But I bet that just shooting an outdoor scene with a dvx and Xl2 in decent light won't match well, not without a lot of post work, and even then it still won't gel. Which is fine since the XL2 has it's own look, and it behaves like a video camera, which it is.

[PANA-MAN]

Isaac

As I stated in my post DVXuser has some great, knowledgable folks on it.
I merely mentioned a website that XL2 users could go to (which is back up by the way) without having to here comments like: "looks like video" "looks pastey" "gamma curve not superior to the DVX", etc...
Think about it, no one here bags on the DVX for having a shorter zoom, fixed lens, or 16:9 "squeezemode" instead of true 16:9.
And you know why? Because who cares? These are fairly minor things. Just like the things about the XL2 are minor.
As far as the comment I made not being a good move, in what way?
The moderators on this website appear level headed and mature enough not to get their feathers ruffled by what was a fairly innocuous comment.
After all, this is called DVXuser. com. Why in the world is it such a bad thing to go somewhere and not have to here negative comments about your equipment?
As far as icicle22's comparison goes, the footage matches well enough that you wouldn't be able to tell what camera did what. And that was the primary purpose of the experiment.
And I'm sure in ANY type of lighting, good or bad it could be made to match closely.
I really need to do a project mixing both of my cameras myself but currently use the XL2 and DVX for different things.
Not because one is better than the other, just because I simply like, as I'm sure you do, making movies, or in your case, the important and I'm sure rewarding documentary work you do as evidenced by your website.
Can't we just be filmmakers, videographers and documentarians for once and squash all (myself included) the off-handed comments about the equipment we use?
Okay, looong post...and it's the end of the day.
Have one or two on me, mate.

:beer: :beer:

[Isaac_Brody]

Pana,

We're all here for the same reason, to learn, improve, and give back to the community. I hope you post XL2 footage. It's a different look, a different tool, and another option for all of us. I agree that the off-handed comments don't help at all. It would be better to focus and help people improve on the films posted instead of berate the camera used, and I'll try and do that more.

:beer::beer:

[icicle22]

But I bet that just shooting an outdoor scene with a dvx and Xl2 in decent light won't match well, not without a lot of post work, and even then it still won't gel. Which is fine since the XL2 has it's own look, and it behaves like a video camera, which it is.

I don't want to jump to conclusions here but was this a sarcastic cut on the XL2? It behaves like a video camera? If it was not a sly insult I apologize, but the last time I checked the DVX was not shooting with film. It may have a slightly better built-in gamma curve but without post work on both they still look like video.

EDIT: I don't think there has ever been any doubt that the DVX and XL2 straight off the camera will not match very well. I thought the theory was that they could be matched relatively well in post. That is what this is all about. And for what it is worth The stuff you say in the video that doesn't match or look right is still more of a result of differences in lighting and not in camera. That plays into it but is not anywhere near the factor that lighting played.

[KingVidiot]

the XL2 has it's own look, and it behaves like a video camera, which it is.

So is the DVX, last time I checked. What is it with people being brainwashed that ANY video camera can look like film? They don't, ever! The argument is as moot as analog synths vs. digital. They're all good, and they're all different. Anyone who pretends that one can act just like the other is insane. If you want the coveted film look, spend some dough and shoot film. If you want the warm fat sounds, use an analog synth. This is beginning to feel like being in a sandbox.




I merely mentioned a website that XL2 users could go to (which is back up by the way)

Which site is in question? I would like to see it for myself.

[Isaac_Brody]

Icicle, you're saying that lighting played a factor in both cams not matching perfectly, and yet you originally posted that to say that both cams can match well. It sounds like you're saying that what you posted isn't the best example of the two cams matching well. Is that what you're saying?

I thought this argument was done and we were moving on, but I think you guys are being a little sensitive. KingVidiot, I don't consider myself brainwashed when it comes to both cams. As I mentioned two posts up, they're just tools, both have different looks, and both look like crap in the wrong hands.

Everyone needs to chill, this is the screengrabs section and we're having this stupid argument, when in actuality I think we're all in agreement.

Instead of continuing this here how about PMing me personally if you want to talk about this further?

[icicle22]

Isaac Brody,
I am "not" claiming that the DVX and XL2 don't match up well because of lighting. I am claiming that the shots in that piece that don;t match up are because of lighting regardless of camera. In other words DVX clips shot in the better lit room don't match up as well to DVX clips shot in the larger "stage" room because of the fall off in creative lighting. This entire piece could well be all DVX and you would see differences in the scenes because of that. The XL2 is the same. It doesn't match up as well with other XL2 footage shot in the lesser lighting environment.

I stand by the fact that XL2 and DVX can be cut together when they are both in the same lighting environment. But come on......even the DVX in a well lit studio environment vs. the DVX in darker hall setting is going to look different. When you color correct the well lit stuff you can really push it to get film-like characteristics from it. The dark, not well lit DVX footage can't be pushed as much and therefore you can really only hope to make it look better. So when you cut between the 2 you see a difference. That is what I am saying.

I feel this is what you are seeing when you say the video is inconsistent. Not differences in camera.

If this piece was edited to only show the best lit portions you would probably not see the varying degrees of quality that you are claiming. However it is edited for content, not for showing only the best lit footage.

Edit: FWIW I think discussing this stuff constructively about this clip and about XL2 and DVX is fine in the context of this thread. I don't see any reason to take this to PM's unless it starts to get out of hand with flaming.

[PANA-MAN]

So is the DVX, last time I checked. What is it with people being brainwashed that ANY video camera can look like film? They don't, ever! The argument is as moot as analog synths vs. digital. They're all good, and they're all different. Anyone who pretends that one can act just like the other is insane. If you want the coveted film look, spend some dough and shoot film. If you want the warm fat sounds, use an analog synth. This is beginning to feel like being in a sandbox.




Which site is in question? I would like to see it for myself.

KingVidiot, the link is below. Like I said before they don't get much action there, a lot of the posts are pretty old. Hopefully that will change.

http://www.thexl2.com/

[PANA-MAN]

Pana,

We're all here for the same reason, to learn, improve, and give back to the community. I hope you post XL2 footage. It's a different look, a different tool, and another option for all of us. I agree that the off-handed comments don't help at all. It would be better to focus and help people improve on the films posted instead of berate the camera used, and I'll try and do that more.

:beer::beer:


Agreed, my filmmaking bretheren. I'm in pre-production on a short and have some footage of test lighting on some futuristic weapons I made. I'm considering using fluorescents only because I want want a cold, harsh look for a particular scene. I've shot lots of footage....never posted it before. Anyone know where to go so I can get that up? :shocked:

[KingVidiot]

Thanks PANA-MAN, I've been there before. It's too bad that it's not well used. The XL2 forum here isn't bad, but also not very active.
DVinfo.net has a bunch more stuff and 2-pop started out OK but seems more like theXL2.com as far as activity.

Isaac, I wasn't being sensitive or critical of the people here, but it always sounds like the old Mac vs. PC or analog vs. digital arguments that have been going-on forever. I'm no fan of the harsh video look either, but in cases like Open Water I was able to enjoy parts of the narrative in spite of the poor quality interlaced picture. Hell, I used to shoot things on Super8 that looked like crap, but weren't bad from a production or story standpoint.

However, for nature stuff, the video image can look very nice since it is closer to how our retinas percieve the world than film is capable of doing in both contrast and frame rate (actually we see up to 60 fps). Just watch some Discovery channel stuff on HD video, and you will be tempted to touch the screen since it looks so damn real.