myfriendimage
Carbonite Member
I hear mojo is what George Lucas was looking for when he was deciding what camera to shoot Star Wars with.
Shall i buy washed out colours of the XL2
- Thread starter hamahona
- Start date
he should have shot it on a DVX.....
myfriendimage
Carbonite Member
TimurCivan said:
haha it seems like thats what this forum is coming too sometimes.
Panasonic mojo is better than Sony/canon mojo anyday of the week....... my fairy godmother says so.
Objective
Objective
I'm not sure what they put in the water here. As alot of you would consider yourselves to be professionals. I think you owe it to everyone to be more objective. The DVX and the XL2 are both very good cameras. Having used both and taken the time to properly setup both I certainly wouldn't slag either camera. I think for the money the DVX is an outstanding product however in all honesty( Owning both cams) the Xl2 does yield better color and clarity in 16:9. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions but wouldn't we learn so much more if we were objective to everything around us. Just because you don't own it doesn't mean it sucks.
Objective
I'm not sure what they put in the water here. As alot of you would consider yourselves to be professionals. I think you owe it to everyone to be more objective. The DVX and the XL2 are both very good cameras. Having used both and taken the time to properly setup both I certainly wouldn't slag either camera. I think for the money the DVX is an outstanding product however in all honesty( Owning both cams) the Xl2 does yield better color and clarity in 16:9. Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions but wouldn't we learn so much more if we were objective to everything around us. Just because you don't own it doesn't mean it sucks.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
:violin: :laugh: You guys crack me up ! Be professional ? How about don't be so sensitive ?
-
If we say we prefer the DVX or that it has that special mojo we are 'slaggin' it or 'basing' on the other camera ?
Get over it ! It's dvxuser.com !
-
Every so often someone ask's:
"Which camera would you say is rockin?" and the majority of us inevitably say 'The DVX of course..' and then it's dog's and cat's living together. :kali: :violent5:
-
Be objective ? I can honestly say I wouold never use the XL2 for anything. Am I allowed to have this opinion ?
-
If we say we prefer the DVX or that it has that special mojo we are 'slaggin' it or 'basing' on the other camera ?
Get over it ! It's dvxuser.com !
-
Every so often someone ask's:
"Which camera would you say is rockin?" and the majority of us inevitably say 'The DVX of course..' and then it's dog's and cat's living together. :kali: :violent5:
-
Be objective ? I can honestly say I wouold never use the XL2 for anything. Am I allowed to have this opinion ?
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
LMAO!
FInally; someone with a sense of humor ! That is the Quote of the Week!
FInally; someone with a sense of humor ! That is the Quote of the Week!
BWAHAHAHA.... Poor smiley, he whole existence is to be burned to death over and over.... sounds kinda like the book of revlations description of hell....
John you are entitled to your own opinion, and certainly have no problem letting people know what it is...What about the person ( New User) that asked the question. I might be wrong here, but the reason they are asking the question on this forum is for an experienced knowledgable answer. To each there own.. I know where to get the truth.
Elton
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
John--it's all good--I do respect your opinion, as I would hope you would respect mine too, but I just have to know what it is you think is so terrible about the XL2?
--The lens? Have you ever played with one with the 16x manual on it? That is an awesome lens with full tactile control. I want one for my H1 despite it not being an "HD " lens according to Canon. Michael's footage proved it's fine in 1080.
--Form factor? Just not small enough to be fun? Too cumbersome? Do you hate the OIS? I'm not sure if the XL2 has it, but the H1 20x has focus controls that are quite nice for accurate racking according to DISTANCE in feet/meters. Just follow the numbers and you're golden.
--The less mojo'd cinegamma's? I've seen you post some great color corrections with Pappas' stuff so I don't understand why you would want it all done in camera anyway?
So, again, I have to ask...where's the beef?
PANA-MAN
Active member
I think what John Hudson is saying is that it's just his opinion. Some people like Fords, some people like Chevys. Both camps swear the others are pieces of utter crap. :furious3: Since I do not have a particular allegiance to any one camera and have shot extensively with both of these cameras I have to say they are both rockin' good machines.
The Panasonic has a rabid following because of its killer 16mm looking footage and I can see that being very alluring to your average indie filmmaker. But truth is both these cameras have pros and cons to them.
The truth is that neither camera is better than the other.
Keep in mind this isn't DVinfo.net, where comparitively, both sides seem to live in relative peace. (great job, Chris H.)
if Canon, Sony, JVC, etc users are going to wander over into this sandbox they have to have to accept the culture.
If it's not acceptable or tolerable, go find another sandbox.:dankk2:
The Panasonic has a rabid following because of its killer 16mm looking footage and I can see that being very alluring to your average indie filmmaker. But truth is both these cameras have pros and cons to them.
The truth is that neither camera is better than the other.
Keep in mind this isn't DVinfo.net, where comparitively, both sides seem to live in relative peace. (great job, Chris H.)
if Canon, Sony, JVC, etc users are going to wander over into this sandbox they have to have to accept the culture.
If it's not acceptable or tolerable, go find another sandbox.:dankk2:
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Let's all be overly sensitive about the issue shall we ? Enough with the comments about water and truths; it shows nothing but a neglect for others opinions
We are all entitled to our own opinion and I would expect everyone to be honest. It just get's old having to remind every one this. My experienced knowledgable answer tells me to get a DVX100.
Sorry to offend (Why this woudl offend I have no idea). I am sure the XL2 has it's use in certain applications but for me it is all DVX all the time.
Elton
Of course ! Of course !
-
Pana-Man just says it perfect. The DVX100 just gives me as close to a sorta 16mm filmic look as I can get.
The XL2 just looks too 'Video-ee' to me. That is it plain and simple.
-
I am sure great thing's can be done with it.
-
The MOJO ? Some cameras have it and some do not. I have yet to see any XL2 footage that has the MOJO. The DVX has it.
For me. Damn it. For me!
(Sounds of people screaming 'John you bastard!')
Elton
Veteran
John_Hudson said:
Okely dokely neighbor.
Gotta hand it to you John, your MOJO mantra is unassailable. A word of terrible beauty and unfathomable awe. It elicits shrieks of delight and gnashing of teeth.
It reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Me:
John:
NNEEE!! NNEE!!
You will bring me...A SHRUBBERY!!! (Mojo)
Last edited:
As someone who has used both cameras literally since the day they were released and someone that still uses both cameras on an almost daily basis let me chime in with my opinion. Some people call it "mojo" I call it "training wheels" That is not an insult to the user it is a compliment to Panny for evening the technical playing field for the hobbyist to moderate user. I can give someone Barry's boox and a DVX and within a DAY they can be getting great images. True DPs and camera nerds can REALLY make the DVX sing with their experience and tweaking.
The XL2 is a very different animal. I would say MOST owners/users are not scratching the surface of what the camera is capable of. It comes out of the box set up to record in the highest detail a very flat image. For the record, an F900 has a default setting that is similar. Green-ish, almost pastel-like muted colors. This can be very frustating to most users, especially combined with the auto functions which in most cases perform average at best.
All that said, as a skilled user I can get images out of the XL2 that are stunning. They can match the color of the DVX but (in 16:9) mode have noticeable more resolution. I just finished a project where 24P XL2 b-roll was cut into a project shot in 720P on a Varicam and an HVX and nobody could tell on the SD master (HD master showed a little softness but it held up well).
The XL2 has several advatages over the DVX but each must come at great cost or require great experience.
- The XL2 takes other lenses. I show up to shoots with the 3X wide, the 16X manual, the 20X OIS and a CPO Fisheye adapter. Those extra lenses are over $2K.
- The XL2 can achieve a MUCH smaller DOF than the DVX because of the lens is much longer, at 10X-20X the DOF can be TINY, this takes experience to pull off and to manually control the focus on the XL OIS lenses which are not unlike playing a fretless bass.
- The XL2 allows more extensive image controls and with the new FREE Bluebarn preset software you can download looks or email looks and load them to your camera via firewire. At least once a week someone contacts me with a frame grab and I send them a set-up for their camera to achieve such. The only downside to this, is that the XL2 community is fairly small. It is also PC only for now.
- Lastly, the XL2 has more resolution, a LOT more in 16:9 mode and can record more detail to tape and ANY 1/3" CCD SD camera. If you set the knee to low and the blacks to stretch the XL2 will delver detail across almost all ranges of highlights and shadows. The better resolution is one thing that simple cannot be compensated for, it cannot be fixed in post, it cannot be faked.
Both cameras are great and each have strengths but the XL2 is dismissed far too often...mostly by people who have never used one or seen what it is really capable of.
ash =o)
The XL2 is a very different animal. I would say MOST owners/users are not scratching the surface of what the camera is capable of. It comes out of the box set up to record in the highest detail a very flat image. For the record, an F900 has a default setting that is similar. Green-ish, almost pastel-like muted colors. This can be very frustating to most users, especially combined with the auto functions which in most cases perform average at best.
All that said, as a skilled user I can get images out of the XL2 that are stunning. They can match the color of the DVX but (in 16:9) mode have noticeable more resolution. I just finished a project where 24P XL2 b-roll was cut into a project shot in 720P on a Varicam and an HVX and nobody could tell on the SD master (HD master showed a little softness but it held up well).
The XL2 has several advatages over the DVX but each must come at great cost or require great experience.
- The XL2 takes other lenses. I show up to shoots with the 3X wide, the 16X manual, the 20X OIS and a CPO Fisheye adapter. Those extra lenses are over $2K.
- The XL2 can achieve a MUCH smaller DOF than the DVX because of the lens is much longer, at 10X-20X the DOF can be TINY, this takes experience to pull off and to manually control the focus on the XL OIS lenses which are not unlike playing a fretless bass.
- The XL2 allows more extensive image controls and with the new FREE Bluebarn preset software you can download looks or email looks and load them to your camera via firewire. At least once a week someone contacts me with a frame grab and I send them a set-up for their camera to achieve such. The only downside to this, is that the XL2 community is fairly small. It is also PC only for now.
- Lastly, the XL2 has more resolution, a LOT more in 16:9 mode and can record more detail to tape and ANY 1/3" CCD SD camera. If you set the knee to low and the blacks to stretch the XL2 will delver detail across almost all ranges of highlights and shadows. The better resolution is one thing that simple cannot be compensated for, it cannot be fixed in post, it cannot be faked.
Both cameras are great and each have strengths but the XL2 is dismissed far too often...mostly by people who have never used one or seen what it is really capable of.
ash =o)
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Thank you Ash for giving our original poster some solid data. But allow me, to be me. :laugh: And I speak purely from the indie low-budget filmmaker viewpoint and not from a ducumentary, news gathering ENG type of shooter.
True Dp's and Nerd's can definately make the DVX100 sing gloriously. True DP's and Nerd's can make a Hi-8 1 CCD look great. But as far as the average user picking up BG's book and in a day making great pictures? You wish. Run over to the Framegrabs and let's start making notes. The DVX100 has MOJO. In the right hands it is perfect. I don't think the DVX has so much leveled the playing field moreso than DV Cameras as a whole; the PD-150, VX2000 and the mighty XL1 (God bless her soul) .
Each of these cameras is shite in the wrong hands. Give an average person an ARRI 535 and you got nada. Give Vilmos a HI-8 Handy Cam and you have an Oscar contender.
I hear the Canon Pimps say alot "The XL2 has many buttons to learn....' as if the DVX should be faulted for it's built in studness.
I have also always felt the XL2 is lacking something in the 24 cadence. Yes, everyone tells me 'It is the same' as the DVX100 but I don't know. Like the Beatle's song 'Something' in the way she moves' the DVX attracts me like no other.
I agree with that assessment. Most users are not scratching the surface. In fact, the amount of footy I have seen from the XL2 that is killer is minute. I would love to see more footy that is representative of what the camera can do. Anyone ? Bueller ? Bueller ? Frye ?
I have seen a few work's I have enjoyed, but let's see this footage ! Please ! I hear people say this all the time ! 'My footy is great !' but never see any. The footy earlier posted in this thread was not poster child material was it ?
From form to function, I agree with the bullet points you listed and cannot compete. The XL2 has some nice features I wish they would consider putting into future DVX / HVX's. I suppose that is what second accessory items like the M2's are for. I do question the XL2's Iris Steps Dial ? How's that working out ?
I also really like the wide on the DVX100.
Holding back comment.
The pixel count is indeed greater than that of the DVX100. But is neglible, isn't it ? It's SD to SD.
I have never used one but have seen a ton of work from it and still am waiting to be blown away. The XL2 does have a lot going for it and has it's practical uses lined up. But the last word is, as much as everyone tries to emulate the look the DVX100 seems to inherently have in it, no one is trying to make their DVX look like an XL2.
True Dp's and Nerd's can definately make the DVX100 sing gloriously. True DP's and Nerd's can make a Hi-8 1 CCD look great. But as far as the average user picking up BG's book and in a day making great pictures? You wish. Run over to the Framegrabs and let's start making notes. The DVX100 has MOJO. In the right hands it is perfect. I don't think the DVX has so much leveled the playing field moreso than DV Cameras as a whole; the PD-150, VX2000 and the mighty XL1 (God bless her soul) .
Each of these cameras is shite in the wrong hands. Give an average person an ARRI 535 and you got nada. Give Vilmos a HI-8 Handy Cam and you have an Oscar contender.
I hear the Canon Pimps say alot "The XL2 has many buttons to learn....' as if the DVX should be faulted for it's built in studness.
I have also always felt the XL2 is lacking something in the 24 cadence. Yes, everyone tells me 'It is the same' as the DVX100 but I don't know. Like the Beatle's song 'Something' in the way she moves' the DVX attracts me like no other.
I agree with that assessment. Most users are not scratching the surface. In fact, the amount of footy I have seen from the XL2 that is killer is minute. I would love to see more footy that is representative of what the camera can do. Anyone ? Bueller ? Bueller ? Frye ?
I have seen a few work's I have enjoyed, but let's see this footage ! Please ! I hear people say this all the time ! 'My footy is great !' but never see any. The footy earlier posted in this thread was not poster child material was it ?
From form to function, I agree with the bullet points you listed and cannot compete. The XL2 has some nice features I wish they would consider putting into future DVX / HVX's. I suppose that is what second accessory items like the M2's are for. I do question the XL2's Iris Steps Dial ? How's that working out ?
I also really like the wide on the DVX100.
Holding back comment.
The pixel count is indeed greater than that of the DVX100. But is neglible, isn't it ? It's SD to SD.
I have never used one but have seen a ton of work from it and still am waiting to be blown away. The XL2 does have a lot going for it and has it's practical uses lined up. But the last word is, as much as everyone tries to emulate the look the DVX100 seems to inherently have in it, no one is trying to make their DVX look like an XL2.