Shall i buy washed out colours of the XL2

John,

You make some good points overall, and we certainly have our differences of opinion, but one point in particular sticks to me as a bit erroneous.

Saying that resolution doesn't matter in SD is a bit naive, IMHO. I often work with SDX900 footage shot native 16x9, and I notice much more res pop in the image, even in SD. The XL2 is a lot like that. The SDX900 is known to bump up to HD or blow up to film well, and that has a lot to do with higher res CCD's, all other things being equal. When you have an oversampled SD image to begin with, it's always better.

Barry would probably even say that you should shoot in the highest resolution possible even if destined for SD. That's where the DVX's 16x9 really comes up short.

All that said, I still love mine but I use it less and less. Not because it doesn't have MOJO, but because there are other things to consider than it's cinegamma looks.

Panny has the most "magic-bulleted" look of all the cameras, but as someone that enjoys cc in post, I don't consider it to be all that big 'a deal.

btw, enjoyed your post and the pics. Heh, good sense of humor. How'd you find the "stud" picture?
 
But I never said ti did not matter. I said the difference was neglible when comparing SD to SD .

The only point I am making is that for indiependent filmmaking I cannot fathom using an XL2 over a DVX100. All things being equal ? Yes. But they are not equal in my eyes.

IMO .02 Humbly!

-

Stud picture was looking up The Black Stallion, I know better than to Google STUD (heh lol heh)
-

THe pics are really just for sense of humor and I am totally grateful you can take it all wiuth a grain (As I do) of salt. I love debating film and if we all agree then that is one boring conversation
 
I can fathom it..with the XL2 using native 16:9 while the DVX is a 4:3 camera. Makes much more sense to me to use the XL2 for indie film making. But now people will say, "but I can crop the 4:3 DVX image to 16:9". Quite frankly why should you have to. If you want to make a film then get a camera that shoots 16:9. In addition to film making, the XL2 renders a much sharper picture for broadcast.
 
Last edited:
Kidster said:
I can fathom it..with the XL2 using native 16:9 while the DVX is a 4:3 camera. Makes much more sense to me to use the XL2 for indie film making. But now people will say, "but I can crop the 4:3 DVX image to 16:9". Quite frankly why should you have to. If you want to make a film then get a camera that shoots 16:9. In addition to film making, the XL2 renders a much sharper picture for broadcast.
Click to expand...

**John muttering**

...but, but...the mojo.
austinpurplecircles.jpg


JK John! Who luvs ya baby!!
 
Oh and BTW, yes it is 16bit audio.

And John, I'm finishing 4 shorts over the next month and have gotten some really nice pictures, once the directors are done with the footage I'll post them up.
 
Well John, while I certainly respect your opinion add me to the list of people that tell you that you are seeing things if you think the 24P mode of either camera looks different. The motion rendering is identical in every way.

As far as the XL2 for indie films? Many people have chosen it, in fact, most DPs that were coming from already doing movies chose the XL2 over the DVX. It has been debated over the years on the cinematography forums and the consensus THERE was that the XL2 was the better camera for low-budget films based almost exclusively on the native 16:9. That being said, there have overall been more movies shot on the DVX. It has been a great tool for first time film makers and experienced pros alike...

To me the mojo is the price and ease of use. I am not saying someone can be an expert on the DVX in a day. My point is that I can take a decent shooter and have him get good images out of a DVX pretty east. That very same person may require 10X the training to get great stuff out of the XL2.





ash =o)
 
Sorry ash, but this logic makes no sense to me.

If a camera takes 10 times as much work to get a good image out of it, how does that make it as good as the camera that gets good images out of the box?

And im not particularly brand loyal either. i have sony Video cameras, and i prefer canon for still imaging... I like the machine that gets the good images period.

if SONY,CANON,JVC suddenly came out with an SD video camera that beat a DVX into the ground i would drop my DVX, in a heartbeat. But they havent.
 
Maybe it does not make sense to you... fair enough. Why would someone want to buy a canvas and some oil paints when they can get a paint by numbers kit? The higher end cameras in the 2/3" CCD world like the Varicam, SDX900, F900, etc. etc. do not pop out of the box, there are no "F5" settings. They are meant to be tools for skilled DPs, no need to attach training wheels. I said "great" not "good" fyi... the XL2 looks good out of the box, albeit a bit flat. Getting it to look "great" takes a lot more experience than it does to get a DVX to look great.

Quite simply, in the hands of a skilled user and quality DP, the XL2 is capable of producing images the DVX cannot replicate. The reverse is not true.



ash =o)
 
I love the eternal flame of the camera debates and am more than willing to keep the fires stoked (all in good fun I hope guys).

-

The XL2 is too v i d o e y for me. Canon missed something on this one.

-

I have still yet to see XL2 footage that I really liked.

And am still waiting.

-

The DVX100 is no more paint by numbers or magic out of the box than a 16mm camera is; and that ain't a bad thing but I've seen some 'raw' 16mm and damn it loos great. I've seen people submit some really bad DVX footage who had no idea what they're doing and it looks really bad.


Once again; no one is trying to make the DVX look like the XL2.


Please point us in the right direction for optimal examples of XL2 work (I've seen a few I have enjoyed).
 
Elton said:
I can't believe this statement. It may not have the instant gratification of the DVX (Canon's conservative look) but it's sharper and better in low light, and all it needs is a little finessing in post. (try bumping to DVCpro50 and cc'ing) Also, you can put a great manual lens on it (which works well with the H1 too) . That "crappy" lens also has OIS that puts the DVX to shame. Really comes in handy for long telephoto shots. It also has presets so you can repeat focus pulls with good accuracy. Plus, you don't get that tell-tale handheld look of the DVX because you can shoot with shoulder support and OIS.

Plenty of mojo to play with I think. Oh yeah, it's native CCD rez is very close to that of the HVX...and it's 16x9.

How is that not contending? Is a camera only good for its out of the box look?
Click to expand...

The XL2 is superior in low light over the DVX? I remember the 3-way shootout article by Barry Green stating that the DVX is better in that regard. Did I read wrong?

I also remember reading somewhere in the shootout that the OIS does not work (or simply isn't included) with the other lenses for the XL2.

I guess you could always argue that, since the XL2 is more expensive than the DVX; you could spend that extra money you save with the DVX and use it for an external shoulder-mount; so it steadies the shot. Or, get a modified Poor Man's Steadicam ($30-40)! :thumbsup:

As for sharper, that's a sacrafice you make with the DVX. But what do you mean the rez is close to the HVX?

But who really needs long telephoto lenses anyway? (Actually, I'm joking with this statement. But also, I'm speaking from a filmmaker's perspective).

I've never really understood what people meant when they say XL2 requires "more time to work with" to get a better looking image. Can someone describe the process; and how it differs from what you would normally do with the DVX?

It would be nice for someone who owns both cameras (and is unbiased) and also has good knowledge how to work with both of them; to post some footage up side by side so we could see which is "better".

Oh, and what's this whole dvx 102b thing?
 
Last edited:
Oh geez... here we go... the DVX is easy to use... SO WHAT! Why is that offensive to some of you? I had a shoot today where I used BOTH cameras, I have a shoot Monday where I will use BOTH cameras. They both look great but the XL2 requires more skill to manipulate, it requires a deeper understanding of set-up levels and master pedestal adjustments, etc. The DVX is set up out of the box to have poppy colors and more crushed blacks this is at the expense of detail but many many people LOVE the look. Those same people just dont know HOW to get it from an XL2. Again, the DVX is set up for poppy colors and crushed blacks AT THE EXPENSE of detail and AT THE EXPENSE of noise. The XL2 is set up out of the box for maximum detail and minimal noise AT THE EXPENSE of more muted (realistic) colors and AT THE EXPENSE of a more milky image.

For a skilled operator, you can adjust the picture of both cameras to your liking, what you CANNOT do with the DVX is get the same amount of resolution or get rid of the noise (the 100b is a nice improvement in this area)

As far as XL2 footage, most my work is freelance hand off the tapes stuff but I will try to start posting stuff this summer from a couple projects I have more control over. For now, if anyone wants to post a grab, I can tell you exactly how to get that look on an XL2. I have been doing that for quite a while on other forums.



ash =o)
 
AshG said:
Oh geez... here we go... the DVX is easy to use... SO WHAT! Why is that offensive to some of you? I had a shoot today where I used BOTH cameras, I have a shoot Monday where I will use BOTH cameras. They both look great but the XL2 requires more skill to manipulate, it requires a deeper understanding of set-up levels and master pedestal adjustments, etc. The DVX is set up out of the box to have poppy colors and more crushed blacks this is at the expense of detail but many many people LOVE the look. Those same people just dont know HOW to get it from an XL2. Again, the DVX is set up for poppy colors and crushed blacks AT THE EXPENSE of detail and AT THE EXPENSE of noise. The XL2 is set up out of the box for maximum detail and minimal noise AT THE EXPENSE of more muted (realistic) colors and AT THE EXPENSE of a more milky image.

For a skilled operator, you can adjust the picture of both cameras to your liking, what you CANNOT do with the DVX is get the same amount of resolution or get rid of the noise (the 100b is a nice improvement in this area)

As far as XL2 footage, most my work is freelance hand off the tapes stuff but I will try to start posting stuff this summer from a couple projects I have more control over. For now, if anyone wants to post a grab, I can tell you exactly how to get that look on an XL2. I have been doing that for quite a while on other forums.
Click to expand...

I guess some people are offended not necessarily because of the "it's easier to use" statement; but more of the idea that somehow, the DVX gives you less control over the image. But did I seem offended? I just wanted to know what people meant when they say "XL2 requires more skill and work". In fact, I never even read your post until now!

I guessed you kind of clarified it for me a little. But can you show some untampered footage of both the DVX and XL2; so that I can see what you mean when you say the DVX ups the contrast for me? Also, I've noticed that in most cases (maybe all cases); I still need to increase the contrast for the DVX... So it's not as if the detail is totally gone. Also, you mentioned the Master Pedestal setting; what other settings require more skill over the DVX?

AshG said:
The XL2 is set up out of the box for maximum detail and minimal noise AT THE EXPENSE of more muted (realistic) colors and AT THE EXPENSE of a more milky image.
Click to expand...

But, wouldn't this mean that if someone were to crush the blacks of the XL2 footage or increase the contrast; this would increase the noise -- the a similar ammount as seen on the DVX? (This is going by the same logic that by having higher contrast, the DVX results in more noise).

AshG said:
For a skilled operator, you can adjust the picture of both cameras to your liking, what you CANNOT do with the DVX is get the same amount of resolution or get rid of the noise (the 100b is a nice improvement in this area)
Click to expand...

The XL2 does win in the sharpness factor. But, personally, I feel that someday, I will like to update to HD. At first, I felt I made a mistake in the DVX purchase after the HVX came out -- then I found out about the Andromeda. I guess in my case; the luxury to be able to update to HD with the DVX is pretty important. But has the Andromeda been announced for the XL2 in the future?
 
Last edited:
I, for one, an unashamed that the ease of use of the DVX is a god-send. I love it. I'm a newb (but getting close to classifying myself "novice" lol) but I'm getting paying gigs and people have loved the footage. Even the stuff I'm not happy with, clients have loved it. I often manipulate the settings to achieve greater/less contast, shift colors, etc., but I love knowing that if I don't have time for an extensive set-up, I can roll with factory settings and be happy way more often than not. Even in experienced hands, this is invaluable for run and gun verite stuff.

That said, I still hate the fact that the DVX is 4x3. I know the HVX is now an option, but for my purposes, HD is not so important to justify the numerous added costs whereas the added resolution of 16x9 would be super-beneficial. So, I'm very jealous of the xl2's added resolution, but still wouldn't take it over the dvx because, yes, I love the simplicity of the dvx. Not only is it superior for verite, it helps less experienced schmoes like me impress my clients!

I do wonder, though, why the DVX has so many more credits to its name than the XL2? I can see why for docs (the liklihood of the good image with zero set-up), but for narrative films? I have to think that the XL2 is lacking something with respect to a filmic look considering so many narrative features have chosen it over the XL2 - and I'm talking about experienced DP's and directors.

I'm not knowledgable enough to say why and have never used an XL2 personally, but it seems the DVX's gammas might be able to provide a more desired filmic look than even a nerd-tweaked xl2. Why else would more directors/DP's be using it when they could certainly afford the XL2? This month's American Cinematographer has something like four films reviewed shot on the dvx. How many on the XL? I'm happy to be proven wrong, though. I have no loyalty to panasonic beyond loving my DVX. If I had the cash right now and was moving to HD, I'd take the JVC over the HVX, for the record. I'm just glad there are so many cameras available to no-budget indies right now.

I guess my question of the DVX's ubiquity in indie filmmaking is purely academic. I'm genuinely curious why? Maybe I'm wrong, though. Are there films out there being shot on the xl2 that I'm just not hearing about because i'm not at an xl2 site?
 
dustino said:
I do wonder, though, why the DVX has so many more credits to its name than the XL2? I can see why for docs (the liklihood of the good image with zero set-up), but for narrative films? I have to think that the XL2 is lacking something with respect to a filmic look considering so many narrative features have chosen it over the XL2 - and I'm talking about experienced DP's and directors.

I'm not knowledgable enough to say why and have never used an XL2 personally, but it seems the DVX's gammas might be able to provide a more desired filmic look than even a nerd-tweaked xl2. Why else would more directors/DP's be using it when they could certainly afford the XL2? This month's American Cinematographer has something like four films reviewed shot on the dvx. How many on the XL? I'm happy to be proven wrong, though. I have no loyalty to panasonic beyond loving my DVX. If I had the cash right now and was moving to HD, I'd take the JVC over the HVX, for the record. I'm just glad there are so many cameras available to no-budget indies right now.

I guess my question of the DVX's ubiquity in indie filmmaking is purely academic. I'm genuinely curious why? Maybe I'm wrong, though. Are there films out there being shot on the xl2 that I'm just not hearing about because i'm not at an xl2 site?
Click to expand...

It does seem that filmmakers mostly choose to use the DVX; almost like an "industry standard". Who knows; I've yet to see comparison footage side by side to really say anything; it could just be because they feel the DVX is good enough; and don't feel the need to change (sort of like how the majority of films are edited on Avid, even when there are other qualified NLEs).

Just wondering, why would you choose the JVC over the HVX? And which of the two is less expensive?
 
Gordon JL said:
Just wondering, why would you choose the JVC over the HVX? And which of the two is less expensive?
Click to expand...

Price out of the box is comparable, but the p2 cards for the HVX would be a mandatory extra expense for the most part. The JVC would beg for money spent, as well, on lenses. But those are not necessary as are the cards for the HVX.

Don't get me wrong - I have no doubt the HVX is one helluva great camera, but if I was investing over $7K (with the cost of cards), I would want lens options, period.

My interests are mostly verite and doc work so the idea of shooting to tape is also really beneficial from a purely pragmatic point of view. I have little doubt, though, that the p2 cards are a superior system for data capture - just way less convenient for all the uncertainties and improvising that doc work demands.

Also, from all accounts (I'm especially swayed from a friend of mine who has two HD100s), they really got it right with their cinegamma. I've heard nothing but good things about the images.

I love the elegant simplicity of the DVX - a dedicated lens camera that can hang with the big boys. But when you start doubling the price into the HVX with accessories - I want more options. But that's just me - I'm not the most experienced guy with respect to videography and filmmaking (a neophyte, in fact) so take it for what's it worth.

Last point: from a purely superficial level - the JVC scores way higher than the HVX on the sexiness factor. That thing just looks cool, period.:love4:
 
The fact that the DVX has far more credits in indie-films only further proves my point. That is really two fold. First reason, besides the ease of use, is that it is a small contained package, easy to grab, easy to set-up, etc. The other reason is because of the ease of use/price. It has empowered many people who would be lost on a film camera, or even a Varicam to achieve their goal of making a movie. I never said you could MASTER the DVX in a few days but with the help of the robust community, Barry's books and Panny's built in "looks" if you will, you can get great images out of it with minimal experience. The framing, motivated moves and storytelling is a whole other animal.

The XL2 is the preference for most cinematographers coming from already having made a movie. You see, the camera is no longer an inhibitor for them and they are OBSESSED with resolution. These are the same guys who choose the F900 over the Varicam every day. I personally dont care for the F900 and think the Vari for ANYTHING but a film out, is the better performer.

To address a couple other questions... Yes, when you crush the blacks and boost the saturation on the XL2 you will start to lose some chroma resolution and introduce some noise.

One thing people dont seem to bring up in the SD argument is the HVX. It is actually a great SD camera, even when going to miniDV, it has all the resolution of the XL2 and maintains the poppy colors people love on the DVX. Yes, it is still noisy but it is a great camera. If you are talking street prices though, it is almost $1500 more than the XL2 but you have the option to shoot HD if you want later. And for the record, you can cut progressive XL2 footage into 720P HVX footage and it holds up pretty dang well...



ash =o)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top