Shall i buy washed out colours of the XL2

They both have their uses.

For narrative filmmaking oir music videos I'd have to choose the DVX with a 35mm adapter.

For doc work or weddings or corporate I'd use the XL2. Well, no. I'd still use the DVX, but i do see your point Ash.



(Muahahahhaha)

See how much fun were having ?
 
hamahona said:
The thing is that every single vid I download of the XL2 has a horrible green tinsh to it and washed out coloring, where the DVX is warm and very smooth colors. I also watch this tv station where they use this XL2 and notice the colors are just so washed out.
Click to expand...
LOL what do you want? welcome to the Canon's planet..
 
You mean, let me understand this ... cuz I ... maybe its me, maybe I'm a little f!cked up maybe. I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to f!ckin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?

It makes me laugh just thinking about Pesci in that scene...

John, what do you think the difference between the cameras is? Colour rendition?

I see the same nice things from the DVX that you do. It invokes a kind of suspension of disbelief that I've rarely seen from the xl2. (I'd like to change that :))
 
Similo is a nice example of someone who know's what the EFF they are doing; the 35mm Adapter helps immensely on that one!

John, what do you think the difference between the cameras is? Colour rendition?

I see the same nice things from the DVX that you do. It invokes a kind of suspension of disbelief that I've rarely seen from the xl2. (I'd like to change that :))
Click to expand...

I just don't know. People like to say it is as good or as cool but I just have really not seen any footage that makes one go 'Oh I just gotta have that !' like the DVX does.

Admittedly, it is the 'masta behind the blasta' but the XL2 screams Video Camera. Is it the sharpness ? Is it the clipping on highlights ? Is it the latitude ? The Gamma ? The Color Rendition as you put it ?

I jus't dont know.
 
Yeah, it's gorgeous. But that footage has plenty going for it - pretty girl, 35mm adaptor, nice scenery, good score. I think any camera would look good in that company. (as mac has shown with the fx1).
 
Good point. A lot of nice elements went into Similo. I'd guess the XL1 could look nice under those conditions ...

-

I'm still waiting on the XL2 footage links by the way!
 
image crafting is a ***** aint it? Do anythign the right way and it looks good.

Btw, my theory on mojo, is the slight softness the Dvx has. its like, the difference between a Impresionist painitng and a realist painting. The DVX makes the picture out of little blobs of color. the Xl2 looks like its image is made from a B&W image with colred washes over it to build up tones.

one gives teh sense of the image (dvx) the other "is" the image (Xl2)

Thats how it looks to me.

does that make sense?
 
true - the guy behind the camera makes a big difference too.

Well I'm making it my mission to squeeze every last drop out of this camera (sans adaptor) - so in the next few months I'll know whether it's capable, and I'm capable.

And yeah Tim, that does make sense. I've gotten some nice magic hour stuff that gives a similar impression. btw, I saw your grabs in another thread - nice. Do you have a reel?
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of the old Kodachrome vs. Fujichrome slide film issue. Fujichrome often exhibited unnatural flashy colors "out of the box" that advertisers liked, whereas Kodachrome was favored by scientists and serious wildlife photographers for the more WYSIWYG natural color reproduction. It seems that out of the box DVX = Fujichrome and XL2 = Kodachrome, and people are complaining about the XL2 since they want this "mojo" in camera with very little adjustment. I know that part of the film look is due to the softness and cadence, but the gamma can be tweaked after the fact (just like in Photoshop), especially if you want to mimic certain film stocks. Why have it baked-in to your master footage since it will be harder to remove later?

Don't most people want to start with a clean, artistically-lighted original and do the color correction and tweaks in post instead of in-camera? Since the film world does it that way, why wouldn't the video filmmakers use the same approach?

I like both cameras very much, but I chose the XL2 for the lens options, the native 16:9, and the shoulder-mount style. I've seen good and bad footage from either camp, so I'm in agreement that the camera doesn't make the cameraman/woman.

However, either due to presets or some other strange reason I keep seeing a fair amount of DVX footage posted that has some strange color issues (for known objects) including reds that look pink, yellows that are greenish, and blues that look kinda "chroma-key". Is anyone else seeing this? Is there a reason other than cartoons or Pee Wee's Playhouse that people are using these cartoony colors? Is the color gamut of the DVX unrealistically broad?
 
yea but you can only push DV so far in post... then the compression start getting to be a problem. Thats why i like having the subtleties of color in camera. granted, if you set up the cam, with a crazy look in cam, its a ***** to remove it later.
 
Some xl2 users seem to be comphensating for something


040723_xl2_zoom.jpg


Sorry had to chime in.
 
that lens costs as much as a kit helicopter.

I would love one... dont know what i would use it for.... but i would love one....

is it me or does it kinda look a little crooked too......
 
There is a limit to how far you can push the color in DV world, the DVX often pushes too far and it causes noise, resolution loss, etc. The only thing I would say the DVX does poorly is REDS, which almost always have to be CC in post. That being said, most all video cameras have issues with red, the DVX just seems to be the worst. A little chroma blur and CC covers it up for the most part.




ash =o)
 
yea the DVx does suck in recording red..... Even Chroma blur doesnt help sometimes. If it isnt a saturated red, like pastel, it does great, but there arent too many Pastel reds out there.
 
As to the issue of the green on XL2, it is true on the stock settings... why? Because green is the cleanest color in DV world... heck in ALL video world. That is why we moved from blue screen for film, to green screen for video. Blue is actually the SHARPEST color but that sharpness causes noise.

Want to adjust that look on the XL2? EASY... color phase 2 notches toward red, green gain down 3, red gain up 2, blue gain up 3... VOILA.

When I am matching XL2 and DVX I always not only turn down the sharpness on the XL2 but also add a diffuser of some sort, my fav is a black pro mist but you can also use a haze or other diffuser.

One last thing, the issue of the XL2 having less range... just not true. With the knee set to low and the blacks to stretch, the XL2 holds more detail than the DVX. The key to controlling the blowing out of images, is understanding the master pedestal setting...



ash =o)
 
Oh boy... you gone done it now...... Dont mess with my DVX's Dynamic range superiority....... ( joking)

I thought they held almost exactly the same, if anything... the dvx beat it by like a 1/4 stop or something insignificant.

But yea, the MAsterped, and the knee is the secret to a wide DR.

Before DVXuser changed servers, i had performed a test, where i shot the same scene at Cinelike, MP +3 and Cinelike MP -5 ( technihcally the lowest youshould go without losing image info)

i then took the two, and adjusted teh contrast/curves in post, so they looked exactly the same, on a scope. (something hit 100 IRE, something else hit 0 IRE) The Masterped +3 held alot more detail inthe darks. and even a few in the highlights. I shoot everyhtign MP 0 now. to keep as much in the Darks as possible.

( you have to understand MP 0 is a VERY flat almost grey picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top