Convince me- Why the DVX?

P

Primate Pictures

Member
Hey all, I'm new here, and I don't have a DVX yet, but I'm strongly considering getting one. I'm a film student and I think I'd like to make an investment in my future by purchasing a high quality DV camera. I don't know much about the ins and outs of DV technology and I'm not 100% familiar with all of the terminology (though I'm slowly trying to learn), but could you tell me why this camera is superior over, say, an XL2 (don't hurt me). These are the two cameras I am currently looking at. I know they're very comparable and probably both great choices, but what makes the DVX better?

While the XL2 might be easier to learn, I'm more concerned with image quality and control. I can learn everything I need to know once I buy it, as I assume I'll probably be sleeping with it and the manual tucked under my arm for the first few months. While my initial interest was in the XL2, I've heard from many people that the DVX is the camera to buy. My question is now, why?

I apologize if this is the incorrect forum to post such a question.
 
All thing's equal

The footage that comes out, from gamma, to cadence, to the mystery mojo inside....

It just smokes the XL2.

-

That's my story and I am sticking too it.

-

Go rent NOVEMBER (Courtney Cox)

Also, the BTS on History of Violence and The Devils Rejects are all on DVX for further extended viewing.
 
it's not the tool it's the artist...and though i agree with john on what i've seen made with the DVX i wouldn't start naming movies because doing so you would have to say "28 days later" which was entirely shot with an XL1s (i know it was an XL1 not sure if it was an s or not) point being...ah you get the point.

anyway to quote Neo "the problem is choice", but you need to decide what is right for you. i've seen web postings that canon had bad custmer service...i've called panasonic and actually talked to a live person :O...not once, but twice.

okay now i'm rambling...i know you are seeking opinions, but i can't say whether one camera is better than the other. i have a DVX100 because it offered 24fps the first DV camcorder to do so and to me that was enough. i knew nothing of the cine-like gamma. i just wanted the frame rate. i had a film camera so my concern was ease of use and being able to edit immediately what i shot and not have to wait on developing. now though you have a choice both offer the frame rate. one has interchangeable lenses...one has (IMHO) superior imaging. one leans red...the other leans blue. they're both point and shoot. they both record DV.

but it's still your choice.
 
Check out the quote.

The XL2 and DVX, on the other hand, offer true variable-frame-rate, progressive-scanning CCD’s that run at 24 frames per second. They render motion that looks exactly like film motion. I have run tests where the DVX was strapped to a film camera, shooting the identical scene side-by-side, then the film footage was telecine’d to video and brought into the editing program and split-screened against the DVX footage to compare. The results were identical motion: the DVX motion is identical to film motion. And the XL2 exhibits the same type of motion. For film motion, the XL2 and DVX tie, and the FX1 punts.
Click to expand...
 
I think its just personal preference, the differences, pros and cons are minor. Its how you use it that matters.
 
The DVX offers a more "professional" system of control.

every adjustment is documented in a numbers system. like for example.

I saw a guys movie, i liked it, i ask him " he whats your "scene file settings???" ( the part that adjusts the image charachterisics) he says,

" well i shot at, Detail -2, Chroma level +4, Master pedestal -10 Etc........."

wit han XL2 its like, " my detai lelvel was 2 clicks down from the center coloredbar on the screen, my master pedestal was 3 clicks down.... or wait was it 4 clicks????? "

its just gets confusing trying to match up a two camera shoot and over all user freindliness.

The XL2 is a good camera, i would not complain if ihad to use it. But the DVX is just more........ better.... i dunno, you cant explain it until you use one. The lens controll, the focus control, the cinegamma is unreplicatable, the color processor chip gives you beautiful pictures.

The comparison i give is this. The DVX is like a monet painting. Its not a "sharp" picture, but its picture has feeling and really captures the essence of the scene. The Xl2 is like a still image camera, sharp and it shows exactly whats there, but in a cold, dry walmart photolab paper kind of way.

i am about to shoot a commercial in two weeks. the thought of using anythign else scares me. ( except HVX!!!!)
 
northanian...

love the quote, but right after the "bold" area is the following line
And the XL2 exhibits the same type of motion.
Click to expand...
then it says the XL2 and the DVX tie.
 
The comparison i give is this. The DVX is like a monet painting. Its not a "sharp" picture, but its picture has feeling and really captures the essence of the scene. The Xl2 is like a still image camera, sharp and it shows exactly whats there, but in a cold, dry walmart photolab paper kind of way.
Click to expand...

Really good way to put it. :thumbup:
 
novelt said:
northanian...

love the quote, but right after the "bold" area is the following line then it says the XL2 and the DVX tie.
Click to expand...


it aint the motion, its the picture.
 
timur...

i know that...i'm just saying the 24fps is irrelevant and the quote basically says the same so how does that convince someone that the dvx is better than the xl2?

however to seriously answer the question the original poster should get both cameras and shoot with them and compare and then decide which one is the best...and that's true DIY.

and at first i thought "it aint the motion of the ocean..." :grin:
 
I thank everyone that supplied their input. Generally, I am of course concerned with the purity of the image, but I definitely want it to look as close to film as possible. I don't expect it to be identical to 35mm or anything, but I want something that has character, can replicate shallow depth of field and still maintain a reasonable quality of image. If the DVX can look more like film than the XL2, then sign me up. It's funny that something newer and as large and outwardly impressively looking as the XL2 could actually offer less features.

Though honestly, lately I've been shooting on a GL-2, so anything better than that would be impressive to me. And I'm sure that both these cameras would blow that out of the water. But if I'm going to spend that much money, I want the best. I appreciate all the advice you've offered. I can see both of these cameras offer different advantages and disadvantages depending on their intended use. I intend to use this camera for extremely low budget personal films that will, hopefully, exhibit a professional quality about them. From the article that was linked (thank you, that was very informative if perhaps a little biased), it seems as if the DVX outperforms the XL2 in this field.
 
The camera you're using now, the GL2 is no slouch either. I'd say the images coming out of that camera is just as good as the DVX (maybe not quite, but very close). The 24p cadence and the beautiful cinegamma make the DVX better. But imagewise, they are both good and the DVX definitely has mojo. If you want to take an even bigger jump (like closer to S/16mm type images) then the HD100, HVX and H1 would be something to consider.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top