to sell xl-2 or not
- Thread starter raw911
- Start date
AshG said:
Ok, but if I'm exporting a PNG sequence and then uprezzing from that, am I not working with the full res of the sensor? I'm getting files which are 1049 x 576.
One thing I love about the xl2 is its clean look in fairly low light. Here's a couple of test grabs from an upcoming short...
http://img17.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=93344_mid_339lo.jpg
http://rapidshare.de/files/26673154/Image_000.png.html
The first was with a 1k open face tungsten about 15 feet from the subject (1/25, wide open), the second a 1k with softbox about 7 feet away (1/200, wide open).
From your experience Ash, how much more light would be needed with the HVX to light these scenes (and to get a comparably clean image)?
Thanks
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
StMad,
I could only view the first image, but that, to me, is not low light -- that's "low-key" light. I don't think you'd need a watt more light to get that image with the HVX. I shot a beautiful low-light image like that the other night by bouncing a single 1400w flourescent off the ceiling.
To Ash,
I'm sending a great big hug out right now. I'll PM you later for that DVD. I look forward to seeing it.
I think you and I are having a semantic debate for the most part. But I do think that a "professional" codec is more... well, "professional" that a consumer codec. I think 16-bit uncompressed audio is more "professional" than 12-bit, etc... Yes, there are nuances and points of debate in such definitions, but words mean things, and I didn't think I was all that wacky for applying the label.
To me, the bottom line is how it looks, and I have yet to see any DV prosumer camera that looks as good as the HVX --- and I'm not even talking about HD -- the HVX DVCPro50 looks so much better than DV. And in my mind, better looking means "more professional." So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I will say nothing more 'till I see your brilliant DV work that changes my mind. Hugs and kisses. XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX
I could only view the first image, but that, to me, is not low light -- that's "low-key" light. I don't think you'd need a watt more light to get that image with the HVX. I shot a beautiful low-light image like that the other night by bouncing a single 1400w flourescent off the ceiling.
To Ash,
I'm sending a great big hug out right now. I'll PM you later for that DVD. I look forward to seeing it.
I think you and I are having a semantic debate for the most part. But I do think that a "professional" codec is more... well, "professional" that a consumer codec. I think 16-bit uncompressed audio is more "professional" than 12-bit, etc... Yes, there are nuances and points of debate in such definitions, but words mean things, and I didn't think I was all that wacky for applying the label.
To me, the bottom line is how it looks, and I have yet to see any DV prosumer camera that looks as good as the HVX --- and I'm not even talking about HD -- the HVX DVCPro50 looks so much better than DV. And in my mind, better looking means "more professional." So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I will say nothing more 'till I see your brilliant DV work that changes my mind. Hugs and kisses. XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX
LOL, I leave for a few hours and everyone gets mushy! Every brand of camera has its quirks. Sony is very clean and generally cool, colors get muted and a bit pastel. Canon cheats toward green, again clean images but with very realistic color. Panny has very rish color but generally needs more light and is more noisy. My point is that all can give a very professional look but guess what... all can look like crap. Put the HVX in cine mode D, shoot inside in poor light and YUCK! It is the operator that makes it more or less professional... ultimately, that is my only point. As far as codecs, I generally agree. The MOST professional way to work is uncompressed as many post houses do. Anything I do for broadcast gets a rebuild in uncompressed before any CC or graphics.
ash =o)
ash =o)
DavidBeier
Veteran
Ash, I'm sorry but you're simply wrong. DVCPro50 makes a huge amount of difference and we've seen enough evidence from Barry and others to show this (and frankly I'll take Barry's word over yours). In a few weeks I plan to do a bunch of tests of my own taking footage in both DV and DVCPro50 and then applying a variety of CC to them. I assume the results will speak for themselves.
Umm...is this news to anyone?
Umm...is this news to anyone?
pretopost
Well-known member
DavidBeier said:
I agree that a DVCPRO50 is a phenominal SD Codec and my primary codec for my Broadcast commercial work, but I've also seen someone use a Sony handycam shoot a freeway pileup and fire that looked fantastic.
"Professionals" paid thousands for the footage to air it and ultimately why? Because content is king. Codecs and pixels are not what make things compeling.
I seem to remember someone shooting a national commercial with a cell phone as a camera. Company paid thousands for it. Looked pretty professional to me...
I don't want to nitpick but the word "professional" as an ADJ means, "engaging in a given activity as a source of livelihood or as a career: a professional writer," and as a NOUN means, "One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation." (pertaining definitions taken from Dictionary.com).
It is not a unit of measure. Either you are professional or not, meaning you either make money with your camera or you do not. When someone says, "Wow, that looks professional," it means, "Wow, you look like you do this for a living." When someone says, "that looks more professional," they are really saying, "that looks more like something a professional would make."
That is why I agree with Ash in saying it's silly to declare the HVX a more professional camera than the XL2. They have both been used by pros to make money. But with that said, the HVX is more technologically advanced than the XL2 with more features that are essential for the working professional. Thus the HVX will yield images that are higher res with less compression but that doesn't necessarily mean "more professional." I've seen properly lit DV look better than poorly lit HD. Like Ash said, it's who's behind the camera that really matters. Also, lighting a scene is something we've all come to understand as something working professionals do and we expect that and it's become a certain standard.
David, when you say that you are forced to light the HVX footage because it is light hungry which yields a "more professional" image doesn't make sense because you are assuming that the XL2 operator will not be lighting his subject. If both are lit properly, they will look like something a professional shot and it will have that level of workmanship that we've come to expect from professionals.
I really respect everyone here on DVXuser so I hope I don't offend anyone because that is not my intention. I just like to see the word used properly, that's all. I'm just glad I'm one of those lucky lads that get to shoot stuff for a living.
It is not a unit of measure. Either you are professional or not, meaning you either make money with your camera or you do not. When someone says, "Wow, that looks professional," it means, "Wow, you look like you do this for a living." When someone says, "that looks more professional," they are really saying, "that looks more like something a professional would make."
That is why I agree with Ash in saying it's silly to declare the HVX a more professional camera than the XL2. They have both been used by pros to make money. But with that said, the HVX is more technologically advanced than the XL2 with more features that are essential for the working professional. Thus the HVX will yield images that are higher res with less compression but that doesn't necessarily mean "more professional." I've seen properly lit DV look better than poorly lit HD. Like Ash said, it's who's behind the camera that really matters. Also, lighting a scene is something we've all come to understand as something working professionals do and we expect that and it's become a certain standard.
David, when you say that you are forced to light the HVX footage because it is light hungry which yields a "more professional" image doesn't make sense because you are assuming that the XL2 operator will not be lighting his subject. If both are lit properly, they will look like something a professional shot and it will have that level of workmanship that we've come to expect from professionals.
I really respect everyone here on DVXuser so I hope I don't offend anyone because that is not my intention. I just like to see the word used properly, that's all. I'm just glad I'm one of those lucky lads that get to shoot stuff for a living.
DavidBeier said:
He asked if I thought those cams were "more professional"
This is not as much a codec argument but I do agree that DVCpro50 is a better codec to work in than DV, actually for SD it is a better codec to work in than DVCproHD, mainly due to the compression. My only beef was that it was said there was a huge and dramatic end result for SD DVDs. Where did I say anything about DVCPro50 by the way? I think it is a great codec, not sure why you are calling me out on that one...Barry would also agree with me that uncompressed before any effects/CC is the best scenario.
ash =o)
darwinandpaine
Well-known member
Well, now that we've all established that we'd prefer a well-lit, well-shot, well-blocked scene with great camera work, great content, and great acting shot in DV over a poorly-lit, poorly-shot, poorly-blocked scene with crap content and terrible acting shot in HD, I think we should all give ourselves a pat on the back and congratulate each other on being some of the world's great geniuses.
For the record, I'd also bet on my 5-year old nephew to beat Michael Jordon in a game of one-on-one so long as a condition of the game is that MJ remain tied to a chair without the use of his limbs.
I always assumed that we were talkin' apples to apples. Otherwise, what's the point? And I'll say it again -- a well-lit, well-shot, well-blocked scene with great camera work, great content, and great acting will look better... dare I say, "more professional"... shot in DVCProHD on an HVX than it will in DV (any DV) --- even after being compressed for DVD delivery. Label me a heretic if you like. But that's what my eyes tell me, and that's my experience.
Perhaps Ash's DVD will sway me. But at this point, I cannot be true to anything other than my own eyes.
Hugs and kisses to everyone, this time! XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX
For the record, I'd also bet on my 5-year old nephew to beat Michael Jordon in a game of one-on-one so long as a condition of the game is that MJ remain tied to a chair without the use of his limbs.
I always assumed that we were talkin' apples to apples. Otherwise, what's the point? And I'll say it again -- a well-lit, well-shot, well-blocked scene with great camera work, great content, and great acting will look better... dare I say, "more professional"... shot in DVCProHD on an HVX than it will in DV (any DV) --- even after being compressed for DVD delivery. Label me a heretic if you like. But that's what my eyes tell me, and that's my experience.
Perhaps Ash's DVD will sway me. But at this point, I cannot be true to anything other than my own eyes.
Hugs and kisses to everyone, this time! XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX
Last edited:
DavidBeier
Veteran
Ok seriously, why does this have to be posted on half the threads here? WE KNOW! We know that image quality is no substitute for a good story, good acting, and strong direction. We know that a gifted camera operator or cinematographer can do wonders with less than ideal equipment. We know that filmmaking is a lot more than what camera you use. Perhaps we could just have a banner at the top of the page to remind us of that should we ever forget.
The fact of the matter is however that this is a technical discussion board and we're discussing technical issues. The site is called dvxuser and I'm pretty sure that refers to a camera. Please, we know that content is king and if we didn't we'd be idiots (feel free to insert any jokes about me here). But we're on a technical board discussing technical things and I assume we all aren't shooting on Super 8mm cameras.
Ok, I'm done ranting.
Whether you want to or not, you ARE nit-picking. Yes, the definition of professional is whether or not one is getting paid. Whether it's proper or not, people do use the term as a "unite of measure" and refer to stuff as "looking more professional." I really don't see the point in nitpicking about such a thing unless you get a thrill out of arguing about pointless things (something which I may well be guilty of myself seeing as I'm arguing as well...)
A previous poster just brought up that a cell phone was used to shoot a commercial. Would you also object to someone claiming a Cine Alta is a "more professional" than a cell phone camera? You know what we mean so why waste time on arguing wording and commone use of words?
I think what I was trying to indicate, and perhaps didn't state it all that well, is that the HVX200 demands a higher level of production values which is largely why we got off on this tagent in the first place. The point is that you can get away with not lighting a great many things with the XL2 that you couldn't with the HVX200. The need to light these things requires the aquisition of professional lights and equipment and probably more crew to manage them. Yes, you could do this with the XL2 but it's not as much a neccesity as with the HVX200.
The bottom line is that the HVX200 needs a higher caliber production than the XL2 does in many respects (is this wording that everyone can be happy with?). Perhaps I should just say "more expensive" production since I believe that's why we origional asked about this. The HVX200 is going to need you to spend more money (which is what professionalism goes back to according to the official definition) on your shoot than an XL2 would require. You'll need a heavier tripod, more lighting equipment, a better computer to edit on, more expensive means of recording, and you may want more sophisticated audio equipment to take full advantage of the camera. If professionalism is tied to money then the HVX200 is gonna cost you more and, since it rents for more and is capable of technically superior things, will probably make you more money.
Yes uncompressed is always best but that's not what we're talking about. All I'm saying is that I think DVCPro50 is still going to create a better image even after we compress it to a DVD. I am aware of the 4:2:0 that comes with MPEG2 but taking advantage of DVCPro50 before you compress to MPEG2 can make for some images that I'd say are signifigantly better than those on the DVD. Just as origionating on 35mm with 4:4:4 makes for a prettier compressed SD DVD so do the gains of the HVX200.
Anyway, I also respect everyone's opinions and I'll be glad to eat my words upon seeing some of Ash's tests. Well, actually, I'll do my own tests then eat my words.
Last edited:
pretopost
Well-known member
DavidBeier said:
Actually, this is not the technical section of the boards and I believe the original question of the poster was the validity of keeping his "Prosumer" XL2 along side of the HVX he will be purchasing.
Arguments are on both side as to the use and "more professional" aspects of each camera. I have used all these cameras being discussed including the HVX sitting here next to me and what I am saying is that each has its strengths and should be chosen in accordanc to what the story requires. There is no "perfect" cam but each have a unique flavor suitable for what needs to be filmed.
Even though I own an HVX there will be some stories that I will film with my XL2 because it has the right "look." Or maybe I could use my DVX to achieve a different end result... Having the ability to do that, to go to your arsenal and use the right tool that the story needs is necesary.
Story is king in every decision not gear. Having the choice in gear (i.e. A spare XL2) is a great start. Having only one tool when you could have two tool hurts you and your film.
BTW ---the sony handycam cost about $500 and net'd $1500. It probably has better low-light capabilities than even my XL2.
DavidBeier
Veteran
When you phrase it like that, I'm in complete agreement. I just get tired of hearing people randomly say, "stop worrying about the technical stuff, story and acting is what's important!" during technical discussions as if this is some deep philisophical revelation that none of us have considered.
If you think the XL2 has a better look for somethings then by all means that's a reason to keep it. The DVX is a bit harder for me to understand unless low light is just what you are worrying about.
I never said DVCpro50 wouldnt look better than DV... especially with any CC. HVX 720P DVCproHD down to an SD 16:9 24P DVD will look great... XL2 480P DV to an SD 16:9 24P DVD will look nearly as great, there is not an overwhelming difference as suggested. With lots of effects, graphics and CC, DVCpro50 would look better than either and uncompressed better than that... BUT... all will look pretty dang good.
ash =o)
ash =o)
AshG said:
The easiest way to see the difference between DV and DVCPRO 50 is simply shoot something than output as either an avi or Mov from the NLE. Play both out and you'll see a big difference. In normal low rez TV's, the difference is certainly not as noticeable, but its there.