JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
I bought an XL-2 when I was in school, which they were using for a lot of the experimental work, because I'm too lazy to want to screw around with a school's equipment and their awful rental system, which was lackluster and disorganized and they often were completely out of essential equipment we needed to finish projects. So I bought everything I needed, XL-2, shotgun boom mic that was better than the one they were using, and a much better lighting kit than the lousy beat-up Lowell kit they would give us (150 and 300 watt lights? What the hell is that? You can't light a miniature with that, lol).
I wouldn't recommend any standard definition camera. I'm always confused by people saying, "Are you planning on going to Blu-ray? Well, if not, you don't need HD!" Uhh, there's a SERIOUS problem if you're outputting in the same resolution that you shot at. Acquiring footage should always be superior to the presentation format. This gives you room to play with in post, for one, but two it just looks better. Take something shot on the XL-2 and put it on DVD and it's worse looking than something shot on the HVX200, because one was shot HD one wasn't, doesn't matter that the delivery is SD. It's the difference between a AAA baseball player (SD) and an MLB baseball player both playing in AAA (HD), obviously the MLB player is going to dominate even though he's not in his native territory, he's at a lower class. It's really not hard to understand.
To buy an SD camera now is a joke. I know how gung-ho people are about their DVXs, but it's not 1997 anymore, honestly. It's time to move on. That camera and the XL-2 are not even close to pro cameras. If you're an amazing filmmaker and you have the greatest DP around you can definitely get some half-way decent footage out of them, but they're not acceptable professional tools. Standard definition is unbelievably bad. Even 720p is kinda iffy. I mean ideally 1080p or better is what you should film at. You know this when you open up the files on your computer and they don't even take up the entire screen of a 20" monitor on a computer.
I wonder if 5 years from now people will still wax poetic about their DVXs and have this weird sentimental attachment to a completely inferior camera.
I wouldn't recommend any standard definition camera. I'm always confused by people saying, "Are you planning on going to Blu-ray? Well, if not, you don't need HD!" Uhh, there's a SERIOUS problem if you're outputting in the same resolution that you shot at. Acquiring footage should always be superior to the presentation format. This gives you room to play with in post, for one, but two it just looks better. Take something shot on the XL-2 and put it on DVD and it's worse looking than something shot on the HVX200, because one was shot HD one wasn't, doesn't matter that the delivery is SD. It's the difference between a AAA baseball player (SD) and an MLB baseball player both playing in AAA (HD), obviously the MLB player is going to dominate even though he's not in his native territory, he's at a lower class. It's really not hard to understand.
To buy an SD camera now is a joke. I know how gung-ho people are about their DVXs, but it's not 1997 anymore, honestly. It's time to move on. That camera and the XL-2 are not even close to pro cameras. If you're an amazing filmmaker and you have the greatest DP around you can definitely get some half-way decent footage out of them, but they're not acceptable professional tools. Standard definition is unbelievably bad. Even 720p is kinda iffy. I mean ideally 1080p or better is what you should film at. You know this when you open up the files on your computer and they don't even take up the entire screen of a 20" monitor on a computer.
I wonder if 5 years from now people will still wax poetic about their DVXs and have this weird sentimental attachment to a completely inferior camera.