G
Guest
Guest
if you ever wanted to steal shots, the xl2 is so clunky and draws too much attention to itself. The dvx looks like a home camcorder. cops will just assume youre a tourist or something.
Glenn_Gipson
Active member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Excellent point...never thought about that.
Excellent point...never thought about that.
Glenn_Gipson
Active member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
But then again...if you're going to be out somewhere with a boom pole, actors, and a crew then that will draw more attention then any camera.
But then again...if you're going to be out somewhere with a boom pole, actors, and a crew then that will draw more attention then any camera.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Also, people seem to think the DVX is pretty impressive anyways - I was shooting something the other day, and we had people ask us which news crew we were with
Also, people seem to think the DVX is pretty impressive anyways - I was shooting something the other day, and we had people ask us which news crew we were with
Chris Messineo
Veteran
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Personally, I hope the XL2 is amazing.
While I love my DVX, I think the competition benefits all of us.
We end up with more options and more tools.
Personally, I hope the XL2 is amazing.
While I love my DVX, I think the competition benefits all of us.
We end up with more options and more tools.
Gary_McClurg
Well-known member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Well, spoken.
Well, spoken.
Mike_Donis
Veteran
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
I hope the XL2 is awesome, as well!
I was just saying how the DVX looks pretty good from an aesthetic point of view in the eyes of the public ;D
I hope the XL2 is awesome, as well!
I was just saying how the DVX looks pretty good from an aesthetic point of view in the eyes of the public
;Ddogstarman
New member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Yeah but that reverses just as easily. Sometimes its desireable to look professional.
Yeah but that reverses just as easily. Sometimes its desireable to look professional.
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
yeah, too bad the dvx doesn't look professional...it definitely doesn't scream, "shooting permit!"
[quote author=dogstarman link=board=XL2;num=1093419888;start=0#8 date=08/25/04 at 14:40:03]Yeah but that reverses just as easily. Sometimes its desireable to look professional.[/quote]
yeah, too bad the dvx doesn't look professional...it definitely doesn't scream, "shooting permit!"
[quote author=dogstarman link=board=XL2;num=1093419888;start=0#8 date=08/25/04 at 14:40:03]Yeah but that reverses just as easily. Sometimes its desireable to look professional.[/quote]
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
I must admit i like his "film camera" look.
...imagine it with a black manual lense... :
...but not until i see DVX100A / XL2 framegrabs of the same image...
...and i like DVX's dark and serious look too...
dammmmm..... !
maybe own one of each ? ???
I must admit i like his "film camera" look.
...imagine it with a black manual lense... :
...but not until i see DVX100A / XL2 framegrabs of the same image...
...and i like DVX's dark and serious look too...
dammmmm..... !
maybe own one of each ? ???
Glenn_Gipson
Active member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Outside of the native 16:9, this is why I actually would like the XL2 over the DVX100.
After shooting with the DVX100, and then playing back that footage on a production monitor (it has 750 lines), I have come to the conclusion that the DVX100’s image is too soft for my taste. And yes, everything was in focus, but yet and still, there is a softness to the DVX100’s image that is probably due to its quest to replicate film (maybe, maybe not.) This softness becomes even more apparent on wider shots, with more information detail in the frame. So how do I know this softness issue to be true? Because I plugged in some simple outdoor footage (a wide shot) from a Canon Optura into my production monitor, and the footage looked sharp and brilliant (not to mention colorful, which is something that the DVX100 also lacks, IMO.) Now this inherent softness of the DVX100 is really subjective, as obviously many people like it. I never really liked it, and I often found myself going after hard lighting setups instead of soft ones in an attempt to “bump” up the DVX100’s sharpness. This is why I am looking forward to the XL2, because IMO, film is suppose to be sharp and colorful straight from off the camera, and not soft with drab colors.
PS. I'm not trying to trash DVX100s, I still think it's a great production camera, by the way.
Outside of the native 16:9, this is why I actually would like the XL2 over the DVX100.
After shooting with the DVX100, and then playing back that footage on a production monitor (it has 750 lines), I have come to the conclusion that the DVX100’s image is too soft for my taste. And yes, everything was in focus, but yet and still, there is a softness to the DVX100’s image that is probably due to its quest to replicate film (maybe, maybe not.) This softness becomes even more apparent on wider shots, with more information detail in the frame. So how do I know this softness issue to be true? Because I plugged in some simple outdoor footage (a wide shot) from a Canon Optura into my production monitor, and the footage looked sharp and brilliant (not to mention colorful, which is something that the DVX100 also lacks, IMO.) Now this inherent softness of the DVX100 is really subjective, as obviously many people like it. I never really liked it, and I often found myself going after hard lighting setups instead of soft ones in an attempt to “bump” up the DVX100’s sharpness. This is why I am looking forward to the XL2, because IMO, film is suppose to be sharp and colorful straight from off the camera, and not soft with drab colors.
PS. I'm not trying to trash DVX100s, I still think it's a great production camera, by the way.
alpi69
Veteran
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
whenever we get footage from a canon miniDV (XL1, GL2, XM2 or whatever they are all called) they all are so sharp. they are clearly canon. SONY DVcams do not show that sharpness. the canon sharpness is not good looking at all. when you see Betacam material you won´t see it as "sharp" as the canon DVs. dunno what canon does, but to me it looks "videoish" all over. a 35mm cam never makes sharp images. in focus yes, but not with edges. it is hard to explain (esp. in a foreign language) but i prefered Sony pics over Canon pics always. the DVX is "softer" like the SONYs, only with a few extras on top of that.
whenever we get footage from a canon miniDV (XL1, GL2, XM2 or whatever they are all called) they all are so sharp. they are clearly canon. SONY DVcams do not show that sharpness. the canon sharpness is not good looking at all. when you see Betacam material you won´t see it as "sharp" as the canon DVs. dunno what canon does, but to me it looks "videoish" all over. a 35mm cam never makes sharp images. in focus yes, but not with edges. it is hard to explain (esp. in a foreign language) but i prefered Sony pics over Canon pics always. the DVX is "softer" like the SONYs, only with a few extras on top of that.
scharky
Veteran
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Wow, thats the first time I have ever heard the dvx called soft. I remember when the DVX first came out, and people were sticking up for the XL1s. "the XL1s is better because it has that "Soft" image that people like to see, the DVX is just way to "sharp" to be convincing as having the film look".
Well, I guess it is all subjective.
BTW, the DVX does have sharpening controls, you can get that sucker really really sharp. Does it look good like this, I guess it depends on your application, but I guarantee, that the DVX with the Anamorphic will be no less sharp than the XL2.
Wow, thats the first time I have ever heard the dvx called soft. I remember when the DVX first came out, and people were sticking up for the XL1s. "the XL1s is better because it has that "Soft" image that people like to see, the DVX is just way to "sharp" to be convincing as having the film look".
Well, I guess it is all subjective.
BTW, the DVX does have sharpening controls, you can get that sucker really really sharp. Does it look good like this, I guess it depends on your application, but I guarantee, that the DVX with the Anamorphic will be no less sharp than the XL2.
Antoine_Fabi
Well-known member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
yep,
the "thin" v detail setting looks a little softer than other setting, but it is certainly not "too" soft.
Plus, you can dial some detail steps like +2 or +3, but above that point, it's just really too sharp.
If you absolutely want a razor sharp image, then choose "mid" v detail setting on the DVX100A, EXTREMELY SHARP...too sharp in fact.
But the DVX100, and especially the 100A, can deliver razor sharp images, no doubt.
Edge enhacement creates a false perception of resolution.
yep,
the "thin" v detail setting looks a little softer than other setting, but it is certainly not "too" soft.
Plus, you can dial some detail steps like +2 or +3, but above that point, it's just really too sharp.
If you absolutely want a razor sharp image, then choose "mid" v detail setting on the DVX100A, EXTREMELY SHARP...too sharp in fact.
But the DVX100, and especially the 100A, can deliver razor sharp images, no doubt.
Edge enhacement creates a false perception of resolution.
scharky
Veteran
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Antoine, just thought I'd point out, that while the mid may look more sharp on a standard monitor, it infact does have lower resolution than the "thin" line detail settings, so if your having a problem with things being to soft, I would always shoot thin.
But this is off the subject, so continue on with your normal conversation.
Antoine, just thought I'd point out, that while the mid may look more sharp on a standard monitor, it infact does have lower resolution than the "thin" line detail settings, so if your having a problem with things being to soft, I would always shoot thin.
But this is off the subject, so continue on with your normal conversation.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
[quote author=Glenn_Gipson link=board=XL2;num=1093419888;start=0#12 date=08/26/04 at 05:19:11]I have come to the conclusion that the DVX100’s image is too soft for my taste. And yes, everything was in focus, but yet and still, there is a softness to the DVX100’s image[/quote]
Like others have asked, I have to ask: did you adjust the "detail level" setting? You can get the DVX image so sharp you cut yourself on it. The stock 24P presets come with detail set at about -3, which is a noticeable softening. You can go all the way to +7, which is very very very sharp -- too sharp for most purposes, with artifacting and edge enhancement.
[quote author=Glenn_Gipson link=board=XL2;num=1093419888;start=0#12 date=08/26/04 at 05:19:11]I have come to the conclusion that the DVX100’s image is too soft for my taste. And yes, everything was in focus, but yet and still, there is a softness to the DVX100’s image[/quote]
Like others have asked, I have to ask: did you adjust the "detail level" setting? You can get the DVX image so sharp you cut yourself on it. The stock 24P presets come with detail set at about -3, which is a noticeable softening. You can go all the way to +7, which is very very very sharp -- too sharp for most purposes, with artifacting and edge enhancement.
Again, this is an area where the DVX excels, rather than where it lacks. With some manipulation of the settings you can get super-saturated colors, a look that is reminiscent of Fuji Velvia reversal stock. Start with Normal Gamma (not Cine), then switch on Cine Matrix and pump up the Chroma Level to +7, and you'll have extremely saturated colors that will overdrive most NTSC televisions.
Those looks are easily accomplished with the DVX. Film has many different looks depending on the stock, a reversal film like 5285 is punchy, high contrast and saturated whereas a soft-contrast negative like 5277 is soft, flat, muted... the DVX can match all those looks. It's all in the settings you choose. But the F5 and F6 presets seem to aim towards the softer, muted look. You have to change the settings to draw out the punch.
Glenn_Gipson
Active member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Thanks for the suggestion guys!
Thanks for the suggestion guys!
skippyfetus
Carbonite Member
Re: a good reason to get a dvx instead of a xl2
Well, it's not small enough to not draw attention to itself. If you want to "steal shots", get one of those tiny new camcorders you see at Best Buy... you can get away with filming almost anywhere with one of those.
Well, it's not small enough to not draw attention to itself. If you want to "steal shots", get one of those tiny new camcorders you see at Best Buy... you can get away with filming almost anywhere with one of those.