Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Coco Bermudez

Coco Bermudez

Well-known member
Hi all:

First posting in this group. Got to say...there is a lot of good info in here.

We have finally decided to shoot 24P without having to shell big bucks for the Panasonic AJ-SDX900. Our main tool of use are still a couple of Sony DSR-130's. We love them and throught the years they have served us well. A year ago we invested on a couple of Sony's DSR-PD170's and they are ok. We find it hard to go from using full sized camcorders to be fumbling around with little dials and buttons.

The reason I mention this fact is that it was refreshing to know that when it comes to shooting 24P, there is an alternative to having to purchase another small size camcorder like the DVX100a. After weeks of comparing features side by side between the DVX100a and the XL2 it seems clear to us that the XL2 is the best choice for us.

Our only concern though is picture quality. I read the whole article posted on this site about the comparison between the HDV FX1, DVX100a and the Canon XL2. One line that raised our eyebrows was:

"An observer watching the footage from the three cameras might say:

DVX: “That looks like a movie!”
XL2: “Did you shoot this on film? It looks like it might be film…”

Has anyone seen raw footage from both the DVX100 and the XL2 side by side...pound per pound? Most of the footage I have seen posted on dvxuser.com by DVX100 users is really beautiful...but then again a lot of the footage is aided by the use of the P+S Technik's Mini 35.

I just want a good honest comparison without the use of any filters, or after the fact plug-ins. Also, we are thinking of opting for the Canon 16x Servo Zoom Lens rather than the supplied 20x...are they both comparible when it comes to imaging?

Thanks for the help...and if this is a topic that has been covered to death then excuse the ignorance.
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Your post topic says it all, and unfortunatly that is why the question is so difficult. Truthfully, both cameras have their strenghts and weeknesses, and very similar images will come from both cameras. I think it really comes down to the use of the camera more than the actual images that the cameras produce. Granted in 16:9, the XL2 has a defenite advantage. I would say that with some carefull post work, it would be easy to make either camera look like the other, and to the majority of people, even in 16:9 you would not be able to tell the difference. So, the question would come down to form factor. As I see it, you are use to larger cameras, therefoer I would be inclined to think that the XL2 would be a better fit for your shooting style. IF you don't like the form of the PD170, the DVX will probably not be much different. However, the XL2 does have little buttons and dials as well, but it is a bigger camera. So there is my honest opinion, that pretty much said nothing, but I think that is my point. To have a strong opinion that one camera is so much more decidedly better than the other is just limiting in itself.
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

The reality is that if your Camera Op knows what they are doing and your Director knows how to frame, compose, get the coverage needed and tell the story it's going to rock.

Content is King
DP is King
Director is King

DVX, XL2 or the Z1 Sony thingy; no one is going to care if the above elements are taken care of.
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I just did a little side-by-side this past weekend to prove to myself that I made the right decison (in my case the XL2 over the DVX100a). I have the 3X wide and the 14X manual (legacy lenses from my XL1s) along with the supplied 20X lens. I borrowed a DVX100a and spent a couple of hours tinkering with the DVX (it was my first hands on experience with the camera), trying to get a feel for the similarities and differences of both (probably not long enough however to qualify as anything other than goofing around). I shot inside and outside, in bright light and low light. I used the 14X manual on the XL2 to try and keep things as simple as possible. In the end, the images from the XL2 with the manual lens were sharper and in my opinion had more detail. However, the DVX seemed as simple as "take it out, hit the white balance" and get good looking images. In the end, although I am a little envious of the "out of the bag - good looking images" that I got from the DVX, I still feel like the XL2 is the camera for me. It feels to me that it operates more like motion film camera, with results like a motion film camera - that that are really great if you take the time to pay attention, and really crappy if you don't. The DVX made me feel as though if I got it close in terms of lighting and composition that I'd be pretty happy with the results. Lots of folks have mentioned it already, but you can certainly make one camera look like the other camera by tweaking the settings in-camera and/or in post. But I feel as though the raw images from the XL2 provide more latitude. The DVX renders great images - but they come with that "DVX Look" that may or may not be the look you want to end up with. When folks comment on DVX footage as "hey, that looks like a movie" that to me is the "DVX Look." The Xl2 most certainly looks like film - what kind of film is up to you - that's kinda what I mean by latitude. In the end, either camera is a GREAT choice and as John Hudson said, it's really about the content and the decisons made by whoever is holding the camera and pressing the record button.
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

[quote author=Super8 link=board=XL2;num=1107211457;start=0#0 date=01/31/05 at 14:44:17]
Most of the footage I have seen posted on dvxuser.com by DVX100 users is really beautiful...but then again a lot of the footage is aided by the use of the P+S Technik's Mini 35.
[/quote]

Actually, I only see footage w/ the P+S mini 35 every so often. Most of the beautiful shots I see are actually pretty "stock".
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

I concur; I have seen tons of footage shot 'straight up' and it looked epic.
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Hey all:

Thanks for the great comments. It is absolutely true that there are various factors that dictate the quality of the final work. A good friend of mine still shoots with a UVW-100 Betacam and his work is absolutely beautiful...the images he produces puts the whole HD/24P war format as just a childish afterthought.

I went to NAB 2004 and was able to take a look at the DVX100a in action. They had the camera at all times pointed at a beautiful lit stage with the models under well balanced lights. The camera was connected to several broadcast monitors at all times for our viewing pleasure. Quite frankly the images produced looked nothing like the images I have been viewing posted here at dvxuser.com. It really looked like a "better than bad" video assist.

Of course most of the short films and experiments posted on this site have been carefully planned, lit, edited and posted to perfection. Yet at NAB standing at the Panasonic booth I was puzzled to see an image that resembled a glorified strobe effect with a slight enriched color shift. I am not knocking the camera down, but after reading all the hype, we were prepared to be wow'd away and open our wallets on what would have been an early full blown christmas shopping fest.

I know there are people on this site that will swear by their camera over the competitors...yet I feel at peace knowing that all, no matter which camera they own, are glad with their purchases.

Again, thanks for all the good feedback.
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

From my experience, I like the XL2 but the 24p mode was certainly different looking while filming (24p virgin here :-[), but the footage looked light years better than my GL1's image. But for sheer sharp footage, the FX1/Z1 is the dominant camera. I personally would buy the Z1 over the XL2 and DVX100/A if I didn't know that Panasonic and even possibly Canon would be doing some HD/HDV rumbling come springtime this year. I've personally never seen a DVX100/A in person, which also means I've never played with one obviously, so I don't know how that looks. But from footage I've seen, the DVX is just absolutely "film"! Nobody has been doing much with the XL2's new 24p features (WTF people!?!?!? >:(). So basically I have to go with all the other reviews and say:

Buy the XL2 if you want 16:9, future 24p possibilities, highest SD resolution, and interchangeable lenses.

Buy the DVX100/A if you want 24p features that come amazingly close to the look of film.

Buy the FX1/Z1 if you want HD, highest resolution out there, and the sharpessed video possibe.
 
Re: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Jack,
I think there are alot more things to consider than that, and this topic has been beaten to death, but everybody can have a look at Barry's review or do their own, and decide that way.

For me personally, I just wanted the sweetest, cleanest, tightest, da bombest, cutting edgest camera on the market. So I sold my girlfriend to slave traders in Mexico and bought one. Painless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top