Confused
- Thread starter ggoerl
- Start date
Amerikan123
Well-known member
I own a 2100 as well and your looking to use the g35 or the letus35, theyre both great 35mm and i believe its what your looking for there.
lpcvideo1
Veteran
So, you are confused whether to use a g35, and if so, whether to ditch your camera for another?
What exacly does "clean filmic" image mean for you?
If money is no object, toss the 2100. Can't beat the DVX100/A/B for scene files, though sensitivity isn't as good. Can't speak to g35 on the various cameras. I imagine you should find a camera you want, and then select a 35 solution.
What exacly does "clean filmic" image mean for you?
If money is no object, toss the 2100. Can't beat the DVX100/A/B for scene files, though sensitivity isn't as good. Can't speak to g35 on the various cameras. I imagine you should find a camera you want, and then select a 35 solution.
ggoerl
Active member
I mean colorwise and have the appearance as if it was shot on film and what not.
cause I've been watching some of the videos around here and I've been planning on getting the g35 but unsure if I should keep my vx or get another camera with more control over what I want to shoot such as the dvx or the xl2 which they have more options and features.
<I mean colorwise and have the appearance as if it was shot on film and what not.>
To be honest with you, I own an XL2 and it still looks like video. It takes good post work to make any video look filmlike. That goes for XL2 or DVX A/b/whatever. The main benefit to xl2/dvx is that they have true 24p Advanced for easy transfer to film or progressive scan. As far as color and appearence, here is the score on that.
XL2- Overly bright with high Gamma (even in Cinegamma mode) and sharpness that needs to be softened by about 3 in post to resemble film. Colors are closer to film stock than DVX however.
DVX- From what I have seen (of the supposed "raw" footage) DVX is still brighter than film, gamma is pretty close to matching film, sharpness is still a bit more than film, but the colors are ridiculously bolder than film stock. Saturation needs to be lowered by a massive amount to resemble what projected film stock looks like.
If anyone thinks I am crazy, let me know why.
To be honest with you, I own an XL2 and it still looks like video. It takes good post work to make any video look filmlike. That goes for XL2 or DVX A/b/whatever. The main benefit to xl2/dvx is that they have true 24p Advanced for easy transfer to film or progressive scan. As far as color and appearence, here is the score on that.
XL2- Overly bright with high Gamma (even in Cinegamma mode) and sharpness that needs to be softened by about 3 in post to resemble film. Colors are closer to film stock than DVX however.
DVX- From what I have seen (of the supposed "raw" footage) DVX is still brighter than film, gamma is pretty close to matching film, sharpness is still a bit more than film, but the colors are ridiculously bolder than film stock. Saturation needs to be lowered by a massive amount to resemble what projected film stock looks like.
If anyone thinks I am crazy, let me know why.