Does 16:9 matter for a small-time filmmaker?

M

mushyosh

Active member
Hi,

I'm a complete newbie to cameras so sorry for any ignorance... :undecided

Im a film student (editor not cameraman) about to graduate, and like alot of people, I'm torn between getting a DVX, or an XL2. So far, the DVX seems to have everything over the XL2 except 2 things:

- The XL2 works better with low level lighting

-The XL2 is native 16:9

Now my question is this:

I'm going to be making movies that will be shown on TV screens. I doubt anything I ever make will be blown up onto film to be shown on the big screen (not in the near future anyway). In this case, is a 16:9 native camera even worth getting?

How long before everyone will be on widescreen TVs? Or evern if everyone is on 4:3 screens for a long time, will the XL2 produce a better 16:9 image letterboxed, than just a DVX 4:3 image with 16:9 bars on it?

My plan was to just get a DVX, and shoot with bars over the 4:3 image. In all honesty, am I really missing out on anything by not having 16:9 native? I've been talking this over with a friend, and he insists that 16:9 is the way to go because that is just how film is shot.

Oh and I've searched absolutely everywhere, and can't find any Clips of low-level light shooting on the DVX. I found one sight with stills comparing it to the FX1 and XL2, but no clips.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I realise too that people are going to be DVX biased here, but still it looks like you guys know your stuff.
 
Welcome to DVXuser.com!

I have both cameras and they both have their pros and cons. I find the DVX to have the most "filmic" look, mainly because of it's cinegamma curves. They are indeed beautiful and make your footage look very filmlike. The film gamma curves on the XL2 aren't bad either, but the footage has a psuedo video/film look to it. From my experience, the XL2 does seem to fair better in low light ... the DVX just gets too noisey in low light levels, which can be very bad when putting your footage onto DVD (the mpeg-2 compression makes the noise look even worse). In 16:9, there's no doubt, the XL2 shines here. Looking at footage shot in 16:9 on my production monitor, it is clear the XL2 has a resolution advantage over the DVX in that mode. And you have the option of interchangeable lenses with the XL2 as well ...

But then again, the DVX just has those gamma curves that makes its footage look wonderful. Its a tough call. With the XL2, you get interchangeable lenses and true 16:9(higher resolution). The DVX gives you excellent film like gamma curves. In all truth, if your final target veiwing will be on 4:3 tvs. I'd probably go with the DVX just because of the gamma curves it offers ... they truly are beautlful. You can just crop your footage in post with letterboxing.

But the XL2 does give you a nice sharp image that is just as great .... you just have to assess what you want from a camera.
 
Ok thanks for that.

Yeah everyone seems to be saying that the DVX looks more like film, but isnt there some way of just color correcting the XL2 footage to make it look more like footage from the DVX?
 
I edit using Avid Xpress, but am going to chagne over to Final Cut pro (Another classic "which one is better" debate)

I've been told FCP has great color correcting, so wouldnt it be possible to create that film look there? Has anyone done this using FCP?
 
DVX vs XL2

DVX vs XL2

I've shot with my DVX in low light conditions and I didn't get any noise even after passed to DVD.

Indeed I shot some scenes lit only with a lantern and no noise appeared.

Another option to achieve 16:9 with the DVX is by setting the Panasonic anamorphic lens.
 
mushyosh said:
Ok thanks for that.

Yeah everyone seems to be saying that the DVX looks more like film, but isnt there some way of just color correcting the XL2 footage to make it look more like footage from the DVX?
Click to expand...

Yes, if you want to go through all that work ...

I am actually going to start tests in regards to this using the Nattress filters for Final Cut Pro. My goal (with everyone's help here) is to hopefully simulate the DVX gamma curves for use with XL2 footage (hopefully achieving the best of both worlds).
 
Yeah I just had a look at the nattress filters site. The site has some broken links and problems though.

***If there is a filter plugin for Final Cut Pro, doesnt that mean it would be very easy to just add the filter to your XL2 footage and get a film look that you liked|? Just tweak till you're happy, then sit back and wait for render times. Is there any more to it than that?****
 
Kuock said:
I've shot with my DVX in low light conditions and I didn't get any noise even after passed to DVD.

Indeed I shot some scenes lit only with a lantern and no noise appeared.

Another option to achieve 16:9 with the DVX is by setting the Panasonic anamorphic lens.
Click to expand...


do you have any screen grabs or clips of those low light shots?
 
i believe part of the low light stuff is that with 24p than the dvx.

i'm sure there are at least half a dozen threads on here about low light and the dvx.

matthew
 
mushyosh said:
Yeah I just had a look at the nattress filters site. The site has some broken links and problems though.

***If there is a filter plugin for Final Cut Pro, doesnt that mean it would be very easy to just add the filter to your XL2 footage and get a film look that you liked|? Just tweak till you're happy, then sit back and wait for render times. Is there any more to it than that?****
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could email me so that I can fix them?? Thanks,

Graeme
 
I am in a similar situation. I have been fortunate enough to find a buyer for my XL1S and am taking this opportunity to upgrade. I have had my eyes on the DVX for some time now and was sure that was the direction I was to take. Then Canon released the XL2. My situation is a little different however, in that, I have many of the XL add-ons like the MA-200 XLR adapter and the EF Lens adapter which would be used with the XL2 as well. As much as the XL2 seems to win in the technical battle, I cannot get over the amazing visual look of the DVX. The investment in the DVX would be less and I suppose I could always try and offload my Canon accessories as well.... What a dilemma!
 
Hi,

About color correction, I did nice CC in Betacam SP footage, changing gamma, colors, adding glow and blur masks, removing fields, but.... there is something you can't simulate in Post: latitude, DVX using cinelike gamma curve grabs more detail in dark and bright areas, offering more control in Post. Even Hollywood movies are Color Corrected, look some makingoff footage/deleted scenes to see how are the original camera footages (not impressive like the final result, but lots of image information there).
So my point is: better latitude / gamma curve, better Post options.

Ulisses
 
WHat was important to me was things other than colors. DVX has a wider-angle zoom. You can get a good picture up close without an adapter, important for inside shooting. Canon has a longer zoom, more important if you are outdooors doing sports or nature shots. Canon lenses are interchangeable (several thousand dollars), DVX requires wide or tele-adapter which is $700-800. DVX has better lens mechanicals (focus and zoom). DVX has better hand-held balance (personal opinion). DVX has 24p.

Interestingly, buying a used DVX is expensive relative to original price, and Canons seem to be for sale all the time and are cheaper used than a DVX (even though I think more expensive originally).

I don't care for shooting in 16.9. People end up with their heads cut off. It is harder to compose a good shot too IMHO. To much "wide" to worry about. FOr scripted movies probbaly not as big a deal as for docs or real-life situations (Like filmin g in a house, etc). STart to notice all teh cut-off heads, and then decide for yourself.
 
In 16:9 you only get cut off heads if you don't compose your shots properly. Meaning no offense, that's a very silly reason to be against the aspect ratio - and with the XL2, anyways, you'd be gaining image on the sides. The 4:3 version loses the width of the picture, and is extracted from the 16:9 centre.

Look through your viewfinder and you'll have no issues with "chopped off heads".

Now, that being said, it really does come down to what you're after. Personally, I have a DVX, and would recommend one if you're to be shooting only for 4:3 televisions. The image is fantastic and you have a built-in letterboxed mode, if you want the 16:9 bands. It's a little cheaper than the XL2, as well - so unless you *do* need a 16:9 version (non-letterboxed) that element becomes more unnecessary.

You won't gain any quality by compressing an XL2s image into a 4:3 frame - in fact, the opposite may be true. Unless you have a spot-on conversion, it may end up being softer than your letterboxed 4:3 source. The 4:3 signal is left untouched in letterboxed mode, and leaves it at the highest possible quality for 4:3.

So, I'd recommend the DVX if you're needing 4:3 images - but really, you're going to get a fantastic image from either camera.
 
Hey, I don't shoot 16.9 so I don't have composition issues. But it seems to me that an awful lot of the time in 16.9, there is a hard balance to strike between being close enough/chopping off heads, or being wider and losing the intimacy of the shot. I think "gaining extra on the sides" is a negative because of what/how I am shooting. Obviously it is an aethetic issue, I just wanted to point it out to mushyosh. We have gotten very used to it in movies and even TV. Once someone got me to notice it, it now drives me nuts. It also made it very easy for me to realize that I do not want to shoot in 16.9. Of course, when I buy an HDX200, I may change my mind. :) YMMV.
 
slapshot

if you have the xl accesories go with the xl2. The two cameras are so close its almost impossible to tell the difference. Sure the DVx has better lattitude, and color., but the XL2 is sharper.


just go with whatevers more comfortble for you guys to use.
 
I was just saying that it won't "chop off the heads" if you compose your shot properly - but I think I know what you're saying. But chopping off somebody's head would be a compositional choice, and have nothing to do with the inherrent nature of shooting in 16:9 (unless you composed for 4:3 and THEN added letterboxed bands without taking into consideration your "safe zones").
 
After doing just enough research on this topic to drive me crazy - I made a decision. I have just placed an order for a DVX100a. I have been looking forward to working with this camera for some time now. I had to seriously consider what I might be giving up in the investment that I already have in Canon accessories. I found that the MA-200 mic adapter that i have is not compatible with the XL2, and the EF adapter I rarely used anyway and should easily be able to sell. Therefore, I chose the visual preference that I have in the DVX over the technical specs and saved some money at the same time. For these reasons I feel I will be happy. I look forward to spending more time on this site now too, as an official DVXuser!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top