Colione
Active member
In asking about the XL2, a friend sent me this little talk relating problems with the depth of field and the CCD. The smaller the CCD the greater the depth of field. Also, you loose quite a bit of width in your shots with such a small CCD. I think this would be a fairly big concern, especially the DOF. Instant film-look, get a blurry background. The smaller CCD may pose problems. Anyways, here is what a friend said, let me know what you think ...
Allright, here I go.
I kind of think the xl2 is okay but it has some problems. The CCD is still 1/3 inch. Now this is okay, the dvx is also 1/3 inch, but it crops the top and bottom of the chip to get the 16x9 effect. Yes, it does have true 16x9, but on a chip area of about 1/4 inch (after the cropping). Whereas if you used an anamorphic adapter on the dvx, you would use all of the 1/3 inch chip.
The smaller your chip, the more depth of field, which isn't what you want when you're trying to replicate film. Shallow depth of feild is the nice out of focus effect apparant to 35mm film.
This also means that the smaller the chip, the more telephoto your lenses become. So the widest you can get with the new lens in 16x9, equivalent to 35mm film, is 42mm, which isn't very wide at all.
The dvx widest setting is 32.5mm. Much better I think. More depth and perspective in your shots. Just my opinion. I was just reading american cinematographer and almost all of the new harry potter was shot with 24mm lenses!
Add to this the fact that is is US$1500 more than the dvx, and you know how I feel. And it's still 4:1:1 dv. Nothing new there.
So unless you have invested huge cake in xl lenses already, it just isn't worth it.
But then again, I haven't seen it in action! This is all theoretical techno-babble.
-Mitch
P.S. If you can afford the rental, SDX900 is the way to go. True 16:9 shaped 2/3 inch chips, pro lenses, 4:2:2 color. And big price tag. But a third of the price of HD.
But on a really really small budget, the dvx100 is the champ, for now. Your friend made a wise choice.
Allright, here I go.
I kind of think the xl2 is okay but it has some problems. The CCD is still 1/3 inch. Now this is okay, the dvx is also 1/3 inch, but it crops the top and bottom of the chip to get the 16x9 effect. Yes, it does have true 16x9, but on a chip area of about 1/4 inch (after the cropping). Whereas if you used an anamorphic adapter on the dvx, you would use all of the 1/3 inch chip.
The smaller your chip, the more depth of field, which isn't what you want when you're trying to replicate film. Shallow depth of feild is the nice out of focus effect apparant to 35mm film.
This also means that the smaller the chip, the more telephoto your lenses become. So the widest you can get with the new lens in 16x9, equivalent to 35mm film, is 42mm, which isn't very wide at all.
The dvx widest setting is 32.5mm. Much better I think. More depth and perspective in your shots. Just my opinion. I was just reading american cinematographer and almost all of the new harry potter was shot with 24mm lenses!
Add to this the fact that is is US$1500 more than the dvx, and you know how I feel. And it's still 4:1:1 dv. Nothing new there.
So unless you have invested huge cake in xl lenses already, it just isn't worth it.
But then again, I haven't seen it in action! This is all theoretical techno-babble.
-Mitch
P.S. If you can afford the rental, SDX900 is the way to go. True 16:9 shaped 2/3 inch chips, pro lenses, 4:2:2 color. And big price tag. But a third of the price of HD.
But on a really really small budget, the dvx100 is the champ, for now. Your friend made a wise choice.
