DVX AND XL2: Magic or Mayhem?

The Dark

The Dark

Active member
hey yall,

ok heres a couple o' questions before i shoot my zombie flick next month. We're shooting with my dvx100A and my friends XL2. We hope to use tv's as monitors while we're shooting. My questions is, how can we match the camera's up before hand to look as close to each other as possible?

also, since i dont yet have an anomorphic adapter, how can i get the two cameras to format with each othwer in conversion rate?

thanks all.
 
To match 16:9 output, simply crop the DVX footage in post to match the XL2. To make sure you get the correct framing, put some clear tape over your LCD screen and measure out the space you'll have for 16:9 on it with a marker.
 
ok thanks,

that sounds a little ghetto, but as long as it works right?

what about matching the cameras up? do i just get two monitors and match them by eye or what?
 
That's not a very good solution. Just use squeeze mode on the dvx--it's much better. Honestly, using one monitor and switching them while setting scene file settings (although an imperfect method to use) is the best way to match the two. Also make sure the shutter speed is the same, of course (although the iris won't be, but still try to get similar exposures using zebra lines.)
 
yeah, i was thinking that, but if i squeezed footage in the DVX, and had native 16:9 footage out of the XL2, and combined them in post, wouldn't i see a degradation in quality from clip to clip?
 
Maybe. But you'd notice much less than if you shot 4:3 and then rescaled it, which introduces all sorts of issues and takes a long, long, time. Use the xl2 primarily for long shots and the dvx for close ups and you absolutely won't notice any difference in resolution. To be honest, the difference is only significant on HDTVs and film out from what I've heard.
 
Also please keep in mind that if you are using plain old tv's to monitor in the field, if they don't have a 16:9 viewing option on them, shooting in squeeze mode on the DVX and in 16:9 on the XL2, the footage will appear vertically stretched on the monitors.
 
Policar said:
Maybe. But you'd notice much less than if you shot 4:3 and then rescaled it, which introduces all sorts of issues and takes a long, long, time. Use the xl2 primarily for long shots and the dvx for close ups and you absolutely won't notice any difference in resolution. To be honest, the difference is only significant on HDTVs and film out from what I've heard.
Click to expand...

[angryfilmsnob]
Listen, son - I've been doing this for 32 years and godamnit I know my ****! I don't need no punk kids telling me about dis ana-mofic adapter bullsh-- [/angryfilmsnob]

Seriously though, Policar what is your reasoning behind this? Shooting 4:3, he won't have to rent the higher end monitors (with the underscan, as well as 4:3 grid/16:9 grid) it will be easier to frame, and he has more leeway in post if he wants to push the image more upwards or more downards in the frame. When you shoot squeeze you are stuck with that image. Ouch! No fun!

Best wishes,
-Monte

Also I know I'm late coming back to this thread, but - pish posh, I enjoy a good discussion on framing
 
NO, thanks a bunch Monte, i appreciate a good back and forth discussion.

Today i found out that i can rent a small sony monitor that does 16:9. But i'm still trying to decide whether i should just go rent an anamorphic adapter or stick with the taping off method.

monte, which tape would you use for doing this? would you tape the lens or the LCD screen?
 
Monte, I'll admit my only evidence is anecdotal. I shot in 4:3 letterboxed and after a few generations the footage looked horrible, but when I shot in 16:9 it looked fine. I don't find framing that hard, but it definitely isn't as easy in squeeze mode. The quality is definitely a little better since it means less compression (and more color data certainly, and arguably more sharpness), but it does come at a cost. Personally, I think a better image and real time editing and easy mixing with the XL2 footage is worth annoyances in framing shots, but to each his own. I've screwed up a few compositions shooting in squeeze mode before, so definitely either way works. It's totally a matter of personal opinion, but since most of the footage will be anamorphic 16:9, this just seems like the best option, especially since it retains a little extra detail which will help the footage to better stack up against the inherently sharper XL2. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just saying that in this specific situation the choice would be very clear to me, at least, although I am biased since I always shoot squeeze.
 
Try shooting both, then decide. It's all a matter of preference: on one hand you have the ability to ensure better framing, on the other you have (slightly) sharper and less compressed-looking video and much easier cutting with xl2 footage, but squeeze mode does take some getting used to if you want to shoot in it.

One other nice thing about 4:3 is that if you want to do motion tracking, you can set up objects outside the 16:9 frame for tracking, reference etc. I also prefer it for shots that will get heavily processed anyhow (greenscreening, etc.).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top