FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zoomforce
  • Start date Start date
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=wongwai link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=45#50 date=01/07/05 at 19:05:14]yes, one of them is BIG!!

If I only knew, I would come forward and tell you guys how much I learned and Love the DVXuser.com.

FYI, you two did get quite a lot of attention, not because of you guys appearance, but the machines you were carrying.  ;D[/quote]

Heh heh.. yeah woulda been cool if you did we coulda used some help carrying all those damn cameras. Did you like my super funky 3 camera rig at least?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

The 16:9 vs. 4:3 issue is one I run into all of the time.

I know so many people (some even in the TV business) who HATE letterbox. "I must be missing something, because it isn't filling up my screen!"

The local video store buys many more fullscreen copies because the locals don't like letterbox! So I either have no problem finding the WS copies OR the only ones are already out! ;)

The feature I operated on last year No Regrets, was picked up by Lifetime (aired on 12/27/04) and they required a Pan&Scan. The director tried to slip in a couple of shots that were squeezed, so our composition was preserved and they caught them right off and had them replaced w/P&S.

It's conundrum. I'd love to shoot everything 16:9 but I don't want to have to then process everything in post for two versions! I guess I could edit an anamorphic version and then go to my friend's post house and run it all thru his ADO to BetaSP and program the P&S. . .

c'est la vie.

Most clients who use the DVX for the first time exclaim, "this looks just like 16mm", when looking at the monitor.

MR
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Oops! and BTW I loved the article. I've already passed the link onto several friends.

I have one client I passed it onto. Long time XL1 user. We're pitching a show to HDNet. They are the anomally to me. It HAS to be 1080i, NO 24P, no 720P they want it to be as HD and video looking as it can be. They use mostly HDW700 I believe.

I worked on a pilot for them last year and all we have available for rent around here is the F900-CineAlta. SO I had to dumb-it-down, and turn off all of the settings I usually use.

What are you going to do.

It's great 18 different flavors of TV!

Oh well. I love my DVX100 and as long as we know what the deleverables are up front we can make it right.

BTW when No Regrets was uprezzed to 1080 24P for potential film-out it looked great. About a soft as I usually make my CineAlta footage look!

Thanks for the great work guys. The amount of testing you do, the forum, the Anamorphic user's guide. . .

I can't thank you enough.

MR
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

I take issue with parts of your review. I think you should re-read what you wrote. It is a little biased don't you think. To say that 16X9 is not that big a deal or that it is not widespread enough. Personally, all I own are 16X9's and why would I want a camera that doesn't have it? If I plan to shoot an indie movie, how many theaters have 4X3 screens? I do not own a camera, but am looking to purchase one this year. I realize this is a DVX site and is quite partial but let's be a bit objective shall we. I just think you downplay the significance of 16X9 quite a bit. I'm sure I'll get roasted by the DVX nation but the only 4x3 set I'm looking for is a second monitor to edit video on.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=MRFilm link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=60#62 date=01/08/05 at 11:40:49] I'd love to shoot everything 16:9 but I don't want to have to then process everything in post for two versions! I guess I could edit an anamorphic version and then go to my friend's post house and run it all thru his ADO to BetaSP and program the P&S. .
MR[/quote]

With the Z1 you can use the safe marker during the widescreen shoot to preserve the 4:3 image and copy a crop version in that format. But no one askes for that and I don't want to take care of the "safe 4:3 aerea" from a designers point of view either. Btw, I heard people saying that the Z1 image looks like 35 mm film. Also I thought the last pan & scan was done in 1978... or elsewhere in the last century. I think the Z1 is much better than we see in this FX1 review.

What I want to say is that comparing the FX1 is not the way to go, it is in the market to get some feedback to make the Z1 better. Compare the XL2 with Z1 with the DVX100a.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

<<<---- "Further complicating matters is that Europe has yet to decide on an HDTV standard – some headlines announced at IBC that the EBU would be adopting 720/50P, which would make this camera incompatible in Europe! Apparently that announcement was premature or that decision was rescinded, and a formal selection of interlaced or progressive has not been made yet for Europe. If 1080i is selected, the FX1 would be a safe choice; but if 720p is selected, the FX1 may not be nearly as useful in Europe." --->>>

Are you talking about production or broadcasting in Europa? Or playing the FX1 video at home? Or ....? Because to produce tv and to broadcast tv isn't the same. I guess the FX1/Z1 will be used in production of many tv-programs in the next 5 years.

De-interlacing technologies are becoming commonly available. Many high-end flat displays already come with very sophisticated signal processing systems. Interlace or not, it isn't a problem for home-video users.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=xray link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=60#66 date=01/08/05 at 13:32:40] I think the Z1 is much better than we see in this FX1 review. [/quote]
The only person I know of who actually has a Z1 is quite a fan of it, and he's not any big fan of the FX1. The Z1 is still a month or two away, but it looks to be well worth taking a look at.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=leechild link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=60#65 date=01/08/05 at 13:14:36]Personally, all I own are 16X9's and why would I want a camera that doesn't have it?[/quote]
In your particular case, I would think 16x9 would be one of the most important features for you.  In the article we laid down our reasoning, including that in the US it appears that around 90% of the TV's are still 4x3.  But in Europe, it's more like 50/50, and obviously at your place it's 100% 16x9.  Our intention wasn't to say that one is "better" than another, just to say that you will have to deal with the realities of your shooting and display environment.  If you plan on shooting 16x9 for display on 16x9 TV's, then the 16x9 feature takes on much more importance and relevance.

If I plan to shoot an indie movie, how many theaters have 4X3 screens?
Click to expand...
None.  Of course, none of them have 16x9 screens either.  16x9 is close to the theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85 but not at all close to 2.39, of course.

16x9's market share is growing, yes.  And it appears that the pace of adoption is accelerating.  But still it only accounts for about 10% of the US base of televisions.  Our article was about what cameras are appropriate for TODAY -- what can you do with it NOW.  By the time 16x9 hits the kind of acceptance in the US as it's seeing in Europe (probably 4 to 6 years from now at the earliest) we'll be on the DVX500 or DVX600 or XL6 or FX5 or whatever's current at that time.

However, we fully acknowledge that different users will have different priorities, and that's why we spelled out the capabilities of, and differences of, the cameras the way we did. 
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=LoveHD link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=60#67 date=01/08/05 at 18:09:15]Are you talking about production or broadcasting in Europa? Or playing the FX1 video at home? [/quote]
All, really.  European HDTV sets, when they become available, will likely be based on the platform endorsed by the EBU.  If the EBU says that they're going with 720/50p, will manufacturers make 1080/50i sets?  Maybe, maybe not.  I'd guess probably not, but that's just a guess.  And if the set doesn't support it (and why would it, if all broadcasting is done at 720/50p) then what benefit would it be to have a 1080i camera?  Certainly not for home movies, for commercials, for broadcast production -- you'd be producing in a format that can't be viewed on your TV, or broadcast over the airwaves.

Yes you could downsample or whatever, but... why not just wait a few months, see what JVC and Panasonic may introduce, see what the EBU decides, and then buy a system that's actually going to be compatible with your television?

A 720p camera displaying on a 720p television will likely look far superior to a 1080i camera being de-interlaced/ downsampled/converted and displayed on a 720p set (and vice versa).

(of course, the EBU may indeed endorse 1080i as well... that's a risk that early FX1/E adopters are taking).

Like I've said repeatedly, if you *absolutely have* to have HD today, go ahead and buy an FX1 -- it's a great camera.  But if you don't NEED it today, what do you lose by waiting a few months, to see what happens?  If anything?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Sat.1 viewers with suitable receiving equipment can experience this epic two-part movie about Siegfried, Brunhild and Princess Kriemhild in crystal-clear picture quality. The visual experience will be completed by Dolby Digital 5.1 sound, providing viewers with true cinema quality in the living room. Technically speaking, the broadcast will be simulcast in parallel to the SD signal, the film being played out in HDCAM SR (1080i/50 Hz) and delivered to an MPEG-2 HD encoder with a data rate of some 1.4 gigabits/s.

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=60#70 date=01/09/05 at 01:37:35]
And if the set doesn't support it (and why would it, if all broadcasting is done at 720/50p) then what benefit would it be to have a 1080i camera? Certainly not for home movies, for commercials, for broadcast production -- you'd be producing in a format that can't be viewed on your TV, or broadcast over the airwaves.[/quote]

To produce tv and to broadcast tv are not the same. 35mm film and all kind of cameras have been used in tv productions. Our tv-set doesn't support these kind of equipments.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Hmm...

Barry interesting news today, an LCD (37" i think) HD 1080P was advertised by Pionner (sorry bad spelling) in the nation newspaper

"7 billion colours"

It would seem, regardless of what EBU are going to say HD sets are already being made and 1080P is already being sold!

My prediction is coming true, i said that HD will "sneak" in via LCD and Plasma. these HD sets will work with SD signals and be HD ready for the future.


http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/products.jsp?category=HD_Future&category_id=413&taxonomy_id=62-63
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Congratulations, this is easily the best and most comprehensive comparison of the 3 cameras, and as the frequent user of a DVX100A and an XL2 (as well as a Sony Dsr300), I agree wholeheartedly with all of your conclusions. I have not had the opportunity to handle the FX1, but assume your conclusions are correct on that camera as well.

The one catagory that you left out was handling. Sorry to harp on this (as I have several times before), but it is of prime importance to me, and I assume to some others, at least. As a documentary filmmaker I handhold 90% of what I shoot. And even when I DP dramatic films, I tend to handhold often because I like the sense of "presence" and believe it adds to dramatic story-telling. Of the cameras that I use regularly, the XL2 (the way I have it configured) is the closest to my 16mm Aaton in feel and balance. True, the iris switch is stupid, and the white-balance button being right next to the "sleep" button is even stupider (is that a word?), but it is the only 24p "prosumer" camera that I can use on my shoulder all day without a visit to the Chiropractor's office.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

This is one of the areas me and Barry slightly disagreed with.. Hes not as big of a fan of 16:9 as I am, and to me even if there are only 10% of people in the US watching 16:9 on widescreen tv's.. I still prefer the look of 16:9 letterboxed on 4:3 tvs rather than 4:3 content.

As a Camera Operator, nothing is more annoying then a production requesting a project be shot in 16:9 but framed for 4:3.. sure it covers distribution delivery requirements but the 16:9 ends up looking funky.

Too me.. if tommorow 4:3 died and 16:9 was the only aspect (well besides 2.35 of course) ratio around I would be very happy. And as an owner of an HD projector with HD cable..I must admit Im addicted to HD. Our DVX footage that was uprezzed to HD was so good I almost couldnt believe it.. but apples to oranges almost all of the HD content is uprezed anyways so the interpolation artifiacts are going to be everywhere.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Jarred do you use the anamorphic adapter on your dvx100a. I have a set up which I run a computer to my front projector to get 960p from my dvd's. I'm hoping that if I shot a movie this would also follow suit. Movies look like high definition on this set up.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

jarred, forgive the question, if answered elsewhere, but when you uprezzed DVX to HD, what method was used? i have read disjecta's use of photozoom, but i couldn't imagine tackling a large project in that way.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=Jarred Land link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=60#74 date=01/09/05 at 10:03:52]Hes not as big of a fan of 16:9 as I am, and to me even if there are only 10% of people in the US watching 16:9 on widescreen tv's.. I still prefer the look of 16:9 letterboxed on 4:3 tvs rather than 4:3 content.[/quote]
Hey, let me clear that up -- I definitely prefer 16:9 over 4:3, and I definitely prefer HD over SD. By a wide margin. But I also prefer 24P SD over 60i HD for most things. 24P 16:9 HD is the current "gold standard".

Acknowledging market realities doesn't mean that that's where your preferences lie. If 4:3 SD disappeared tomorrow and was replaced by 16:9 HD, that would be cause for celebration! All I'm saying is that not only has that not happened yet, it won't happen in this decade, so if one intends to produce content that will be distributed, you have to face the reality that what people have, and what they will continue to have for a long time, is 4:3 SD.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Great article. I just recently attended a HDV presentation from Sony to some shooters and the images are impressive, but, I agree with the points you've made in your comparison. I feel like I did make the right choice last year when I waited for the DVX100A to come out. It has not disappointed at all!

What I am considering though is purchasing the Sony HVR-M10U VTR which should be able to protect me going forward. Being able to post my DVX footage while positioning for HDV is more of an issue for the future in my world. Plus, I was about to purchase a DSR-11, now, for a few doolars more I can have the ability to edit my DVX footage while waiting to see what shakes out with HDV.

Thanks so much for your indepth study. For me, it's priceless!
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Cool!

I agree that the DVX100A is an astounding camera. The Sony HD is hard to assess given that all the pictures were down-rezzed to SD, and that it is an interlaced picture.

Looking at the color charts, it looks like the DVX100A default color matrix is set to gain saturation by nearly two-fold over the other cameras...The colors look almost "day-glo" rather than "natural" at the zero/middle mark that each camera was placed at. however, you can get this look on each of the other cameras simply by cranking the saturation.

At middle/zero on the XL2, you have turned off the cine gamma, and the cine color matrix which are both options on the XL2. I am curious what it looks like when these are turned on? Actually, I already know :o

What about the three cameras shot at 16:9?? With the consumer market switching to 16:9 very quickly, it is important to assess the abilities of each camera at 16:9.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

All those test shots were shot at 16:9. The DVX used either squeeze mode or the anamorphic adapter. I think we only did a little bit in 4:3, FX1 DV mode 4:3 vs. DVX 4:3. Everything else was shot 16:9.

The reason we down-rezzed it all is twofold: first, the market is currently almost entirely SD, and second, there's no point in comparing SD cameras to HD if you have a way to display HD: HD wins every time. In the case of the FX1 it does beg the question of whether you'd want the interlaced HD look vs. the filmlike up-rezzed SD, however...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top