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

It's a great review, however slightly biased against XL2 and FX1. Well, as you said, it's DVX forum, isn't it? :) Widescreen is getting more and more popular in SD. Myself and many people I know buy widescreen DVDs only. From that point of view, in my opinion XL2 is the winner. Few months ago I had a chance to test DVX100 extensively and I was disappointed by aliasing problems. That important aspect was not covered well in the comparison. The fact is, there are two things that tell you a movie was made on video: interlaced feeling and video articats. In the second aspect, Canon is the best, but DVX definitely has its advantages. Not an easy choice.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=bogdant link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=90#102 date=01/14/05 at 14:53:01]It's a great review, however slightly biased against XL2 and FX1. Well, as you said, it's DVX forum, isn't it? :) Widescreen is getting more and more popular in SD. Myself and many people I know buy widescreen DVDs only. From that point of view, in my opinion XL2 is the winner. Few months ago I had a chance to test DVX100 extensively and I was disappointed by aliasing problems. That important aspect was not covered well in the comparison. The fact is, there are two things that tell you a movie was made on video: interlaced feeling and video articats. In the second aspect, Canon is the best, but DVX definitely has its advantages. Not an easy choice.[/quote]

I don't know this from first hand experience, but both the XL2 and the DVX apparently suffer from artifacting the same way. I have heard that the XL2 is actually a little worse in the digital sharpening corner. And from all the video I have seen, the higher rez pic of the XL2 seems to suffer more from that defect.

Either way, both have the ability to turn this down so it's not as noticeable but supposedly at the cost of a sharp image.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

yes.. the new HD Pana decks do an incredible job.. I saw the previous hardware uprez and it wasnt even close to what the HD1200a could do.. it was one of those " I cant believe its that good" moments.. almost like the first time you saw 24p from a DVX.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Just want to chime in and give my cuddos to both of you.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=x2mag68 link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=105#105 date=01/15/05 at 22:44:00]wait? the Deck automatically uprezzes?!  
[/quote]

The AJ-HD1200A has to to have the HD-SDI card it in for uprezzing and yes if it has that it will uprezz the footage to what every you want. As an example if you shoot 24P in a DVX or SDX and you want to edit on an HDCAM 1080P24 system, It will be able to strip out the 24 frames and output over HD-SDI a 1080P/24 signal. Pretty nifty. I actually know a filmmaker that is doing this very thing in NYC, from an SDX900 original, but pretty slick.

Hope that helps,

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

Just reading the article, cant get past this yet:

"Panasonic has sold a boatload of DVX100’s and DVX100A’s,"

But did it all come on a single boat! Of course not. I assume this to mean, that if you take the total volme of DVX's sold, it would fill an entire boat. Not your local bulk cruisers mind you, I'm talkin about the big Ker...you know...a big boat.



Edit:
When are you guys getting the film out results?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Just got through all 8 pages of this discussion, and now it's my turn to give you guys muchos thanks for doing this. A month ago, before I even knew of this wonderful forum, I was sitting at home perusing different cameras, and the exact thought that popped into my head was, "Hey, someone should do an XL2/DVX/(insert Sony camera here) comparison..." Well, my prayers have been answered...

Obviously, I couldn't help noticing a slight tendency toward heightening people's awareness of the DVX's strengths (to put it in the most vague terms possible...), but at the same time, I think it is well directed. I too agree that the DVX is the one to beat these days. I do love shooting 16:9 (when appropriate/possible), and I do wish there was some way of incorporating both native 16:9 and 4:3 CCD's into the DVX, but oh well... stretch will do.

Anyway, thanks again for the comparison, and I look forward to more such articles...
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Hi, - Fantastic review - my eyes are killing me after reading all that..

Maybe I missed it, -but was the anamorphic 16x9 lens mentioned?

Just curious, as with that lens, would you get a better 16x9 resolution shot than the canon? (as the effective pixels are higher on the DVX)

Just curious.

Thankx again - Iwas thinking of selling my DVX100 and stuff -now I'll keep it
:o
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

saw some xl1 footage today, i remember thinking how good it looked like 3 years ago...... back in the day when the video art crowd heralded xl1 king with a close 2nd, VX2000...   we've come a long way baby.  now people instead of buying a camera are renting HD cams, seling the work then using the money to rent again next time.  i know an artist who just spent 6,000 in rentals on an hd cam.  not sure how long she kept it.  she probably rented a hd deck too.

but HD video art is a HOT commodity cause noone can really afford to do it. thus its rare, and even shitty work is selling cause its so hard t  find.   ( look up Mathew Barney Creamaster series, almost all shot on video, and HD, a little film too i think. his work isnt shitty though)
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Good review….

I had a couple of thoughts

You state:

“The DVX’s iris ring is the smoothest-acting of the three; the iris is calibrated in increments as small as 1/6 of an f-stop, so changes in iris can be executed smoothly and seamlessly.”
The difference between ¼ and 1/6 is negligible and one should not consider this aspect too much. For best results ramping of the iris should be hidden in a movement (for example train passing in front of the lens).

When speaking on the DVX’s lens ring you state:

“The focus ring is precise and repeatable and, while not offering hard stops at minimum and maximum, it acts with all the efficiency of a true manual focus ring”

You can repeatedly hit focus marks with the FX1 as well. Besides this the lens of the FX1 has been designed with HD in Mind whereas the DVX’s have been made for SD. I believe any trained eye will be able to pick up the difference in the detail of the FX1’s lens (alas the DVX can’t shoot HD so this will be hard to prove).

I do agree with you that the zoom feature is better on the dVX it really pisses be off that Sony is always trying to “idiot proof” there prosumer products.

But still I am not sure how you come to the conclusion that the DVX wins in the Lens department…. seems to be your opinion more than hard facts. Also I have never seen anyone downplay the interchangeable lens feature on the XL2 as much as was done in this review. The XL2 is great and as far as working with the PS technic it is (AND THIS IS MY OPIONION) the camera of choice.

Cavision make affordable standard bars (15mm diameter/60mm separation) for the FX1 have a look at http://www.cavision.com/SonyHDRFX1.htm

As far as the 24p issue I say, Shoot 50i on the FX1E then deinterlace to 25p. The following was taken from magic bullet wesite:

"Does the DVX100 mean that PAL is no longer a preferred format for Magic Bullet? Back to top?"

"No. There are still a few advantages of shooting PAL, progressive or not. The extra resolution is very helpful when transferring to film. Additionally, PAL cameras are very likely to have a 16:9 mode, which, unfortunately, the DVX100 lacks. Shooting PAL has its own difficulties, such as the audio stretching that must take place for NTSC presentation, but in many cases the extra image detail makes this worth it."

Now replace the slight resolution diffence between pal and NTSC and HD and NTSC!!!


Nancy Schreiber used the DVX to its full potential on “November” and did an amazing Job. Similarly on Thomas Vinterbergs “Festen” VX1000’s where utilized to achieve amazing results. I am waiting to see someone take advantage of the extra resolution allowed by the FX1E for a film transfer. I mean isn’t that the beauty of the FX1 the fact that you can shoot great DV but then if you need extra resolution (as in the case of a film transfer) you have the option to shoot at HD.

I would always try to shoot at least S16mm for anything going to the theatres but if I have to do minidv shoots here is the tentative production flow I would follow.

Shoot 50i on the FX1E

Cut the film in Pinnacle Edition 6 (best HDV codec so far)

Magic Bullet (or some other deinterlace software) to 25p

Transfer the final HDV to HDCAM

Print the HDCAM to 35mm

If you had the money to do you post on HDCAM that would of course be much better but in that case why aren’t you shooting HDCAM or even better S16mm.

I have more points but I should probably get back to work now…. By the way I really like the DVX especially the cine-gamma and visual control you have “in camera”… good for times when you can’t grade in a suite.

Cheers,

Adam Levins
www.levinspictures.com
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Adam,

Read through your post and while you had some good points the one that sticks out in my mind is the push for the HDV format. Adam, the problem that I and a growing number of others have with the HDV format is the fact that the resolution on the screen can change without notice. So there you are shooting your scene and you start to move the camera, how does that shot look. Well, depending on how much detail was in the scene and how fast you moved the camera, it could be that it didn't make it past the compression engine.

What this means is that if you don't take a big, read 21" or larger, monitor with you, you may not see what the compression engine does to your footage. A bad time to see it is in the edit suite. This also means that you should carefully review every shot, while you still have the opportunity to reshoot. This gets you past the dropout problems as well.

Then just to top all of that off, try to color correct in post. That should convince you that the HDV format is not ready for prime time. If indeed you transferred your footage to HDCAM or DVCPRO HD immediately after the shoot, assuming that you have great footage and the compression engine didn't get you, it might make it through the color correction.

And don't forget that the audio is compressed on the HDV format, so you need to figure out how to get a dual system sound to function within the HDV environment.

Anyhow hope that helps,

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

To start with: don't use the FX1 at all. Its a consumer oriented camcorder. No Time Code, no XLR sound. Just ini-mini plug. 1st generation. You have to use the Z1 for any serious work. I'll be surprised if Sony can't give you a better shot after fine-tuning the engine. We'll see. And test it again.

Shooting S16 mm, you also use DAT sound with TC sync.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

HDV is coming faster than we think. Read the short "Death of Celluloid" article at the current home page of www.filmmaking.com. (Click on the article in upper right hand corner.) Some cinemas in Scotland have been projecting in digital without disclosure to the audience, and the feedback has been fine. This trend will accelerate more swiftly than our best predictions.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Hi all:

Of course, let's not forget what will probably be the substandard audio that the FX-1 and Z-1 feature. All of the Sony prosumer DV camcorders of the past few years have had horrible audio quality. The new Sony HDV cams feature MPEG 1 compression on the audio track.

And let's not forget that great 15 frame dropout feature that HDV has. What would be a simple one frame dropout on a DV camera will become a 15 frame dropout on these Sonys. How can you consider a camera with these deficiencies (15 frame dropouts and bad audio) for professional work? I can't. I hope that Panny's upcoming low end DVCPROHD camcorder has the same great audio quality that my DVX-100A has. I already know the picture will look incredible.

All the best,

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

[quote author=xray link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=105#114 date=01/17/05 at 10:05:05]You have to use the Z1 for any serious work. I'll be surprised if Sony can't give you a better shot after fine-tuning the engine.  We'll see. And test it again.

Shooting S16 mm, you also use DAT sound with TC sync.[/quote]

Hey Xray,

The Z1's compression engine is the same as the FX1. They have not, nor would they change that; not in five months. The development path is much too long to alter this, and frankly to get the signal within 25Mb, they have to do a long GOP, therefore, not much is going to change, imagewise. That is solid. The fact is that the format has many shortcomings in its implementation the wouldn't bother my dad, or my brother but might be a problem for someone that was paying folks by the hour.

And yes the Z1 has time code but it does not have time code in. So there will be yet another work around to deal with.

Not trying to be difficult, just letting you know what the problems will be and trying to help you think it through about what it will take to produce serious stuff in this format.

Best regards,

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

Yes, sound is an issue with the HDV system, but I figure just treat it like I have been treating DV and DVCAM (the sound on these systems is not up to scratch either)... If it’s a big project we always have a sound guy recording to DAT.

As far as your concerns about compression, Yes it is damb compressed. However technology has evolved since the days when the DV standard was created. Compression/encoding systems are way more efficient now and that’s one of the reasons you can get such a big picture at 25mps.

It's not a perfect format.... you will need a sound crew and a big HD monitor to shot. Also you will need to pay careful attention to lighting and movement. But I believe very good images are possible if you treat it right (way above the standard of DV)

Cheers,

Adam Levins
www.levinspictures.com
 
Re: 16:9

Re: 16:9

I'm still wondering about the 16:9 issue. Excuse the 16:9 newbie question, but will the digitally squeezed 16:9 of the dvx100 give me the same anamorphic full frame picture as an anamorphic adapter? Only that one is digital and the other optical? And Jarred, what is it you don't like about the 16:9 ana-adapter?

I actually don't belong here since I don't own a DVX but it's the only camera I'd consider ditching my VX1000 for ...
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=Jan_Crittenden link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=105#117 date=01/17/05 at 18:13:19]The Z1's compression engine is the same as the FX1. They have not, nor would they change that; not in five months. [/quote]
Jan,
Well Sony said they are still working on it, and it has nothing to do with the GOP (12 or 15). MPG2 encoders are around for a long time. You can tune the signal on the software, in the compression scheme, or in the hardware adding a faster engine, swap memory, changing other electronic parts. The software and compression scheme is something that is changing rapidly. Look around.

The Z1 timecode is the same as the DVX, free run etc. Both do not have TC in/out. There are many ways to sync it up with an external DAT machine. Even without the 'jam'. You can slate,shoot the visual TC from the DAT, audio out from DAT to Ch1 camcorder and so on.

Sure its a new camcorder, its not perfect, it has problems, it is interlaced 1080i, (didn't Panasonic just put an 1080i pro camcorder in the market?) but I think you can shoot (50i) something with it with an option to go digital projection. (forget film, more and more docs in the Netherlands -show on the biggest doc festival the IDFA- are digitally projected, no one has the money to transfer to 35mm..)
cheers//
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top