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

[xray]

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

If you have to work seriously today, I will (sometimes) go with the proven DV concept. It has the advantage of being finished. Editing, sound, workflow, base of colleagues tools, 3rd party soft- and hardware. For me is shooting 16:9 important, native not with adapters. But, we will make the transition to HD sooner or later. Living in Europe, working with computers, seeing the fast broadband growing, working with film too, I prefer a progressive signal.

 

[Barry_Green]

Re: 16:9

Re: 16:9

[quote author=moebius link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=105#119 date=01/18/05 at 15:04:58]but will the digitally squeezed 16:9 of the dvx100 give me the same anamorphic full frame picture as an anamorphic adapter?[/quote]
Yes, and no. Yes it will be a full-frame anamorphic widescreen picture. But no, it won't be the same picture the anamorphic adapter would have given, because the anamorphic adapter will give you the full height of the frame, and 33% wider image.

 

[Jan_Crittenden]

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

Hi Xray,

Well Sony said they are still working on it, and it has nothing to do with the GOP (12 or 15).

Well actually it does have a great deal to do with the 12-15 frames on GOP, this is what allows them to get the data rate so low. And frankly I would be very surprised if the algorithm was any different. The chip set for the compression engine is outstandingly expensive to innovate, more than a million dollars. You have to sell a lot of cameras to make that back.

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.

I agree that with MPEG2 that there is changes and advances that are being made, but frankly that is something that I see on my laptop. The software changes that you see in software are happening, but once it is part of a manufacturing line, it does not change. It is just too expensive.

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.

Yes but the audio from the DVX is viable in a production sense, it is uncompressed.

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?)

My problem with it is not that it is 1080i, it is that the frames are not discreet and you cannot foretell what the compression engine is going to do with the picture. That was my only point and that is there it has some huge hurdles to cross when working with it, because unlike DV or DVCPROHD, what you see in the viewfinder is not necessarily what is going down to tape. You need to be careful so that when you get back to the edit suite and all the players have gone home, you don't find unusable footage. The motion artifacts are what hurt it most. That's all I am trying to say.

Best regards,

Jan

 

[Spot]

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

Great comparisons guys, but I've got to ask, how did you achieve the same frame aspects and angle when 2 cams are shooting 4:3 and one is shooting 16:9? Something somewhere, had to have been crippled. Either the FX1 is being cap'd at 4:3 or the DVX isn't shooting wide, etc. While the DVX and the XL2 are both very fine cameras, and used by a number of folks that are hitting film festivals and broadcast, there is no way those images could possibly be that close in final output/resolution without crippling the FX1. I've shot too much with the Z1 to accept that.
I'd like to see a specific breakdown. If you want to compare the FX1 with a full wide shot, vs the DVX with a full wide shot, it's not fair to the DVX. If you compare a DVX 4:3 vs the FX1 at 4:3, if you do the in-camera conversion to 4:3, it's not fair to the FX1. Comparing a full wide of the XL2 vs the FX1 would be fair to both, But overall, it seems like the test results are skewed to the DVX deliberately. Realizing that this is a DVX forum, and both testers are DVX users, I'd expect some of that, but I liked the original idea of 3 separate shooters, all shooting to get the best look they can from the camera. or 3 shooters all shooting the same image with all three cams set on auto.
I'll grant the DVX has more features than either of the other two; that's obvious. And the built in film looks are sweet as well. On a feature by feature basis, the DVX wins hands down. But having shot 2 of the three cams side by side, both in auto mode, I can't accept your test findings as they are far, far different from anything that I've shot, and different from what a leading DP in Burbank achieved completely independent of my own tests.
Kudos for doing the work, it took a lot of time and effort to write the review/article, but it seems non-objective from the get go.

 

[xray]

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

[quote author=Jan_Crittenden link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=120#123 date=01/19/05 at 02:39:15] The software changes that you see in software are happening, but once it is part of a manufacturing line, it does not change. It is just too expensive.[/quote]
Hello Jan,
Yes, but the Z1 is not in production yet so a software change is easy for the manufacturing line to change...

You need to be careful so that when you get back to the edit suite and all the players have gone home, you don't find unusable footage.

You are right, but dont you always? If you shoot film you dont see anything exept after rushes. Gate problems, dust, filters.
with respect, xray

 

[Barry_Green]

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

[quote author=Jan_Crittenden link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=120#123 date=01/19/05 at 02:39:15]because unlike DV or DVCPROHD, what you see in the viewfinder is not necessarily what is going down to tape.  You need to be careful so that when you get back to the edit suite and all the players have gone home, you don't find unusable footage.  The motion artifacts are what hurt it most.[/quote]
Okay, this is a point to ponder. I knew something was bugging me about the viewfinder on the FX1, because it shows a 4:3 DV image differently than any other DV camera does... it shows the full 16:9 widescreen image, but it dims the bars outside the 4:3 area. (So you see the full 16:9 image, but it's like there's a dark overlay on the sides... they're still there, you can still see stuff in them, but it's darker). And that's different than any other DV camera I can think of -- usually the whole monitor changes aspect ratio (like the XL2's... it shows a letterboxed image or a pan 'n' scan extraction, but black bars). Assumedly that's because all the other cameras are showing you the image as it's being laid down to tape, the uncompressed image... but with the FX1, it's definitely showing a pre-compression image.

Interesting. I wonder if that means exactly what Jan's saying -- on footage that might be affected by MPEG-2 artifacts, you may not see it in the field, you may not even know it happened until you get back to the edit suite and play back the footage. (Obviously you could play it back in tape in the VF and see it though). I'll have to test this next time I get an FX1, and see if it's an issue. If it is, it's just something FX1 users will need to adapt to (i.e., if there's a potential that artifacting will affect your shot, you'll need to do a tail check before moving on).

 

[Barry_Green]

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

[quote author=Spot link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=120#124 date=01/19/05 at 06:46:14]how did you achieve the same frame aspects and angle when 2 cams are shooting 4:3 and one is shooting 16:9? Something somewhere, had to have been crippled.[/quote]
Yes, and it was usually the DVX.  Most of the shots were Squeeze mode.  On a few shots we used the anamorphic adapter.  Because the other two cameras shoot 16:9 all the time, we shot almost every shot in 16:9.  There were a couple of shots we did in 4:3 mode just to see it, but those are labeled (well, all the shots are labeled).  Probably 80% of what we shot was FX1 16:9, XL2 16:9, DVX Squeeze.  10% was DVX anamorphic, and the other 10% was every camera in 4:3 mode.

There is no way those images could possibly be that close in final output/resolution without crippling the FX1. I've shot too much with the Z1 to accept that.

Well, this is what I've been saying.  Shot in the same circumstances with all neutral settings, and then downrezzed to DVD, I'm not seeing any advantage to having shot on the FX1 (and the disadvantage is that you have to give up XLR's, 24P, and some sensitivity etc).  I mean, the images from the FX1 in bright light are definitely comparable, after downrezzing, to the XL2 and DVX, but not better.  On HD, yes they're "oh my gosh" better.

I'd like to see a specific breakdown.

Certainly -- we audio-slated almost every take so if there's any particular shot you want to ask about, I can go back and reference it and find out what the settings were.  I tried to list them in the comparison shots in the other thread.  If you haven't seen the other thread, look here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/cgi-bin/DVX2/YaBB.pl?board=sony;action=display;num=1103104690;start=15

If you want to compare the FX1 with a full wide shot, vs the DVX with a full wide shot, it's not fair to the DVX.

I agree.  That's why we used the anamorphic adapter in a few shots (one of the Grand Central Terminal shots, and the wide shot of the skating rink).  But sometimes the anamorphic got in the way, it was too difficult to get the right focus, so then we resorted to squeeze mode.

If you compare a DVX 4:3 vs the FX1 at 4:3, if you do the in-camera conversion to 4:3, it's not fair to the FX1.

Definitely, and it's even more unfair to the XL2.  Frankly, nobody buys the XL2 to use it as a 4:3 camera, so we did very little 4:3 on the XL2.  We figured that if you were using an XL2, you were using 16:9... for the test 4:3 shots that we did, Jarred and I were probably the first guys in history to switch the XL2 to 4:3 mode!  ;D

Like I said, almost all the shots were done in 16:9 mode.  We never compared one camera in 4:3 against another in 16:9, as that would be silly.  Always the aspect ratio was the same, either 4:3 or 16:9, and any time the FX1 was in HD mode we shot 16:9 on all cameras.

But overall, it seems like the test results are skewed to the DVX deliberately.

I know why you say that, and I don't blame you for saying it, but I can assure you we tried our very best to be completely objective and didn't try to skew anything towards or away from any camera.  We shot a wide variety of shots in every possible shooting condition we could think of.

Keep in mind that we set all settings to neutral/middle, and that's accounting for some of the discrepancy.  The FX1 starts out with a default sharpness of 11, which might look great to someone comparing an FX1 against a DVX on the monitors at B&H, but isn't really a fair comparison because the DVX's 24P default is like -3 on sharpness... so we set them in the middle to try to establish a common baseline.

but I liked the original idea of 3 separate shooters, all shooting to get the best look they can from the camera.

Yes!  That's what I want to do, that's what we should have done at CES but there was just no way to get there.  I definitely want you, me, and Chris to do exactly that.  I think that's the only way we'll know what each camera is capable of doing, as versus just its out-of-the-box look.

or 3 shooters all shooting the same image with all three cams set on auto.  

I don't think that test is nearly as valuable, because I don't think anyone buys a $3500 to $5,000 camera to use on auto mode.  I think testing them with the goal of getting the best image possible is the way to go, and I'd love to do that test, and I think you and Chris Hurd are the perfect guys to be operating the FX1/Z1 and XL2.

I can't accept your test findings as they are far, far different from anything that I've shot, and different from what a leading DP in Burbank achieved completely independent of my own tests.

Well, at least we now know why we've been disagreeing; I've been saying what I've been saying and you've been saying "what on earth are you seeing that makes you say that?"  At least now you have seen the footage so you know why I'm saying what I am... now we just have to determine if it was the methodology we used that caused it, or narrow down why you're getting different results than we are.  Did you see Jon Fordham's review on DVInfo?  He basically said the same things I did, based on his test results of shooting a short film on the FX1 and getting some duplicate coverage with the DVX.

Kudos for doing the work, it took a lot of time and effort to write the review/article, but it seems non-objective from the get go.

I understand why you're saying that, and as far as non-objectivity goes, I can only say that it was our goal to be completely objective.  But considering that we spend so much of our time on this site, and we're both mods, I understand that people are going to think that.

Which is why we *need* to do the 3-camera test.  I'll write you off-line and see if we can find a time when you, Chris & I can all get together and do that.

 

[mdopp]

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

First of all thanks for the thorough and very interesting review.
Being a happy owner of the HDR-FX1 I do have some questions to ask since I experienced myself the hard-way that HDV-editing is not as straight forward as DV-editing yet.

You found an intense video-look of the HDR-FX1 and noted that the CineFrame 24 mode is crap.
I fully agree to the latter but wonder if your comparison of color response was truly correct. It seems you haven't tested the CineGamma feature of the HDR-FX1 ? It should give you much more filmic colors.
Also have you taken care of the different color space that all HD cameras use (ITU BT.709 versus ITU BT.601 of DV) ? Using the wrong color space will result in somewhat unsaturated, washed out colors which might just have been what you saw. Today only few video-editing programs today take care of that (you will be on the safe side if you use Cineform's Connect HD codec).

Further you note that the down-rezzed SD-image of the HDR-FX1 is not up to the level of the competitors. Having tried this many times myself by now I absolutely disagree with that statement. My comparisons against Canon's XL2 and GL2 show the HDR-FX1 clearly on par.
Of course it all depends on how you perform the down-rez.
If you shoot native DV with the HDR-FX1 the results will be poor. If you shoot HDV and later have the camera down-rez to DV the results will be better but still not really up to the DV-competition.
However, having a HDV camera the obvious workflow will be to shoot and edit in HDV and then down-rez to DV using the editing-software.
I am using Vegas Video and was VERY pleased with the results. Mark "Reduce Interlace Flicker" on all clips, add just a slight amount of sharpness and don't forget to change the field order to "top field first". As I said, the results are brilliant and easily compare to the XL2.

Martin

 

[Barry_Green]

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

[quote author=mdopp link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=120#128 date=01/19/05 at 10:34:54]It seems you haven't tested the CineGamma feature of the HDR-FX1 ? It should give you much more filmic colors.[/quote]
We did some shots of the CinematTone gamma (CTG).  It definitely harshens the contrast and makes it look more punchy, which helps.  But it also seems to cost some of the latitude.  CTG is interesting -- it works exactly opposite of the DVX's CineGamma, which flattens out the contrast curve, giving softer contrast overall, whereas CTG harshens up the contrast.  It's a nice look, not necessarily suitable for all purposes of course, but a nice effect.

Also have you taken care of the different color space that all HD cameras use (ITU BT.709 versus ITU BT.601 of DV) ?

We made no specific provision, no.  Just put the clips on the Vegas timeline, and used it to output a DVD.

Today only few video-editing programs today take care of that (you will be on the safe side if you use Cineform's Connect HD codec).

Interesting -- my Connect HD trial expired so I can't test that.  I don't recall seeing any difference between Cineform-codec versions and Vegas-native .m2t's on the timeline... wonder if Vegas automatically corrects for it?

Further you note that the down-rezzed SD-image of the HDR-FX1 is not up to the level of the competitors. Having tried this many times myself by now I absolutely disagree with that statement. My comparisons against Canon's XL2 and GL2 show the HDR-FX1 clearly on par.

I don't know that I said that the image is not up to the level of the competitors -- I do think it's clearly on par.  It's just not better, as meaning there's no more detail etc. in the downrezzed FX1 as compared to the XL2/DVX.  But the images on DVD are certainly comparable, as far as 60i goes.  In 24p mode the DVX and XL2 exceed the FX1's CF24 mode.

The main thing I was saying is not that the FX1 isn't on par, because its downrezzed image certainly is competitive, but that you do give up a few things (like 24p, like XLR audio, like a stop or two of sensitivity) in exchange for an image that is, at best, comparable to the others.  But not better.  Would you disagree with that?

However, having a HDV camera the obvious workflow will be to shoot and edit in HDV and then down-rez to DV using the editing-software.

Definitely.

I am using Vegas Video and was VERY pleased with the results.

Me too -- I thought Vegas did a great job.

Mark "Reduce Interlace Flicker" on all clips, add just a slight amount of sharpness and don't forget to change the field order to "top field first". As I said, the results are brilliant and easily compare to the XL2.

But... if you add sharpness, couldn't you also add that same sharpness to the XL2 footage?

I didn't try "reduce interlace flicker" before downrezzing, I wonder how that would affect the image. Reduce Interlace Flicker is a slight vertical blur which one would think would soften the image, thus not helping sharpness, but since the overall downrez is going to be doing some softening anyway, and the end result is going to be interlaced, I wonder if it actually does help somehow...

 

[mdopp]

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

Wow, that was a quick reply ;-)

My Connect HD trial expired so I can't test that. I don't recall seeing any difference between Cineform-codec versions and Vegas-native .m2t's on the timeline... wonder if Vegas automatically corrects for it?

If you put m2t-Clips in the timeline the result is definitely wrong. You will need a color correction. See http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=1048 and http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/showthread.php?t=1007 for details.
If you used the avi-Clips of Cineform's Connect HD codec everything is fine.
The differences depend much on the dominant colors and saturation of your pictures. I found it very obvious on some footage and less noticeable on other.

The main thing I was saying is not that the FX1 isn't on par, because its downrezzed image certainly is competitive, but that you do give up a few things (like 24p, like XLR audio, like a stop or two of sensitivity) in exchange for an image that is, at best, comparable to the others. But not better. Would you disagree with that?

I fully agree.
You probably can't expect any better SD-quality than the DVX100A or XL2 already deliver. The FX1's loss of sensitivity is something you will have to learn to live with due to the much smaller CCD pixel size. At least the dark pictures are not at all noisy. As as I agreed upon before, 24P is just useless.

But... if you add sharpness, couldn't you also add that same sharpness to the XL2 footage?

I didn't try "reduce interlace flicker" before downrezzing, I wonder how that would affect the image. Reduce Interlace Flicker is a slight vertical blur which one would think would soften the image, thus not helping sharpness, but since the overall downrez is going to be doing some softening anyway, and the end result is going to be interlaced, I wonder if it actually does help somehow...

"Reduce Interlace Flicker" is exactly what you describe - a slight vertical blur. But remember we are speaking of "blurring" 1080 lines here ;-) You will need that desperately otherwise the down-rezzed result will have flickering all over the screen on high detailed areas.
The Sony camera uses very little sharpening internally which is perfect for HD but not for down-rezzed SD. That's why I recommended that setting. Again, please note we are sharpening the HDV image before down-rezzing. This is not at all the same as sharpening the SD-footage of the XL2.

I have run dozens of tests regarding down-rezzing and compared various settings very carefully. After all most of my audience will finally watch the movies on DVD - not in HDV. And I certainly didn't want to fall back in quality.
Having said that, I didn't mean no better settings could be found. If anyone has something valuable to offer I'd be glad to hear of it ;-)

Martin

 

[mdopp]

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

If you used the avi-Clips of Cineform's Connect HD codec everything is fine.

One more thought on that. Since Connect HD uses ComputerRGB (0...255) and Vegas expects StudioRGB (16...235) you will need to convert from one to the other by applying a ColorCorrector-Filter.
If you have missed that, the colors are totally off. Furthermore you will loose all details in both dark and highlighted areas.
Martin

 

[nullphonic]

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

Great job guys, thank you very much.

 

[Unclemort]

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

Barry and Jarred, Thanks for this timely and very relavent comparison!

 

[chuck_ferris]

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

I'd like to add to the chorus...great work!

Chuck

 

[tom_hardwick]

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

A great write-up guys, and I do like the way you've risen above the mist and been able to dispassionately divorce yourselves from the dramatic USP of the Sony's superior definition. Here in Europe's PAL land we place much more emphasis on 16:9 than we do on HDV, and the FX1 is being lapped up for that reason alone. Also we have far fewer people worrying about the film look when we already shoot at 25fps.

I did enjoy reading your review and can appreciate the huge amount of work that has already gone into the article. So may I be forgiven for pointing out a small (but oft repeated and easily corrected) error? You liberally sprinkle apostrophes about when they're not needed, writing the plural of DVD and TV and so on as DVD's and TV's. You wouldn't say one dog, two dog's, so why burden other nouns with this apostrophe?

tom.

 

[xray]

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

So for 16:9 you can use Sony, Canon and Jvc. Only Panasonic has nothing to offer in native prosumer widescreen. That is why new sales in Europe will go Fx1/Z1. And XL2. But apostrophe wars? Havent seen that. But hey your English is ways better than mine.

 

[dvxStephen]

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

Barry and Jarred, what an amazing contribution. Careful. You're singlehandedly giving the internet a good name...

I'd love to get your thoughts on a slightly different "comparison emphasis" when evaluating the DVX vs the XL2. Like many indy videographers, my current client's primary market is SD/DVD, but they want to keep a foot in the 35 mm blowup door, and require me to hold that as a viable distribution path.

From your research, it appears my two best choices are:

1) shooting native 16:9 with the XL2, and compromising the output when it's letterboxed down to 4:3 for TV broadcast.

2) shooting native 4:3 with the DVX, where the compromise happens in reverse -- when letterboxing it before outputting for blowup. As DP Nancy Schreiber did so successfully with "November".

When attempting to evaluate the relative merits of these two approaches, comparing the DVX's strengths in SD, and the XL2's strengths at 16:9, it would be helpful to know a bit more about four significant comparisons you tested for in your report:

A) How significant the quality drop is when downscaling XL2 16:9 footage to fit, letterboxed, into a 4:3 format. When viewed on a high quality standard TV, is the quality drop readily apparent? How about when projected on a good home theater setup, say?

B) You describe the increased flaring, etc. caused by the smaller XL2 image sensor. Is this only a factor in night shoots, or does it come into play significantly during daytime work?

C) You've shown how the DVX is more light sensitive, but also mention that the XL2 has lower noise at 0 gain. If you turn up the XL2's gain till it's just as light sensitive (as the DVX at 0 gain), is it a wash between the two, or does the DVX still come out ahead?

D) You describe the DVX as having significantly more latitude than the XL2. When going for a good film look at 24p -- say outdoors, where you'd seek the maximum latitude either camera is capable of -- have you had a chance yet to see if gamma, etc. could be compensated for in the XL's menus to the point where it's no trailing behind the DVX in overall latitude?

Thanks!

 

[tuface]

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

Hey Tom-
Our you sure about the apostrophe's? I'd like too see you're evidence. I hope you no what your talking about.

(god, just rereading this made me cringe)

 

[Barry_Green]

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

DOH! I have, indeed, been served.

I thought for sure that the abbreviated form of an acronym was separated out by apostrophe, but I just looked up the AP Style Reference and it clearly says that sequences of letters get a plural "s" but not an apostrophe, so you'd say "recite your ABCs", not "recite your ABC's".

Man, now I'm gonna have to go through that 20-page article and make all those changes... ugh...

(actually, I can't... Jarred posted the article, he has the web code, so *he* has to make the changes!) ;D

 

[Barry_Green]

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

A) How significant the quality drop is when downscaling XL2 16:9 footage to fit, letterboxed, into a 4:3 format. When viewed on a high quality standard TV, is the quality drop readily apparent? How about when projected on a good home theater setup, say?

Didn't test that specifically, during this comparison we almost always shot 16:9 for 16:9 display.  However, it should look pretty good.  Downrezzing almost always looks better than up-rezzing.

B) You describe the increased flaring, etc. caused by the smaller XL2 image sensor. Is this only a factor in night shoots, or does it come into play significantly during daytime work?

Flaring is probably not the right word, "smear" is probably the right word.  It can happen when a CCD pixel gets overloaded.  It's more common at night because the aperture is usually much wider open, and a light source (like a headlight or streetlight) will then way overpower the CCD pixel.  It could happen in daylight as well, I guess, but it's much less likely to... it all depends on if there's a light source in the frame that's dramatically more powerful than the surrounding scene.

C) You've shown how the DVX is more light sensitive, but also mention that the XL2 has lower noise at 0 gain. If you turn up the XL2's gain till it's just as light sensitive (as the DVX at 0 gain), is it a wash between the two, or does the DVX still come out ahead?

The XL2's picture is just plain cleaner and less noisy overall.  Some of that could be compensated for with detail coring, it looks like the XL2 has got some major detail coring going on at all times.  Crank up the detail coring to max on the DVX, and there may be less of a difference.  With the XL2 you could use gain more freely and liberally than you would with the DVX, so yes it could help compensate.  However, once you use it, you've used it, whereas the DVX would still have the prospect of using it if necessary (meaning, a DVX at 18db will still be a stop and a half brighter than an XL2 at 18db).

D) You describe the DVX as having significantly more latitude than the XL2. When going for a good film look at 24p -- say outdoors, where you'd seek the maximum latitude either camera is capable of -- have you had a chance yet to see if gamma, etc. could be compensated for in the XL's menus to the point where it's no trailing behind the DVX in overall latitude?

No, didn't explore that.  Can't see as to how it'd be possible though.  I think the XL2 just has a narrower dynamic range, due to the tiny pixels, and there's nothing in post that can overcome that.  It's not a HUGE difference though... I mean, I think the DVX does about 7 stops, the XL2 was about 5.5 stops... whereas 35mm film is about 13 stops.  So it's not like the contrast range is going to be that significant of a difference, as compared to film.  It's noticeable side-by-side, yes, but you're going to have to compensate for it when shooting, whether using the XL2 or the DVX.  Neither gives you the exposure freedom that 35mm does.