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=MrBeaker link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=150#159 date=02/11/05 at 05:06:46]others are talking about your review! ;)

http://www.dvdoctor.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003265[/quote]


All I can sa here is it seems that there are a lot of people that know very little, yet past as if they do on this thread. Wow, I have not seen so many technical fopahs in a long time.

Interesting,

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

yes Jan... it is a little amusing to sit back and watch.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

..you guys want some hot cocoa? ..mini marshmallows.. i dont know, ..perhaps a margarita sounds better. ill put little umbrellas in them.

ive decided to pass the time by carving a small statuette of a bird out of all the beeswax ive collected from this thread. im going to give it to barry when its all over to help him keep his sanity.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Elsewhere on this board, a couple of folks rave about the potential noise reduction possible by making it a practice to shoot (and of course white balance) with an 85 filter continously in place. The idea is that it shifts the recording of color such that the blue channel noise goes down. I didn't see this in Barry's book, however.

Do you think this is a useful idea for general purpose critical work?

Just for the DVX, or for all three of these cameras?

If so, it'd be great to have you fold this in if you do decide to do a second shoot-off, and also to clarify if this is just a low light technique (for example wide open or when increasing gain) or if it applies across the board.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Haven't really experimented with this. I know that the idea originally came about because Michael Phillips of Avid said something like that CCD's were basically designed to process tungsten light, so using the daylight balance is basically electronically shifting the spectrum around... I should test it to see for myself, I just never got around to doing so.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

If this is a dumb question sorry..

Why wasn't the Sony PD170 included in the comparison? In my reading through various BB postings about "which camera to buy", it seems like this is one of the most common choices along with the DVX100A. Also, they are about the same price..?

Please explain.

Thanks,
Rocket Dog
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

I think (I didn't write it so I'm not 100% sure) that the comparsion included a special kind of cameras:

1) FX1 - because it's a first HDV amatour camera.
2) XL2 - because it's 24p and has native 16:9 chip

3) DVX100a - because you know... it's dvx :)


The sony pd170 is 60i, SD, 4:3 native. It's just a good DVCAM camera for tv productions, weddings with low light capabilities. It's not a good "film-look" camera... And it seams like pd170 is a fx1 but in sd mode...

correct me if i'm wrong...
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Mainly we chose the three cameras that we did because they are the choices most buyers agonize over, when wanting to make indie movies and things like that. Aspiring filmmakers want a DVX or XL2 for their 24p capabilities, and they're tempted by the FX1 for its high-def capability.

The PD170 offers neither high-def nor 24p, so it's not really considered by the indie filmmaker crowd. And if you ask the members on this board whether they consider themselves "indie filmmakers", I'd wager at least 85% would say "yes".

Furthermore, at the time the FX1 was introduced, we felt that it was plainly intended to replace the PD170. Only after testing the FX1 thoroughly did we understand that the PD170 is a much better standard-definition camera than the FX1 is... the FX1 shines in high-def mode, but its standard-def mode isn't really competitive with the PD170. Prior to testing the FX1, we felt that the PD170 had been rendered less relevant.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Thank you for this test and this website, Barry, Jarred, and everyone. You all make this place what it is. I'm new here, a happy PD170 shooter, but am ALSO ready to be a DVX100A shooter, thanks in part to you. I'm not concerned about HD for the next couple of years, and am ready NOW to work with in-cam 24p/30p, utilizing a proven and well supported rig.

Thanks again.

Shawn
 
DVX or XL2 for 16:9 multimedia video

DVX or XL2 for 16:9 multimedia video

Thank you for this test! But i have an any question... I need to make 16:9 video films for multimedia products (DVD-presentation). I understood that FX1 is not good variant for it, but what to prefer for making 16:9 progressive video - DVX or XL2?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Any of the cameras would do a superb job of making 16:9 videos for multimedia products and DVD presentation.

The FX1 is native 16:9, but it's also interlaced, so if you want the film look you'll end up with lower resolution than you would have gotten if you shot on a DVX in squeeze mode and 24p.

The XL2's native 16:9 mode is very very good, whether in interlaced or progressive.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

And what about Sony HVR-Z1 for DVD presentations? Is better Z1 than FX1 in progressive video?
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

The Z1 doesn't have progressive video -- its imaging system (lens, chips, etc) is identical to the FX1.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

I know that I should be at least a 100 yards away in the presence of the great ones, but I just had to interject here:

IMHO:  I really don't like the picture on the FX1 unless you are doing complete 100% video.  It is a really harsh image.  I also don't think it is justice to call it "HD" when there are real HD cameras out there that take 9.2 megapixel frames.  1.2 megapixel simply is not HD!!  

I'm really impressed with the out of the box DVX100a color matrix..It does indeed make things look filmic right off.  The XL2 takes some tweaking to get the same, but you do have that extra bit of resolution.  Fit with a lens with a shorter focal length (but not that fuzzy grainy ground glass), and you have a very very nice cam.

There is some crazy good work being done with 3D with double DVX100a's.  It seems to be the wave of the future.  You have to wear high speed LCD glasses, but they are high tech, not the wonky red-and-blue kind.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

When I first read this review I went in it hoping that it would convince me to buy the FX1.  Mainly because I had enough money for one and it was the newest and there for had to be the best...right?  Thats what I thought and I read this review just so I could prove my point to myself.  I've only worked with sony (vx100,200,2100,pd150) so my mind was pretty much set on buying the fx1.  After reading the review I was bummed at first cause for what I wanted to film the FX1 didn't seem to fufill my needs and the DVX seemed do everything and more.  After reading this review and looking at www.adamwilt.com I was convinced that this was going to be my next camera(dvx100a)...and it is.  I love it !  Not to mention I thought you were fair to all cameras and showed exaclty what I needed to know not what i wanted to hear.  Thank you!
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

[quote author=johnnyspacecommand link=board=nws;num=1105070695;start=165#174 date=02/23/05 at 21:00:02]IMHO:  I really don't like the picture on the FX1 unless you are doing complete 100% video.  It is a really harsh image.  I also don't think it is justice to call it "HD" when there are real HD cameras out there that take 9.2 megapixel frames.  1.2 megapixel simply is not HD!![/quote]
9.2 megapixels is HD? Are you sure? ;) A typo maybe? And 1.2 megapixels is pretty close to one of the HD standards, it called 720p; Pansonic's favored flavor of HD.

1920x1080 = Slightly above 2 Mega Pixels
1280x720 = Just shy of 1 Mega Pixels
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Some day we're going to look back on this and laugh at the prospect of shooting compressed 1 or 2 megapixel footage :D.
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Silly rabbit!  It's never going to happen.  I mean, no one wants to have bigger or better.  Who ever heard of that? Come on, I'm very satisfied with my Commodore 64.  Who wants to change that? Commodore 64s are the latest and greatest in technology. Nothing will beat those.   :-X

OK! I think I'm going to puke at my own statement. Me! Come on, mister I'm-striken-by-the-obsolecence-syndome?

Actually, I wonder how many years... well, maybe decades in this case, it will take for us to go hysterical at this.  "What?  Only 1080 lines! You mean we had to endure such limited resolution?  Ahhhh!  Those were the good old dark ages of the "HD" era."
 
Re: FX1 vs. DVX vs. XL2 .. By Barry and Jarred

Fred said: called 720p; Panasonic's favored flavor of HD.
Click to expand...

Fred, DVCPROHD is either 720P or 1080i. The first camera the AJ-HDC20 was a 1080I camera, then we introduced the Varicam and ittook off like a barn a fire. We are aabout to deliver the HDX400 which is 1080i.

Just to clarify.

Best,

Jan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top