The 3 way shoot out

Well of course it seemed biased. The DVX blows the XL2 out of the water.

The simple fact is that Canon layed up for par when they needed to hit the birdie. I suppose the XL2 has certain values and advantages but if I'm shooting an indiependent film then the XL2 isn't even an option.

If negatives are pointed out; it's because they exist.
 
Always eager to slam the XL2... eh, John? I am sitting here with a short that I am editing cut between a DVX100 and XL2. The Dvx is darn nice and can get better film like gamma from the camera directly. But the 16x9 blows!! In this day and age 16x9 is king. The XL2 walks all over it. I am saddend by this because I really needed a smaller form factor camera that is 24P and good 16x9. The Dvx meets the 24P but not the "good" 16x9. Once again I am forced to dumb down the XL2 clips to keep a constant look. Otherwise the 16x9 of the DVX stands out like a sore thumb.

I wish Panasonic had fixed this with the B. And don't say the HVX is the 16x9 dvx cause it's not. It may share similar features but it's price point is too high to be used as a SD 16x9 DV camera only. IMHO
 
I was just chiming in as homeboy was. Sides...

Just calling it like I see it. The 16:9 isn;t making or breaking anything for me. It's all about the image. And the XL2 jus't aint' got it.

But we already know that so there's no use in going in circles over it
 
very nice artical
it confirms my investment in the dvz100a .
With dvx100a and the uprez solutions suggested on your sticky via photo zoom,,
do you think I have one more year of use of the dvx100a with clients ?
Or is it all over ,due to the hdv craze and time to move up ? .
For my own projects I am very happy with the dvx100a .
Thanks for any reply or refrence to a thread .
Cheers
Bruce
 
John_Hudson said:
I was just chiming in as homeboy was. Sides...

Just calling it like I see it. The 16:9 isn;t making or breaking anything for me. It's all about the image. And the XL2 jus't aint' got it.

But we already know that so there's no use in going in circles over it
Click to expand...

Your right. The XL2 hasn't got "it". It has a lot of great stuff the DVX doesn't have. So by that standard the DVX hasn;t got "it". It is all relative. YOu can argue til you are blue in the face but the shortcomings of the XL2 can be worked out in post. Mainly the lack of a really good gamma curve like the DVX. But I can make the XL2 look like the DVX but with higher resolution 16x9. However I cannot make the DVX look like a DVX with higher resolution 16x9. Kinda ironic.......

I like both cams equally as they have their own unique strengths.

The DVX has a great gamma curve and look and convenient package.

The XL2 has great 16x9, a nice long lens and great OIS.

You say all you care about is the image. Well the last I checked, having a nice clean crisp 16x9 look is part of the image.

In all fairness you may not know what you are missing. I'm not being a jerk when I say that. I was pretty happy with the DVX 16x9 until I worked with a real 16x9 and now I can really see the limitations of "stretch" mode or letterbox mode. I wish sometimes I hadn't been exposed to better because things were a lot simpler then. Maybe you have worked with it too.....I don't know. But for me, the 16x9 of the DVX is starting to border unnacceptable.

Peace!
 
icicle22 said:
Your right. The XL2 hasn't got "it". It has a lot of great stuff the DVX doesn't have. So by that standard the DVX hasn;t got "it". It is all relative. YOu can argue til you are blue in the face but the shortcomings of the XL2 can be worked out in post. Mainly the lack of a really good gamma curve like the DVX. But I can make the XL2 look like the DVX but with higher resolution 16x9. However I cannot make the DVX look like a DVX with higher resolution 16x9. Kinda ironic.......
Click to expand...

No, not atall. The DVX does have it. You don't make 3 models of the same thing if it ain't got it. Sides; putting a telphoto lens on a pile of dog crap does'nt make the crap suddenly of value.

The real irony is the XL2 users that try and make it look like the DVX. You don't find the DVX owners saying "How do I make this look like an XL2?". I suppose one can apply uprezzing techniques if rez is your bag; but really now ice? The higher rez is negligble at best isn't it?

As usual; someone show me this magical XL2 footage. (Never seen it in a year.)

In all fairness you may not know what you are missing. I'm not being a jerk when I say that. I was pretty happy with the DVX 16x9 until I worked with a real 16x9 and now I can really see the limitations of "stretch" mode or letterbox mode. I wish sometimes I hadn't been exposed to better because things were a lot simpler then. Maybe you have worked with it too.....I don't know. But for me, the 16x9 of the DVX is starting to border unnacceptable.
Peace!
Click to expand...

No no no. I know what I'm missing. Really. You could'nt pay me to use an XL2. They dropped that ball a long time ago. And if the DVX is becoming unaacceptable then I imagine that's where the HVX is going to step in, hmmmmm?

And don't worry about sounding like a a jerk; it's typical when the XL2 users get defensive

Are you a MAC user by any chance?
 
John,

I'm not talking about "have you seen XL2", I was just talking about real 16x9 footage vs. Squeeze mode or any other 16x9. That's all. ONce you work with it the "manipulated stuff" pales. I thought I was being realistic and easy going about it. But if you must get your underwear in a bunch go ahead.

I guess no one is talking about making a DVX look like an XL2 is because the few features the XL2 really has over the DVX can't be overcome. No longer zoom and no really good 16x9. Those are 2 tangible features that no one can deny. The supposed "mojo" of the DVX is at best an opinion or someones preference. I like it but the footage I shoot with the XL2 can be made to look just like the DVX IMHO. I wish it just did it in camera but it doesn't.

Man oh man! Can't we be civilized. It reminds me of the person who can only feel good about himself if he is putting another down. I admit the DVX has a cool look that the XL2 can't achieve in camera. Hell...I actually love the crap out of my old DVX100. But I don;t have to dog all other good cameras to make myself feel better about it. WTF???

Can't we all get along?

And for the record I use a MAC and a PC. I don't have to be whipped by one brand or the other.
 
icicle22 said:
I admit the DVX has a cool look that the XL2 can't achieve in camera.
Click to expand...

This has been my contention all along.

and...

Civilized? You're the one crying about it. Jesus Christ; we can't say one thing about the XL2 without some lamo coming out and saying 'Stoooooopppp! Quit bagging on my camera. It has good features too. It's not all about the gamma! We can do it in post!"

Are we not allowed to say "I wouldnt use an XL2 if my life depended on it" without the emotional responses? Calm down tiger.

As far underwear in a bunch and 'reminds me of the person who can only feel good about himself if he is putting another down' Who are you talking to? You think I'm putting you down? I'm talking about the XL2 you psychopath. You wanna get along then you can check that response.

As soon as you people accept that I think the XL2 is crap without getting manic about it the better off we'll be. You're not going to talk me into it. It's just an opinion of mine about a camera.

I'll say it again:

It is my .02 about a camera.

It's comical (and predictable) to see the tangents develop. We're talking about cameras and you start going into meltdown and making it personal; why?
 
So if I were to make a blanket statement that the DVX sucks and I hate it and I need to keep coming on this board to reiterate it......that's totally cool? I do believe that I am being civilized as I can see what both cameras have to offer. There are some things that each camera does that the other cannot. I can see that and I call out the strengths of each camera and give them props. Then I point out what shortcomings each has also. I am actually very neutral and I still prefer the DVX for many reasons.

But it does not "blow the XL2 out of the water" as you stated. It may be your camera of choice but that does not make that statement fact. And I don't feel I've made it personal at all. I just like both cameras and would defend the DVX against biased slams in the same method.

In hindsight the statement about the 16x9 of the DVX I made earlier was a bit harsh. But the truth is that I am shooting 16x9 for widescreen plasma monitors and the squeeze mode of the DVX really knocks the DVX picture back down a peg. The DVX rocks but the 16x9 mode makes it slip down a notch. Add to that the XL2 16x9 is superior and the eyes start to see a big gap between the cameras in that mode. So I actually long for the DVX to have better 16x9 but it ain't gonna happen.

And just like I have seen you mention on this board John, I can't afford an HVX right now either.

I find it a bit odd that you must always get your digs in whenever you can on the XL2. You don't like it. We know that. Still that dead horse get's beaten over and over again. I am just sorry that I spoke up and defended what is a great camera for many. I guess that qualifies as a tangent to you. I have offered many facts on each and backed up my statements. I use both cameras on weekly basis. But that doesn't have any merit because your mind is made up that the XL2 sucks and you are waiting for someone to post some web footage to prove you wrong. Guess actually using the camera doesn't count for anything anymore.
 
Are we really gonna continue to go in circles on this? Yes; the DVX blows the XL2 out of the water.

To me. This is my .02. You could'nt give me an XL2 (I'd sell it). It is not a biased slam. As soon as I see something better; I'll call it.

Better? To me. Better for me. Subjective.

No one's getting digs in (Even though you pre-empted the first reply with "Always eager to slam the XL2... eh, John"

See; you were itching to debate from the get-go. And if you wan't to debate, we can. It's nothing personal so I don't know why you must get all crusade style on me; let's face it, you're getting kind of peeved here. :undecided

You know what the DVX had? Without using it; I started seeing footage. Not from Professionals; but hack's. And the footage kicked major ass. I knew it; the DVX was the one for me.

I honestly thought when I heard the XL2 coming that it would be a slamdunk. I was like "No way! An XL series camera with 24p?" Awesome.

And then we started seeing footage and it was like "Oh." And then we started hearing "Well, it's merely a post thing. We can fix that gamma in post..."

Now I've seen some nice work with the camera. Music Videos, conceptuals and even a few shorts... But something is still amiss in my eyes. It's not the 24p cadence although I swear something is off (Others say no way; so I have to take their words for it) but something is definately off. It is a kind of VIDEOY VIBE.

The DVX has a very filmic vibe; the Xl2 leans on the VIDEOY spectrum.

The camera does nothing for me. I am sorry you have this response when the subject comes up. I'm sorry MAC users go into meltdown when their debate comes up. I'm sure there's a FORD or CHEVY or HUMMER owner that mocks my Nissan XTERRA and FRONTIER; okay?

Anyway; I couldnt even imagine shooting with an XL2. Sorry. I am very stoked that it works for your needs. Rock on dude! It's not for me; don't have a cow about it.
 
I use both a DVX and XL2 on almost a daily basis and this is my 10th year to shoot DV so I have been around the block. It comes down to personal preference or the job at hand. The DVX is great at some things, the XL2 is great at some things. BOTH are sufficient for everything. I am a fanboy of no camera or manufacturer, in fact, the cams I prefer to use when I have budget to rent them are exclusively Panny cameras (Varicam and SDX900). Both those cams have a great film look, much better than ANY 1/3" CCD camera.

With a skilled operator, the XL2 will provide cleaner images with less noise. The DVX will provide more saturated color with more film like colors. The thing the DVX fanboys dont acknowledge is that you can color correct in post, you CANT add resolution or information lost in highlights and shadows. For some projects, that wont matter... the anamorphic lens is a nice workaround but can add some aberration.

The XL2 is a harder camera to operate and it does not come with the training wheels that a DVX comes with (default scene files). The DVX is a professional camera that is accessible to amateurs...the better they get, the more they can do with the camera. The XL2 requires skilled operation out of the box. White balance, gain, exposure, color controls, etc. on the XL2 are all very average at the factory settings, they are all very safe settings. The XL2 is a professional camera that will EXPOSE amateurs. The "hacks" using XL2s will NOT get great looking footage.

I just get tired of all the Spielberg wanna-be DVX fanboys making blanket statements slamming the XL2...when you do that you do nothing more than expose your ignorance.



ash =o)
 
I was really starting to enjoy what appeared to be a solid take on the subject matter but predictably you had to get that 'Last Stab' in there, right Ash? You start with a 'I use both cameras......" and "Of course I prefer the Varicam when given the opportunity..." and then the post starts deteriorating with 'Fanboys!' and accusations of wannbe Speilbergs and remarks about 1/3 CCD's...

and my favorite: you do nothing more than expose your ignorance.

Come on man. Stop. Have'nt you even been reading the last few posts? One man's .02 on a Camera is not a personal attack against you. Why the need to personally attack someone else?

So what is it exactly about the XL2 that makes it a 'professionals camera'? What makes it 'harder to operate' Ash?

I don't recall my DVX coming with training wheels and if you're suggesting the DVX does not require skilled operation then I know your post is moot and holds no weight; now that would be just silly.

And if you are going to make personal attacks and references at least have the huevos to say who it is you are talking about. :beer:
 
i think to sum up the dvx has had its day and that was yesterday, xl2 is good for another day but the new canon and panasonic models, are just better, value is a subjective thing, time changes that! no point having value if it cant deliver.............
 
Well, John, I do think you are a fanboy but not a wanna-be Spielberg =o) You can be very talented and be a fanboy. First off, the DVX is a camera that looks good, as you noted above, even when a "hack" is using it, that is why I refer to it as having training wheels. It is a camera with almost limitless growth as the available manipulations are plentiful. The Auto modes on the DVX are very good as well.

As I said, both the DVX and the XL2 are professional cameras, the DVX is just more approachable to an amateur for the reasons I have noted. The XL2 is more difficult to operate because the Auto controls are not very good and there are no custom looks from the factory. The camera comes out of the box with a very very clean but somewhat flat image. This is what most the DVX-lovers are basing comparisons on, the base XL2 image, not the optimum XL2 image.



ash =o)
 
A DVX Fanboy? Yes I am. But I will call it like I see it even if it is my own .02 and subjectove opinion.

A Spielberg wannabe? Eh. Maybe when I was 15.

It seems a heated debate flares up every few months between Me and the DVD/XL2. It's just my .02. It's not my thing.

Theres a new short inthe XL2 section (Some Military short film) that is actually a fun short and not too bad; but just screams Video to me.

Does it have it's applications and bene's and are there supporters and users that make it work for them? Hell yeah!

Anyway; it's fun to debate this everyonece in awhile but alas; even I'm tired of the circle.
 
Wouldn't the best solution to this whole DVX / XL2 debate be to have experienced operators submit footage and see which is most film like?

Oh wait, that is what this article was about. I agree with John completely.
 
TheYankee said:
Wouldn't the best solution to this whole DVX / XL2 debate be to have experienced operators submit footage and see which is most film like?

Oh wait, that is what this article was about. I agree with John completely.
Click to expand...

Word.

(Even though it was blatantly biased - Insert Rolling Eyes Emoticon)
 
TheYankee said:
Wouldn't the best solution to this whole DVX / XL2 debate be to have experienced operators submit footage and see which is most film like?

Oh wait, that is what this article was about. I agree with John completely.
Click to expand...

Where was the footage that you said looked more filmlike? I didn;t see any footage myself. I saw screen grabs.

While this article was very impressive and I know Jarred and Barry have great skills and good eyes for this stuff, the XL2 was brand new at the time. If I recall they even talked after this article on the board about getting a skilled shooter for the XL2 and a skilled DVX shooter to do a more "polished" comparison. I don't think that ever happened but it was mentioned. 2 years of shooting with a DVX and then trying the XL2 for a short time for this article defintely puts it behind the eight ball.

Either way that doesn't change the facts we do know from real world usage outside of this article. But the statement that this article showed proof that the DVX was more filmlike wasn't entirely clear IMHO.
 
The "it looks like video" is such an old an lame argument. Since when did the crushed black saturated color become THE film look? 90% of films dont have that look, it is what many indie film makers go for, but that does not define film look.

The problem is that most people look thru their biased glasses when evaluating footage. If film look to you is the movie Domino, then great footage that looks like a NORMAL movie that is not highly stylized will be video-like to you. When I see DVX, I think DVX, not film... same with XL2 and every other 1/3" CCD camera.

I think it is just odd that film look to most DVX users means nothing more than highly stylized video shot at 24P. When I shoot with a DVX I usually set it up to be cleaner, less saturated and have more dynamic range than 90% of the stuff I see posted here.




ash =o)
 
icicle22

There was spilt screen footage accompanying the Article orginally. Fairly lengthy and detailed; Interior/Exterior shots, Day/Night etc etc. (Just an FYI) Jarred? Is that movie still around (Linkable)?

Ash

Please let's refrain from accusations of biasses; it does nothing but belittle a persons opinion I think. And yes...

"It looks like Video" is an interesting jab. But it does >>> Relative to the DVX100. I am NOT saying the DVX100 looks like Super35; but comparing the 2 cameras - in equal stasis- the XL2 looks more Videoy IMO

In the thick of it; a DVX100 is a 3 CCD Camcorder. Yes, we know. But again; we're talking about our options 'at this level and price point'. That being said; and all things being equal...

I prefer a DVX100 over the others. Until I see another option I stand there. I am a Fanboy because there isn't any other option for me currently; when there is you can accuse me of being a biased fanboy of the 'Stokedia 4k2400 HVY Camera'. Know what I mean?

Ironically; I find Domino to be a Magic Bullet Bad Dream more than anything. It's as if MTV ran into a Red Giant (Get it?). I'm not fond of this look. Man on Fire? Yes. Domino? Whoa; waaay overboard.

But anyway; The DVX100 has some gnarly Mojo. Makes me happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top