The tape lubricant myth

Re: The tape lubricant myth

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Links;num=1099002080;start=30#38 date=10/29/04 at 12:32:06]

In what ways do you think it's a better camera?  

What are you using it for? (Surely not filmmaking?)

Just curious.
[/quote]
Oh God, I should have known that was coming. Well, for one thing it's got some weight so I can use it with the Magiqcam II. It's a shoulder mount. It has full time zoom ring control. It has full time manual override of the auto focus. It has more controls on the body as opposed to in menus. It has an optional EF adapter that will let me use my Canon photography lenses with it. It has shutter and apterture priority modes for those times when you need to quickly pick an fast shutter without setting the exposure of everything else. It has 30db of gain and an auto gain mode (great for manual mode). It has 16:9 stretch (which the original DVX didn't have). The lens has a drag for helping you get smooth zooms with the zoom ring (unlike the original DVX). It has an easier to use white balance. A record search button on the body... an exposure compensation dial on the body. It has interchangeable lenses. It looks more professional. It's cheaper than a DVX (I got mine slightly used with a brand new lens for $2500). And last but not least, it has an excellent resale value. I bet that I can sell the damn thing for the same price I paid for it a year from now. Try that with a DVX. That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. And even if you don't agree with any of it... you're not me, so it doesn't matter :)
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

Oh and also, it uses LANC instead of the stupid zoom-and-record-only Panasonic remotes. You can control focus and all kinds of crap using a lanc remote with the xl1s.

Now, I'm not saying that it's a better camera than the DVX hands down. No, I'm sure the DVX is a much better camera for many people. To me though, usability is more important than resolution. That's why I'd take a 3MP DSLR over a 7MP point and shoot.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

[quote author=enterdcable link=board=Links;num=1099002080;start=30#41 date=10/29/04 at 12:55:20]Are you gonna start a XL2USER.com site? :-[[/quote]
I don't even have an XL2, I have an XL1s... I like hanging around here... it's a good crowd.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

[quote author=Tony Hall link=board=Links;num=1099002080;start=30#40 date=10/29/04 at 12:50:47]
Oh God, I should have known that was coming. Well, for one thing it's got some weight so I can use it with the Magiqcam II. It's a shoulder mount. It has full time zoom ring control. It has full time manual override of the auto focus. It has more controls on the body as opposed to in menus. It has an optional EF adapter that will let me use my Canon photography lenses with it. It has shutter and apterture priority modes for those times when you need to quickly pick an fast shutter without setting the exposure of everything else. It has 30db of gain and an auto gain mode (great for manual mode). It has 16:9 stretch (which the original DVX didn't have). The lens has a drag for helping you get smooth zooms with the zoom ring (unlike the original DVX). It has an easier to use white balance. A record search button on the body... an exposure compensation dial on the body. It has interchangeable lenses. It looks more professional. It's cheaper than a DVX (I got mine slightly used with a brand new lens for $2500). And last but not least, it has an excellent resale value. I bet that I can sell the damn thing for the same price I paid for it a year from now. Try that with a DVX. That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. And even if you don't agree with any of it... you're not me, so it doesn't matter :)[/quote]

Rock on.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

What? Nobody's going to argue with me about my decision and tell me I'm wrong? Geez, you guys just aren't any fun :P
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

Oh God, I should have known that was coming. Well, for one thing it's got some weight so I can use it with the Magiqcam II. It's a shoulder mount. It has full time zoom ring control. It has full time manual override of the auto focus. It has more controls on the body as opposed to in menus. It has an optional EF adapter that will let me use my Canon photography lenses with it. It has shutter and apterture priority modes for those times when you need to quickly pick an fast shutter without setting the exposure of everything else. It has 30db of gain and an auto gain mode (great for manual mode). It has 16:9 stretch (which the original DVX didn't have). The lens has a drag for helping you get smooth zooms with the zoom ring (unlike the original DVX). It has an easier to use white balance. A record search button on the body... an exposure compensation dial on the body. It has interchangeable lenses. It looks more professional. It's cheaper than a DVX (I got mine slightly used with a brand new lens for $2500). And last but not least, it has an excellent resale value. I bet that I can sell the damn thing for the same price I paid for it a year from now. Try that with a DVX. That's just what I can think of off the top of my head. And even if you don't agree with any of it... you're not me, so it doesn't matter
Click to expand...

With takes like this what's to argue? You never mentioned what you 'do' with the XL1. I stated "Surely not filmmaking?" and you never answered; again just curious.

You mentioned the PRO's being functionality of buttons, menu options, Resale value and a bunch of other blase reasons.

Honestly, it's like comparing a Honda to a Benz. Some people prefer the Honda I guess.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

I think most of us are hoping you'll mix wet and dry lubricant tapes so you can report back to us. 8)
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

Yup, filmmaking is what I plan to do with it. I doubt that anything I make in the next year or so will be transferred to film, so I'm favoring technique and usability over resolution. Maybe by the time I finish my script and start shooting, I'll upgrade to an XL2 and I'll be able to use any lenses I get in the meantime.

So, have you been shooting some big Hollywood movies for the big screen with your DVX? :P
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

[quote author=Rogue Crew link=board=Links;num=1099002080;start=45#48 date=10/29/04 at 20:44:02]I think most of us are hoping you'll mix wet and dry lubricant tapes so you can report back to us.  8)[/quote]
Sorry, I've already used a head cleaner. However, I've got an old Optura 10 that's always had Panasonic tapes and I've got a bunch of Sony tapes that the guy gave me with my XL1s. I'm going to use the Sony tapes with my Optura when I use it and I'll tell you what happens. I'll be honest and tell you guys if there are any problems.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Links;num=1099002080;start=45#47 date=10/29/04 at 18:08:29]Honestly, it's like comparing a Honda to a Benz.  Some people prefer the Honda I guess.  [/quote]
Yeah right. Here's a better metaphor: It's like comparing a 2002 Hummer to a 2005 Jeep.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

"So, have you been shooting some big Hollywood movies for the big screen with your DVX?"

I might be one of the few people here who have no intention or delusions of putting my work on the big screen Tony.  Surely you an do better than that though, huh?  

Just when I think an interesting debate my start (praying for an intelligent one) you say that.  

As I said "Rock on."  I could care less if you using a Super 8 (if you want to get down to the basics of usability) but comments like that don't hold much weight.

I appreciate hugely your intention to concentrate on the basics of filmmaking and not concern yourself with something as inconsequential as resolution at this time but you don't have to justify why the Xl1 is a better (which it is not) nor make a stab at the lack of OPEN WATER success stories here at DVXuser.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

[quote author=Tony Hall link=board=Links;num=1099002080;start=45#52 date=10/29/04 at 21:24:10]
Yeah right. Here's a better metaphor: It's like comparing a 2002 Hummer to a 2005 Jeep. [/quote]

No.

The Xl1 is wonderful camera. I almost purchased one (thank god I did not) prior to doing some serious DVX research but honestly now. Lets at lest pretend to be open minded here. Its a kick ass camera who time has past.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Links;num=1099002080;start=45#53 date=10/29/04 at 21:33:09]"So, have you been shooting some big Hollywood movies for the big screen with your DVX?"

I might be one of the few people here who have no intention or delusions of putting my work on the big screen Tony.  Surely you an do better than that though, huh?  

Just when I think an interesting debate my start (praying for an intelligent one) you say that.  

As I said "Rock on."  I could care less if you using a Super 8 (if you want to get down to the basics of usability) but comments like that don't hold much weight.

I appreciate hugely your intention to concentrate on the basics of filmmaking and not concern yourself with something as inconsequential as resolution at this time but you don't have to justify why the Xl1 is a better (which it is not) nor make a stab at the lack of OPEN WATER success stories here at DVXuser.

[/quote]

John, you don't have to get so defensive. I don't know why I can't prefer one camera over another without catching hell. I've said it once and I'll say it again. The DVX is a great camera, but I'd rather use an XL series camera for the way I prefer to work. Sure, it has less resolution and doesn't have all the film-look-alike stuff, but I'd rather work on the look of my footage in post. I could go on and on, but it doesn't matter because it's my decision and if you argue with me about it, you're basically saying is "Tony, you're retarded. You are too stupid to know what camera suits your needs. If you weren't so stupid you would know that the DVX is better for what you need to do whatever that is."

I don't plan on shooting an actual scripted movie for about six months to a year. Maybe then I'll be looking for more resolution... depends if I think it has a snowball's chance in hell at getting transferred to film. If I was shooting for film transfer I might rent an HD camera anyway. If I'm looking at television-only, the XL1s is more than enough. Two of my favorite movies that were shot on the XL1s and transferred to film are 28 Days Later and Julien Donkey Boy... those movies look great on my TV.

All cameras are just tools. You just have to buy the best camera for you with your budget. I understand that in the digital world people (just like in the digital camera world) are obsessed with resolution and pixels and features. I'm guity of it too. They call these people measurbators in the digital photography forums. I guess that I'm just starting to grow out of the tech-obsession and am getting more into the "doing" aspect of things. The art and craft of things.

When I compare the DVX and XL1s, I'm only comparing the camera by my standards and needs. If I were to compare the camera using your standards, I'd come to a completely different conclusion. I can say that at least I've had a DVX series camera AND an XL series camera, so maybe I'm a little more qualified than others to make a choice between the two.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

Not being at all defensive until you make remarks that warrant a comment. I brought this up "out of curiosity" in that you would sell the DVX and go back to the Xl1 (thought you were getting an Xl2). I made that clear from the beginning. You made some lame comments you didnt need to make.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

MINI DV is MINI DV. no?

Besides technology jumps all the time and its half life of products is getting shorter by the minute. Look! My computer is now obsolete! They're researching prosumer level HD mini DVs etc...

But still, this is all mini dv. With the 3ccd chip being only so big. Panasonic's chips are actually 1 1/4 " instead of 1 1/3" like Sony? Correct me if I'm wrong, and though it doesn't necessarily mean for better resolution...

So, think of it that way as well. If you're making big bucks, the equipment you invest in will be for hobby purposes mostly after a point. Or don't tell me eventually you will upgrade to a 16mm Arri SR rig then to a 35mm Panavision rig... because Roger Deakins carries his in his Pelican 100000 Case. J/K.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

If you actually got a good dvcam, you woudln't need to get a follow focus, additional mounts rings steppers, adaptor plates for rods, etc.... see where all that can lead to a more expensive camera anyways?

Variable lens etc. , especially nice Cooke lens will set you way far back as well. What good are interchangeable lens if you don't have lenses to chahnge it with (granted that there is no production house near you and if you can't afford the additional cost for needed lenses for another 3 or 4 shoots...)

Remember to use the right tool for the right job. Case in point: while fixing your computer with a screw driver, do not walk over open a bucket of high gloss enamel paint and then go back to screwing something into your motherboard. That would be the same thing as buying the DVX or the XL2 even and doing everything possible with it.
 
Re: The tape lubricant myth

Mini Dv is such a small formatt and it forces the camera to be small too. The DVX has a lot of its functions in menu and that's a real drag. Especially if you're shooting outside in the cold for 8 hours, you can't feel your finger tips so that toggle button feels like that last piece of rice you can never pick up with chopsticks when ordering chinnese food and your eyes are glazed over and slightly distracted the camera goes to shut off mode and you've lost all your settings again to default before you've had time to save file.

Remeber mini dv stands for miniature digital video right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top