Thinking about the DVX
- Thread starter Criddle
- Start date
as tibby indicated, why people keep both a dvx and xl2, for those of us who are fortunate enough to own both, is entirely a form factor issue. when i need something compact, whether i'm on the subway and require some discretion, or mountain biking upstate, lugging a fully loaded xl2 just isn't an option. the dvx awesome that way.
and i'm sorry, but the xl2 gets dismissed too easily far too often here by panny users as a sub-par alternative to the dvx. someone today posted some work shot with the xl2 today at dvinfo that looks nothing BUT filmic.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=68481
i don't care if any person chooses the dvx over the xl2, or vice-versa. just make an educated buy. that's all i'm sayin.
and i'm sorry, but the xl2 gets dismissed too easily far too often here by panny users as a sub-par alternative to the dvx. someone today posted some work shot with the xl2 today at dvinfo that looks nothing BUT filmic.
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=68481
i don't care if any person chooses the dvx over the xl2, or vice-versa. just make an educated buy. that's all i'm sayin.
GageFX
Carbonite Member
Tibby,
you're presenting more of an arguement. That's helpful. However, you are still slightly a bit unclear. (And those three sentences are not condescending at all, I am completely sincere. I have no camera bias, I've merely been pointing out the lack of a coherent arguement from the anti-DVX camp - and that is what it is.)
You again mention you can do more color correction in post with the XL2 than the DVX. You can or anyone can? I mean, I'm asking if this is a camera limitation or a Tibby limitation. And if it's a camera limitation, what is it? You mention the XL2's sharpness and dynamic range are better and that could be the cause. I believe you when you say these are better, I have no proof otherwise, but I dont see how those are the problem.
To something I know. And know well. Still digital photography. I agree it's not digital-video, I'll need someone that knows better to educate me where I am deviating. Okay. In still photography (digital for a digital video comparison), dynamic range has nothing to do with ability to post color correct. Dynamic range will give more highlight and shadow detail when exposed properly and will allow more latitude for post exposure correction - degrading the image some - but not more latitude in color correction, at least by itself. As for sharpness, still photographers will actually set their cameras to the most neutral sharpness setting and use a more powerful app like Photoshop (niK) to sharpen instead of letting the cam's tiny processor apply a sharpening. As for a camera sharpened image (if that's even what we're talking about... does the Canon apply sharpening or is it just more optically sharp?), you would lose even more image detail as the sharpening process itself degrades actual image quality for a perceived quality.
Also, in still photography, most good photographers will create their photo in camera as opposed to those that slop around 'cause they can "fix it in post". So, for the color correction, it's always easier for me to WB at the shoot than go back and CC a whole shoot or in this case a bunch of video footage.
(The above example doesnt include the "airbrushing" that is done on every published photo in existance, it only refers to "correcting". Am I naive to think shooting it right is the way to go. (And I accept that poop happens and you'll have to correct something at some point no matter how careful you are.)
Tibby, I'm only looking for answers to the allegations you and others have posed. You guys have not given "I think the XL2 is better..." but instead "The XL2 is better..." without giving any ACTUAL reasons.
"The XL2 has miriad manual controls as opposed to the DVX..." Okay. Great. Good issue. Now what are they? That's all I'm asking.
And just as the racist's first reaction is "I'm not racist, I have a friend who's black.", the product basher's first rebuttal is always "I'm not against the camera [I'm bashing], I own one of those too." There were too many guys back on the Digital Photography boards that would list 10 (literally) cameras they own but they have this one that is better than the rest. (And in case you are going to try to turn things around, I in no way called you a racist.)
To the guy who said no one has even tried to answer the O.P.'s questions: you're wrong.
And to Criddle, one last thing (but probably not really the last thing): how many of us DVX users do you think are running around on Canon forums bashing the XL2 and trying to get people to not buy it? I'd guess none. I'm much more sure we are secure enough in our purchase and footage to leave the rest be.
-GageFX
you're presenting more of an arguement. That's helpful. However, you are still slightly a bit unclear. (And those three sentences are not condescending at all, I am completely sincere. I have no camera bias, I've merely been pointing out the lack of a coherent arguement from the anti-DVX camp - and that is what it is.)
You again mention you can do more color correction in post with the XL2 than the DVX. You can or anyone can? I mean, I'm asking if this is a camera limitation or a Tibby limitation. And if it's a camera limitation, what is it? You mention the XL2's sharpness and dynamic range are better and that could be the cause. I believe you when you say these are better, I have no proof otherwise, but I dont see how those are the problem.
To something I know. And know well. Still digital photography. I agree it's not digital-video, I'll need someone that knows better to educate me where I am deviating. Okay. In still photography (digital for a digital video comparison), dynamic range has nothing to do with ability to post color correct. Dynamic range will give more highlight and shadow detail when exposed properly and will allow more latitude for post exposure correction - degrading the image some - but not more latitude in color correction, at least by itself. As for sharpness, still photographers will actually set their cameras to the most neutral sharpness setting and use a more powerful app like Photoshop (niK) to sharpen instead of letting the cam's tiny processor apply a sharpening. As for a camera sharpened image (if that's even what we're talking about... does the Canon apply sharpening or is it just more optically sharp?), you would lose even more image detail as the sharpening process itself degrades actual image quality for a perceived quality.
Also, in still photography, most good photographers will create their photo in camera as opposed to those that slop around 'cause they can "fix it in post". So, for the color correction, it's always easier for me to WB at the shoot than go back and CC a whole shoot or in this case a bunch of video footage.
(The above example doesnt include the "airbrushing" that is done on every published photo in existance, it only refers to "correcting". Am I naive to think shooting it right is the way to go. (And I accept that poop happens and you'll have to correct something at some point no matter how careful you are.)
Tibby, I'm only looking for answers to the allegations you and others have posed. You guys have not given "I think the XL2 is better..." but instead "The XL2 is better..." without giving any ACTUAL reasons.
"The XL2 has miriad manual controls as opposed to the DVX..." Okay. Great. Good issue. Now what are they? That's all I'm asking.
And just as the racist's first reaction is "I'm not racist, I have a friend who's black.", the product basher's first rebuttal is always "I'm not against the camera [I'm bashing], I own one of those too." There were too many guys back on the Digital Photography boards that would list 10 (literally) cameras they own but they have this one that is better than the rest. (And in case you are going to try to turn things around, I in no way called you a racist.)
To the guy who said no one has even tried to answer the O.P.'s questions: you're wrong.
And to Criddle, one last thing (but probably not really the last thing): how many of us DVX users do you think are running around on Canon forums bashing the XL2 and trying to get people to not buy it? I'd guess none. I'm much more sure we are secure enough in our purchase and footage to leave the rest be.
-GageFX
Again I'll restate it. IMHO I think the XL2 produces more latitude. Thats all I was basically saying. Right out of the box it does. The DVX produces a more color saturated image out of the box. I don't know this for fact, but I've heard that the colors that the DVX produces aren't broadcast legal and the XL2 colors are, and because of the color satuation in the DVX alone I'm inclined to believe it. Which means the XL2 probably has more latitude and dynamic range. Besides seeing it with my own eyes.
I could sit here and explain the intentions of my original post ad nauseum but I'm not going to. I just thought the guy would like to know where the Canon differs. In my opinion excels. I think the camera is better in that area, not necessarily a better camera altogether. Does that make it better or worse than the other camera? No. I thought the guy as a beginner would be happier with the DVX because of it's colors. But if he likes to tweak things like I do, he may prefer the XL2, of which the colors are less pronounced. Some may even consider that a flaw.
Yes, photographers like to try to get there picture in camera. I do also, to a certain degree. Still photography,Film, and video are all different animals. The latitude gives me an extra chance to tweak the footage in post. The saturation inherent in the DVX is not so forgiving.
I'm not a tech head, but adjusting the Knee, Black, Master Ped, Coring, Gamma, etc... gives me better results in regards to latitude and dynamic range than the comparable controls in the DVX. I can alter both cameras so the footage better matches in post with some color correction, but I can't get the same latitude from the DVX.
FYI it's the Canon lens that makes it sharper. Electronic sharpening will start to introduce noise into the video image.
I could sit here and explain the intentions of my original post ad nauseum but I'm not going to. I just thought the guy would like to know where the Canon differs. In my opinion excels. I think the camera is better in that area, not necessarily a better camera altogether. Does that make it better or worse than the other camera? No. I thought the guy as a beginner would be happier with the DVX because of it's colors. But if he likes to tweak things like I do, he may prefer the XL2, of which the colors are less pronounced. Some may even consider that a flaw.
Yes, photographers like to try to get there picture in camera. I do also, to a certain degree. Still photography,Film, and video are all different animals. The latitude gives me an extra chance to tweak the footage in post. The saturation inherent in the DVX is not so forgiving.
I'm not a tech head, but adjusting the Knee, Black, Master Ped, Coring, Gamma, etc... gives me better results in regards to latitude and dynamic range than the comparable controls in the DVX. I can alter both cameras so the footage better matches in post with some color correction, but I can't get the same latitude from the DVX.
FYI it's the Canon lens that makes it sharper. Electronic sharpening will start to introduce noise into the video image.
Last edited:
The Noble Robot
Active member
Just so you know, that cannot be true.
GageFX
Carbonite Member
I didnt know that about the DVX's color, and honestly, I dont even know what it means that the colrs aren't broadcast legal. I believe you, though. As a matter of fact, with my still cameras it is important to me that the colors are natural and not artificially saturated.
So the two cameras have the same types of manual control, you just get better results with the Canon. That seems a more fair statement than was originally made.
Agreed.
It is a great lens. That's one of the big reasons I was XL gung ho before I started researching.
Oh, and what of the XL2 eating tapes? Was that whole "problem" blown out of proportion? I always wondered. (Although I did talk to a couple different XL2 users who had the problem.)
-GageFX
So the two cameras have the same types of manual control, you just get better results with the Canon. That seems a more fair statement than was originally made.
Agreed.
It is a great lens. That's one of the big reasons I was XL gung ho before I started researching.
Oh, and what of the XL2 eating tapes? Was that whole "problem" blown out of proportion? I always wondered. (Although I did talk to a couple different XL2 users who had the problem.)
-GageFX
The Noble Robot said:
How so? Maybe I'm wrong but the reds that camera produces are tough on a televison.
GageFX,
I don't think they have the exact same manual controls, a majority for sure, but they do have very many that are similar.
Haven't had one eat a tape yet. I do use the Panasonic PQ tapes exclusively. Nor have I had the fuse blow. Which was another rumor that was pretty much based on user error.
In all honesty this debate will probably be irrelevant to me next year when I sell my cameras and pick up that JVC HD200 with the PL mount adapter.
Uh, oohh...did I open up another can of worms? Is somebody gonna tell me to buy the HVX instead.
Last edited:
Sliiii.... The HVX200 seems a bit crazy... But that camera doesnt achieve a more shallow dof than the XL2 or the DVX, right? I just want to make movies that look as close to film-like... I'm most likely gonna go with the xl-2... I can get it at this electronics store in Jersey for 2,100 w/out lens... I was planning on buying a lens when I visit hong kong but I realized that I might as well just buy the entire camera in Hong Kong. Is this a bad choice? (Note: the store in New Jersey doesn't sell extended warrenty). Both stores are legit. My grandpa gets really cheap deals on lenses and camera stuff in HK, his friend owns a huge camera/camcorder store
the color settings on an out-of-the-box dvx are not broadcast safe, but neither are the initial settings for an xl1, xl1s, and gl2. the xl2 ships with broadcast safe settings, which is why many people think it looks flat out-of-the-box. broadcast safe colors are still a requirement on any network. take your tape to any broadcast post shop or mastering facility, and they'll tell you to make your colors legal, or they'll do it for you. every NLE can make your colors broadcast safe with a simple filter.
regarding latitude, it seems to be generally accepted that higher pixel count = less latitude. i think the xl2's ccds suffer from this, as the dvx edges the xl2 in low-light handling. however, a host of image control tools in the xl2 let me play with highlights and, in particular, shadows, and allows me to capture detail in bright spots and shadows that i can't duplicate on my dvx100a. regardless, we're talking indie filmmaking here, not shooting a wedding in a dark ballroom, so a camera's latitude isn't as important as lighting your scene properly.
regarding latitude, it seems to be generally accepted that higher pixel count = less latitude. i think the xl2's ccds suffer from this, as the dvx edges the xl2 in low-light handling. however, a host of image control tools in the xl2 let me play with highlights and, in particular, shadows, and allows me to capture detail in bright spots and shadows that i can't duplicate on my dvx100a. regardless, we're talking indie filmmaking here, not shooting a wedding in a dark ballroom, so a camera's latitude isn't as important as lighting your scene properly.
Last edited:
The Noble Robot
Active member
Tibby, "Broadcast legal," as I understand it, means "NTSC safe." All camcorders record in RGB color space, and transfer to YIQ (NTSC/PAL) color space in-camera (anyone, am I wrong about this? I'm not totally sure). Thus, all cameras are broadcast legal in a general sense.
But I think that mizer357 may be right about "broadcast legal/safe" meaning a higher standard (not a standard limited by the technology) used to make sure that there is no chance of oversaturation, which is a requirement for *actual* network broadcast. Because the slightest interference in terrestrial signals can change color values for NTSC signals (a problem that does not plague PAL TV), I'm sure that there is a certain "margin for error" that is asked for and that the XL2 is conventiently defulted to. This doesn't mean that any other camera cannot be adjusted to compensate.
Any camera can be adjusted to comply with this standard in color correction (I know that I have to filter a lot of my digital still images and computer animations in Premiere to be NTSC safe before outputting to video), but even if a non-complient color is registered while recording, it wouldn't possibly result in data loss, corruption, or irreprible non-complience.
And besides, unless you're actually broadcasting something you produce (not a reality for most of us who are producing for DVD), there's no need to have this pre-set for you out-of-the-box.
Last edited:
Hi Everyone,
Late on this discussion, but part of the original question on this thread concerns me as well in that I also would like to purchase another camera which meets most of my needs.
The original post was a question about two different cameras, but his stated needs were to "..make movies", AND "...shallow depth of field.."
One or two contributors touched on the latter, and that brings me to my own quandry, which relates to the original posting.
Namely, can you get the same shallow depth of field with each camera?
The answer is no.
Can you achieve this desired shallow DOF with adapters and other lenses? Possibly, but I do not know, because I don't own either. But I can tell you that I saw an HVX with extender and an additional lens last week and I was very unimpressed by the awkwardness of it all. In addition to losing at least a stop.
A very great, and neglected, part of the so called "film look" is the use of lenses.
I am hesistant to buy the 100B because of this lack of a real lens and its focusing ability, so I am still on the fence.
It seems that unless the DVX has an adapter it will never to able to achieve the shallow depth of field which one can get with a real lens.
Plese correct me if I am wrong, but this consideration is one I am dealing with at the moment as well ...
Thanks,
Stuart
www.vineyardvideo.com
Late on this discussion, but part of the original question on this thread concerns me as well in that I also would like to purchase another camera which meets most of my needs.
The original post was a question about two different cameras, but his stated needs were to "..make movies", AND "...shallow depth of field.."
One or two contributors touched on the latter, and that brings me to my own quandry, which relates to the original posting.
Namely, can you get the same shallow depth of field with each camera?
The answer is no.
Can you achieve this desired shallow DOF with adapters and other lenses? Possibly, but I do not know, because I don't own either. But I can tell you that I saw an HVX with extender and an additional lens last week and I was very unimpressed by the awkwardness of it all. In addition to losing at least a stop.
A very great, and neglected, part of the so called "film look" is the use of lenses.
I am hesistant to buy the 100B because of this lack of a real lens and its focusing ability, so I am still on the fence.
It seems that unless the DVX has an adapter it will never to able to achieve the shallow depth of field which one can get with a real lens.
Plese correct me if I am wrong, but this consideration is one I am dealing with at the moment as well ...
Thanks,
Stuart
www.vineyardvideo.com
a wide DOF is a limitation of the 1/3" ccds. 2/3" ccd cameras provide a shallower depth of field, but at a cost of 20K+. you can get a shallow DOF on 1/3" ccd camera by turning the iris wide open and keeping the lens on the long end (this is where longer lenses help). this will mean creating some distance between you and your subject. if this is impractical, you will need a 35mm adapter, like the mini35, redrock m2, letus35, etc. i bought the m2 late last year, and it's been great. it took me a little while to get it proplery set up, but now i get a sharp image with razer thin DOF using a 55mm f1.2 35mm lens. believe me, there is nothing more awkward than putting the m2 and another lens in front of a canon 20x. but on the dvx, i think it's completely manageable. putting all that glass and stuff in front of your lens is the price you'll have to pay to get that shallow depth of field that i think you're looking for. you should check out the redrock site. some good reading there (redrockmicro.com).
regarding broadcast/ntsc safe colors, out of range colors will interfere with the audio portion of the analog signal and create a buzz or hum. I believe all broadcast stations will still not permit out of range colors. as i mentioned, converting your video to ntsc safe is simple, but it can be hard on your reds, and yellows... just something to keep in mind.
regarding broadcast/ntsc safe colors, out of range colors will interfere with the audio portion of the analog signal and create a buzz or hum. I believe all broadcast stations will still not permit out of range colors. as i mentioned, converting your video to ntsc safe is simple, but it can be hard on your reds, and yellows... just something to keep in mind.
redrock m2 is not a lens... it s a device that sits between a 35mm lens up front and the lens of your camera. the image that comes through the 35mm lens is projected onto a spinning ground glass in the m2, and the camera records THAT image. the camera's focus is always fixed on the ground glass, so once you're zoomed and focused on the ground glass, there's no need to touch the focus and zoom on your camera again, while the m2 is attached. any focusing and zooming going forward is done on the 35mm lens.
how far you stand from your object would depend on the 35mm lens up front. i've been as close as about a foot with my wide angles.
how far you stand from your object would depend on the 35mm lens up front. i've been as close as about a foot with my wide angles.
Color
Active member
i needed a dvx because i film skateboarding and for action sports you need to get low, it is much more achieveable on the dvx. i dont know if the xl2 has scene files, but being able to totally change the look of your cam ut of 6 choices at any time amazes me. post is already inside the camera (haha). having 2 wb settings and a leica lens, and also it has helped a lot being able to change iris by 1/6 is awesome. i can change lighting conditions quick and easily, and it doesnt look clunky at all. sometimes i see clips where exposure changes are so obvious. these are what won me over on the dvx. and sometimes, yeah, i do wish i had a shoulder mount. but most of the time, i dont and am very glad i dont have to deal with such a beast. that thing is mass, for real