XL2 Camera test

I think this footage here is outstanding, myself. But I like that look a great deal. That's another whole issue to the equation, what "look" are you after...
 
I never said the XL2 sucks. I said it's manual zoom sucks... and if your here to stick up for it's shitty zoom I should be the one calling you ignorant.
 
Chayse_Irvin said:
I never said the XL2 sucks. I said it's manual zoom sucks... and if your here to stick up for it's shitty zoom I should be the one calling you ignorant.
Click to expand...

The Xl2 itself does not have shitty zoom. The 20x lens "in your opinion" might but the XL2 doesn't. The 16x manual has a real zoom. And once again "shitty" is subjective. What if what you really need for a particular shot is a really slow creeping zoom or pullback? The 20x lens has a super great slow zoom for just that. The DVX has a decent one but this one crawls like a slug...almost undetectable. I don't think that is shitty.

The fact is that you can change the lens on the XL2 if you don't like the stock lens. In fact the zoom on the 16x manual feels just like the DVX. You can engage and disengage the zoom motor at you leisure. Like Gibby says in all of his threads.....different brushes for different canvases.

For what it is worth I don't see any DVX footage showing up that blows my mind. IT looks really good but 99% of that is the cinematography and DP. Not the camera. Also.....we have all started to become "used to" the 24P look. I am no longer blown away just by any old 24P footage. The majority of footage from the XL2 has been tests in peoples back yard or fly by the seat of your pants demos. In contrast is the DVX clips that are part of full productions and have significant talent working in fornt of and behind the camera.

I guess at this stage of the game I can't imagine what kind of footage would actually blow anyone away!
 
True Ice

For me it has GOT to have that 24p Cadence. It just has too. Period. Thats where it starts. I cant even look at 60i anymore. Even on the news it pisses me off.

And its true; the Director and/or DP is the person making the magic happen. Maybe its just that we have seen more with the DVX? Maybe its become the choice camera for indie filmmaking and this is what we are associating it with?

Rich's Video to this day blows me away. Dman's nature footage always impresses me. Novemeber looks sharp obviosly (I havent seen it on filmout yet).

Still; there's still a kind of pasty/translucence to the XL2 for me. And I dont care what anyone says (Even Barry Green; Cue Thunder Roll) the 24p motion on the XL2 seems off to me. I dont know; its more like 30p or something....?

(The circle begins again...)
 
John...just a little note...

I intercut DVX100 (non A) and Xl2 footage on a 90 minute project and the cadences are identical.....side by side you cannot tell one from the other (A-B edits on the entire piece). I however had the XL2 at default sharpness (too sharp). That jumps out at you and tells you which was the XL2. I applied a .5 gaussian blur to the XL2 and crushed the blacks a little, boosted the saturation and the 2 are almost identical. Unfortunately this was a live event lit for a "stage" and does not show off either camera to their fullest extent. But the 24p cadence looks spot on.
 
Show us a short clip. People keep saying that you can intercut them and match them identically, but I don't believe you. Show a clip...:)
 
So i have to buy a 16x manual zoom lens to get a good maunal zoom shot?... thats weak. I guess I was ignorant. But now I'm even more disapointed in the camera.

icicle22 said:
The Xl2 itself does not have shitty zoom. The 20x lens "in your opinion" might but the XL2 doesn't. The 16x manual has a real zoom. And once again "shitty" is subjective. What if what you really need for a particular shot is a really slow creeping zoom or pullback? The 20x lens has a super great slow zoom for just that. The DVX has a decent one but this one crawls like a slug...almost undetectable. I don't think that is shitty.

The fact is that you can change the lens on the XL2 if you don't like the stock lens. In fact the zoom on the 16x manual feels just like the DVX. You can engage and disengage the zoom motor at you leisure. Like Gibby says in all of his threads.....different brushes for different canvases.

For what it is worth I don't see any DVX footage showing up that blows my mind. IT looks really good but 99% of that is the cinematography and DP. Not the camera. Also.....we have all started to become "used to" the 24P look. I am no longer blown away just by any old 24P footage. The majority of footage from the XL2 has been tests in peoples back yard or fly by the seat of your pants demos. In contrast is the DVX clips that are part of full productions and have significant talent working in fornt of and behind the camera.

I guess at this stage of the game I can't imagine what kind of footage would actually blow anyone away!
Click to expand...
 
icicle22

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT TOO! (Sorry Caps)

I wonder if it is the sharpness on the XL2? What is it? Damn it!

I believe you about cadence being identical (Even Barry testifies that one) I just need to know exactly what is making it 'off'

Is it the motion blur? Is it the gamma? No one can deny it looks entirely different? (It is a good look but indeed different MattC) Is it those damn fluorite thingy lenses Canon has? What damn it?!

Sorry. Rant.
 
Yes, the 20X does have a great auto zoom (real slow) and yes, it sucks royally to use it in manual mode, that's why I have the 16X lens. And yes, I know you can get used to it, you can get used to sex with a condom, but it still sucks...

I think that this clip and the Hawaii footage that Dman mentions are as nice as anything I've seen come from the DVX. Not the same maybe, but certainly as nice. I happen to think that this clip is simply outstanding.

But let me be clear on why I don't really care about the camera so much and why I recommend the DVX for certain things and the XL2 for certain things - I think both cameras, when used in a "point and shoot" fashion (which is how 95% of the clips grabs I see here and elswhere are done) they both look like crap. And I certainly don't see much "MOJO" in the DVX then. Now, when I look at Dman's stuff? UBER MOJO. So is it the camera? Well, yeah, in part a least, but WAY more of it is about HOW it's shot. This clip here is fantastic. It's fantastic artistically in the lighting, the dolly shot, the art direction, the color timing - it really is quite good and to me that's what makes it filmic. My XL2 footage certainly doesn't look that good yet. Why would I believe that if I bought a DVX it would all of a sudden be great? It wouldn't.... But as I learn, as I grow, yeah, my **** will become more an more filmic, because I will be incorporating all of those principals that make a film more than an image captured on celluloid.

All of that said, John, you are a fanboy! :-) And I love you for it man!!! You're consistent! Seriously, the DVX is a great camera, it offered low budget indie filmmakers groundbreaking technology and the company supports the hell out of it's user base. Why wouldn't a DVX owner be a "fanboy"??? But you sometimes have to step back and see the merits of other equipment and the shortcoming of your own, it's how progress gets made. If you check out some of what Ash is posting on DVInfo regarding the XL2 (the dude does know video) he's coming up with some good stuff. I'll reserve final judgment until I see clips, but it's encouraging to see the camera being used by folks who can really do something with it, because this is how we'll know what the limitations are.

I don't know how you they'll intercut either, Isaac, that is something I'm dying to see as well. My instinct tells me that the only way to do it, is if it is a highly stylized shot, but I don't really know.

Matt
 
John_Hudson said:
And I dont care what anyone says (Even Barry Green; Cue Thunder Roll) the 24p motion on the XL2 seems off to me. I dont know; its more like 30p or something....?
Click to expand...

Ooooh, John, I don't think you oughta said that, 'cause I can put you to the test. I believe I have a whole bunch of side-by-side XL2 and DVX footage that's identical subjects (from the 3-way test). I should put together some segments and make you pick which ones are the DVX and which ones are the XL2, just from cadence! :evil:
 
Sharpness is HUGE on the XL2 - I'm taking to disabling it entirely... It is just WAY over the top. Also, shooting with a very slight diffusion filter makes a big difference I'm finding. To me it is the sharpness more than the gamma that throws the XL2 footage "off" for me...
 
Chayse_Irvin said:
So i have to buy a 16x manual zoom lens to get a good maunal zoom shot?... thats weak. I guess I was ignorant. But now I'm even more disapointed in the camera.
Click to expand...

WTF? YOu don't have to buy anything! IF I complain about the DVX having a poor 16x9 and someone suggests the 16x9 anamorphic adapter as a workaround should I come in here and say " thats just weak". JUst because the DVX has a built in manual zoom doesn't mean the Xl2 automatically has one. The truth is if that was a priority for you then you should not have been using the stock lens.

16x9 was my priority so I went with the Xl2. I invested in the manual lens for just those occasions where I need full manual everything.....including zoom.

If I had purchased the DVX I would not have come on these boards bitching because it doesn't have a 20x zoom or higher res 16x9 when I kenw damn well ahead of time what to expect. If manual zoom is so important why use the Xl2 with the stock lens? Really?

Your footage looks great. I love all of it. And I seriously doubt it would have looked any better or worse with the DVX. Maybe you could have done a few more manual zoom shots or something.....but overall it looks great.

I guess I don't see why you feel the need to bash the Xl2 so much when you obviously got great results with it.
 
Barry could put together a DVX/Xl2 blind test. We could have a poll with about ten options to decide which is which to see if people can tell the difference.
 
Barry has educated me once before on the 'perceived XL2 cadence' I seem to have. He has set me straight in the past as he is doing now.

I wonder if it is the Sharpness then as MattC suggests?

I guess I am a fanboy. LOL Fine. I admit it. Bastids! But but but........

I hate to go back to this particular one; 28 Days Later; shot on the XL1 and it is simply a wonderful film. Content is king. Content is king. Content is king.

Let me ask you? If going to DVD then take out sharpness on XL2 right? What about going to filmout which would eventually go to DVD?
 
Well there's the rub, now isn't it. When I was at Able Cinetech the guys there suggest that if going to a film out - or more precisely to be "blown up" to 35mm - leave it sharp as that will be good when shown on the big screen (and they seem to really like the XL2 for that purpose) They went on to suggest that it would have an added benefit when using the mini35 which also softens the image. Ok fine, but I'm not doing either of those things so for me I think the sharpening has to be turned down, er.. OFF.

You make a good point about the flourite lens, I do think the 20X lens is sharper than my 16X manual lens. I can't prove this (nor would I know how) but it is how it feels to me. And by the way, sometimes that's good. I mean if you're shooting footage for "News at 11" it provides a great image, but for narrative stuff, I think the 16X manual has a nicer feel to the image. But I could be smoking crack on this one...

Chayse: Dude, that's the whole point of the camera. I don't see why some folks don't get that? If you don't want to buy additional lenses, this is not the cam for you. The 20X lens gives you some great advantages, like OIS that is to die for and a great auto zoom. So you use that lens for those things, if you want manual, you can put a really, really nice manual lens on it. That's the point of a system camera, no?

Matt
 
And yeah, I think the "oversharpness" affects the perceived motion blur and that, might affect how the cadence looks. Again, I have no scientific evidence to back this up other than to say when I shoot with the sharpness of or diffusion, it looks more film like to me.
 
icicle22 said:
IF I complain about the DVX having a poor 16x9 and someone suggests the 16x9 anamorphic adapter as a workaround should I come in here and say " thats just weak".
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fair complaint to me.

I have no problem with the XL2's footage. In this case it looks just as good as DVX and vice-versa. Menu/image in-camera control, manual zoom, LCD, size, costliness are the factors I asses when shooting with a camera... with those facts... DVX blows XL2 out of the water with a big fat cannonball with panasonic written all over it.

panavscan.jpg
 
MattC said:
Chayse: Dude, that's the whole point of the camera. I don't see why some folks don't get that? If you don't want to buy additional lenses, this is not the cam for you. The 20X lens gives you some great advantages, like OIS that is to die for and a great auto zoom. So you use that lens for those things, if you want manual, you can put a really, really nice manual lens on it. That's the point of a system camera, no?
Click to expand...

Detachable lens are great... and thats one of the coolest things about the XL2. In that respect XL2 smokes DVX. But I wish all their lens had good manual zoom capablities. But in my case I'm stuck without it and it sucks. I miss my DVX :( .
 
I would seriously look into getting a used manual lens. You also could have bought it with the manual instead of the 20X, but I do think the 20 is nice to have (of course I also think the 3X is nice to have, but I'm crazy like that). I bought mine used, and it's great, hell you might even be able to sell the 20X.

But I have to say, what you did is SO good, I'd think twice about getting rid of anything! No but seriously, your imagery is really, really nice - kudos to you.

Matt
 
Oh and one more thing John, I have found that for DVD only adding the slightest bit of grain (an almost non-perceivable amount) also helps. I'm not talking about enough so that you say, hey, there's grain - just a tad to soften it. But really with the right lens/setting I think this can be avoided. Then you're left with the gamma issue. The Able guys said if going to film, obviously avoid adding grain at all costs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top