XL2 Camera test

MattC said:
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
Click to expand...

I would if I could. But its not my camera. In-fact I don't own any cameras but a old Cannon GL1, so DVX aint a option either. Im really focusing on trying to get the production to buy some 35mm adapter system and a primes kit for the XL2... any suggestions?
 
Well the only footage I've seen was done with an XL2 with P+S Mini35 and Zeis primes (I think) again at Able. That was truly (for me at least) the holy grail of DV, I mean it looked fantastic. Now, granted, everything else was perfect, I'm sure they had a full crew did tons of post and it was all done by pros, so your (or rather MY) mileage may vary... But that's 10 grand just for the mini35.. Of course you could rent it with the lenses for much less. I see that there are some new options coming up from guys on the boards, I would look into that, although for the XL2 I would prefer one that attached directly to the body and not to one of the lenses.

I read that some cats were using old sets of primes that came out of Russia and were relatively cheap, but I don't know enough about that other than to say you might want to research it.

Matt
 
MattC said:
Well the only footage I've seen was done with an XL2 with P+S Mini35 and Zeis primes (I think) again at Able. That was truly (for me at least) the holy grail of DV, I mean it looked fantastic. Now, granted, everything else was perfect, I'm sure they had a full crew did tons of post and it was all done by pros, so your (or rather MY) mileage may vary... But that's 10 grand just for the mini35.. Of course you could rent it with the lenses for much less. I see that there are some new options coming up from guys on the boards, I would look into that, although for the XL2 I would prefer one that attached directly to the body and not to one of the lenses.

I read that some cats were using old sets of primes that came out of Russia and were relatively cheap, but I don't know enough about that other than to say you might want to research it.

Matt
Click to expand...

Whats the difference between a P+S Mini 35 and a RedRock Micro 35 if I rent cooke primes? $9500? or somthing more valid?
 
MattC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Honestly I love Grain. Anything that has a filmic emulsion vibe I dig and gain can sometimes help wit htis illusion
 
Grain is something I'm learning to appreciate in small quantities, but to be honest it's not something I would have normally said I dug. But I am seeing how a very little bit of it can help. I know you like the look of it, but in film today you really don't see much if any grain in the emulsion anymore do you??

Chayse, I'm not qualified to answer that. Hopefully someone else will.

Matt
 
Matt...I agree about the 16x lens looking less sharp. I shoot with it almost exclusively and find that I got good results with sharpness at default. When I shot this live event (essentially a play) I knew I was going to have to zoom for some shots and also wanted to do handheld so that I Could easily move around to get more interesting angles, so I chose the 20x. It was a last minute gig and I was not educated on the flow of the play so I was guessing when and where actors woud be at all times. This was not a time for pulling focus and racking so I left the 16x manual in the case.

I was surprised at how sharp the image was. Especially having come from the 16x manual which had been delivering great smooth images. I have since dialed the sharpness back even when using the 16x. IT does look more film like. However sometimes it is great to watch that sharp clean footage on a big scrren TV and be able to say 'Holy crap that looks freaking hi res!" Sorry if this is upsetting to DVX users but the XL2 really seems to capture a heck of a lot more detail than the DVX. However that same detail and clarity also hurt it's apparent filmlook a little too.
 
Yeah, like I said, if you're shooting news footage the XL2 with the 20X is outstanding, but it is a different look.

EDIT: And yes, it does look amazingly high-res, truly outstanding - but not film like.
 
In my experience, it's easier for my eye to get used to perceived lower resolution than to perceive a digital look as film.

XL2 wins in higher perceived resolution.
DVX wins regarding film look.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Of my 5000 hours of DV, only about 200 is on the XL2 and almost all of it has been DP work for others. I really need to get a reel together, I will try to post some stuff soon. I dont know why it always has to come down to DVX vs XL2. Neither is better for everything.

They DO cut together just fine but you have to increase the contrast on the XL2 and diminsh the detail as well. I find it looks better to use the XL2 as your wide and the DVX as your tight if you plan on cutting them together.

The DVX has a better in-camera cine-gamma color curve, my only complaint is the flaming reds and illegal colors in general. The XL2 is much more suited to interviews, TV or corporate work as the sharpness and increased detail across all ranges lends itself to this kind of work. Of course, this can all be adjusted once you understand the inner-workings of all the settings.

Icicle is correct about the detail. I have posted on this and other forums many times. The detail that the XL2 is capable of is just not possible with a DVX, period, endstop. However, that doesnt make it a better camera. In fact, people are so used to NOT having the detail, it can make the image look flat or milky. When you set the XL2 knee to low and black to stretch, the detail is unrivaled in the 1/3" CCD world. Many people prefer to do this to get the cleanest, clearest image to tape, then adjust in post.

Ultimately, most people ARE going to post with their projects. There you can make anything look like anything, for the most part. That is why framing, composition, lighting, focus control, etc. are WAAAAAAAAAAAY more important than what camera you are using... especially at this level where we are comparing 2 excellent cameras....




ash =o)
 
disjecta,

I think the increased resolution is real, not just percieved. Am I wrong in this? Personally, I would love to see the stuff you shoot, shot with the XL2. I would think that would be a fantastic application for that camera, especially with an EF lens for increased reach. But different strokes for different folks. Again, I really like your stuff, but I don't think your stuff looks the way it does because it was shot on a DVX.

Matt
 
In agreement with Ash on one important thing that all of my production colleagues have always done, even before the XL2. Turn all of the settings that really color or affect the image down to a flat point so we can really tweak in post. Even with the DVX we did this and did all of the curves and looks in post. So for me, when I go to intercut XL2 and DVX we are starting at a very neutral point on both. I am not trying to make the XL2 look like the DVX or vice versa. I am trying to make both look like a particular style that I have decided on. The way I apply curves and levels and saturation to achieve this effect is different for both. But in the end they look the same.

TO be clear I am not saying that I directly make the XL2 look like the DVX. I just use both to achieve a very film-like look.

I can, get the XL2 very close to looking like the DVX. Very close. But the truth is I never leave the DVX footage as is. I always tweak it to get the look I want anyway so for me the point is moot!

Peace!
 
My biggest reson to choose the XL2 over the DVX is the fact that: #1: It has 16:9 Chips, the DVX has 1.33. #2: The XL2 is bigger, and more professional looking than the DVX, which to many looks like a blwon up cosumer deal (at least to me). #3: The Canon has interhangable lenses, the DVX does not. I can ad an EF adapter (thats what its called right?) and use a full range of Canon still lenses on the camera, can't do that on the DVX. #4: 16:9, 4:3 modes and 60i, 30p and 24p are available as "Turnable switch's" right on the side of the camera (aka: No menu to navagate to to get the settings). PLUS, as I said before, a decked out Canon XL2 with a mini35, cine zoom lense, matt box, follow focus, camera mount monitor (7") is gonna look more professional than the same setup in the DVX, if its even possible to get the same setup with the DVX.

Lets face it, when you show up on set with a professional looking camera, people respect, rather they know the difference between miniDV and Plasma TV.... Show up looking like you just came from Circuit city, well, gulp.

Of course, none of my argument is on the looks of the camera image, as I have never worked personally with either camera, and I can only go by the footage I seen on the web here, But I think to say either camera blows either one out of the water is fare fetched... There both MiniDV camcorders, both record 480p, both have the same compression, color space, etc... Why should one camera "produce a better image" than another.

Then again, all the DVX support could be because the name of the forum is DVXuser and not XL2user...

Just my $0.02, let the bashing start...

PS) The P+S tecknik adapter is $6,000.00 new, not $10,000 (minus the lense). I think a nice Nikon Still manual focus lense will serve the purpose for a miniDV camera, theres no need to go and buy Zeiss lenses. BH Has some nice Manual Nikons for $150.00-$300.00/ each (primes), and with the Mini35, you will still get the shallow DOF as you would with a cinema 35mm lense.
 
Definitely still looks great, and still reminds me of Boondock Saints lolx.

Good good stuff, great pacing on everything that's going on, the smoking, et cetera, it has a real natural feel to it.

Makes me feel a bit better about having to use an XL1s on a short here at college.
 
OK,
I´m a canon soldier.
But, one thing that REALLY sucks about the XL2 is its viewfinder. If I ever meet that sake-addict who constructed it, i will give him a lesson in all the martial-arts comming from his country.
Again, you can buy a wonderfull b&w viewfinder, but after buying all the accessories for the XL2 (manual and wideangle lens, b&w viewfinder) you need to work comfortable with, you´ll have to compare a 10K(XL2) with a 5K(DVX) camera.
Image wise I always prefer higher resolution compared to out of the box filmlook.
I used the XL2 with the P+S and the image was sometimes to soft for my taste - If the DVX would even be more soft, i just could stop focusing at all and just guess...
I think the "filmic softness" everyone is talking about has a lot to do with DoF, an all-sharp shot will probably look more filmic on the lower res DVX than on the XL2...
Back in the days (just like the phrase, I´m not that old...) we used to blur our footage or even degrade it with analog copying, just to get the videosharpness out...
On the other hand, if you watch any current DVD with superb transfer, close ups will prob. look super sharp - the out of focus BG will give that soft feeling.
well, just my 2 c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top