Xl2 dvx Gamma comparisons from panny open house

C

collie

Member
I have been asked by many people yesterday and today ,what Panny said about their gamma controls compared to the Xl2.
The answer from one of the engineers is basically two fold. First ,I was told that Panny did the gamma in a completely different way by using a special process through the RGB that is not typical of $4000 cameras giving it an incredible film like look if shot right. I was told that there is no standard settings for the "filmloook",you can not just copy another shooters setting to get the film look,every scene and time of day and lighting will yield a different look for different shooters.You must adjust scenes with your own settings for the scene,not someone elses setting on a website
2nd point from engineer was that panny was planning to become the name you went to for pro video gear,they are on a roll,they have plans to take video to another level completely,they were planning to blow canon and sony out over 7 years ago. If someone knows you shoot Panny it means pro,forget consumer (this is pannys words not mine)...footnote the panny lens is made in Japan and approved by leica in Germany. They will continue the DVX but they want you to think way beyond the DVX(pros only)
*footnote :was told Xl2 was enginnered too sharp and that hurts their film look.
Hope this helps
 
Interesting. Any chance you could expand upon the technical details? Maybe Jan could step in and help explain this as well?
 
Shaw said:
Interesting. Any chance you could expand upon the technical details? Maybe Jan could step in and help explain this as well?
Click to expand...
He didnt want to go much further as to why canon will not be able to mimic the look of the Dvx but he said its in the engineering of the camera ccd signal combined with the in camera processing but not the curves.(I guess its a Panny secret).I have used the Xl2 for about a month and you can get a beautiful image out of either camera .
 
What I will say is that every single time I see the image off of the DVX and have seen it compared to the XL2, the most stunning difference is the gamma curves. I think the reason that they are different is due to the work that we did with the VariCam way back when and then translating that to SD, via the DVX and the SDX.

One of the Filmmaker Grant applicants had actually shot a scene from his proposed project with the XL2, but aside from the 24P, it looked nothing like the DVX. The curve is not anything you can change with the controls on the camera itself, it is all in how the engineers put the curve together in the first place. It is a unique look.

I don't know if you all remember that first comparison video that Jarred ran with the XL2 vs the DVX, it was on the Santa Monica Pier and the swimming pool. Much of it was at night, well if you can find that again, look at the shadows and the highlights and how it holds the color in the dark and that is the defining difference.

Best,

Jan
 
i agree that ALL canon cams make too sharp images. there is a difference between being in focus and being sharp. i constantly have troubles matching canons to other cams while i easily can match a Betacam to a Sony PD150 and a DVX.
 
As an XL2 owner I can say that this makes a lot of sense. I have tried over and over to simulate the DVX's gamma curve and have been unable to do so. I can get some beautiful images, but I can't match it.

My biggest problem is the need for long lenses. I shoot certain events for one of my companies and I need a long lens. I just finished shooting a press event mixed with interviews and not only did it come out great, it played a major role in securing $1M+ in financing! I would not have been able to do this with less reach. And, as some of you know, I also have the not so occasional need to be able to capture a license plate from a city block away (in days past it was not uncommon to see my L-2 attached to a spotting scope giving me in essence a 7,000mm lens) the sharpness factor also helps a great deal with this. I understand that not everyone has this need... ;)

My only frustration is that Panasonic doesn't make one camera that can fulfill my professional needs as well as my new hobby of making stupid films. But I suppose that's asking for too much.

I still think that for standard def VIDEO the XL2 is a monster. For indie film stuff? I think I'm going to be very interested in the new HVX or a DVX. I still have a hard time with the feel of the DVX which seems kind of toy like to me. I've been seriously considering an SPX800 (which I love the feel of) but with the arrival of the HVX I'm not sure if that makes any sense? Jan, do you have any thoughts on that?

Matt
 
collie said:
*footnote :was told Xl2 was enginnered too sharp and that hurts their film look.
Hope this helps
Click to expand...

Actually because of this the XL2 is a far superior camera then the DVX when shooting 60i, the shots are reality TV quality. I've used both cameras on a documentary and noticed that when shooting 60i, the DVX was no different then their lower end 3ccd camcorder bought from Best Buy. Whereas the XL2 crushed the DVX at 60i, giving a more vibrant color and sharper edges. I can see the XL2 gamma being used more in a "the making of ........" documentry/real world setting.

Nevertheless, even though the XL2 out weighted the DVX (no pun intended) when shooting 60i, the little kicker still rocks when shooting 24P advanced. The DVX gamma is so inspiring and aids directors on shots that otherwise only experience can bring.

Ideally, I wish I can own the SDX900 it's the ultimate in everything in SD video production.

Panasonic, you continue to be leaders in video innovation with examples such as your CineGamma and now the P2!

Thank you so much!

Pete
 
Just remember Pete,

The DVX has more resolution than the XL2 in 60i in 4:3 mode as it is a 1/3" in 4:3 and the XL2 is about 1/4". So for the reality show shooting the 4:3, the DVX kicks. And even in 16:9 mode the color kicks, of course that is my opinion but so far, all of the examples I have seen support this.

Best,

Jahn
 
Jan don't they have the exact same number of pixels? I believe the CCD size is more like 1/4" as you mentioned but the res should be the same.
 
Shaw said:
Jan don't they have the exact same number of pixels? I believe the CCD size is more like 1/4" as you mentioned but the res should be the same.
Click to expand...
Pixel count is about the same, but coming from a 1/4" patch of the CCD means the pixels are smaller, which means you may have similar b&w resolution, but give up sensitivity and latitude.

For those who talk about the DVX's color, and compare it to the XL2, I just have to ask: what settings did you explore? I mean, what defines "DVX color"? For example, which of these pictures is from the DVX?

TwelveMPLooks.JPG


The answer, of course, is that they're all from the DVX. All those looks were created in-camera (no post-processing whatsoever).

DVX color can be whatever you want it to be -- as warm or cool, saturated or muted, soft or harsh, whatever you want.
 
Certainly possible. I'm just saying that you can't shoot with any of these cameras, and then proclaim that one's color is superior to another, unless you've at least explored the options that are available to you. The FX1 has extensive image control as well.
 
MattC said:
Didn't care to answer my questions Jan? Geez, what, do I have to by a camera first?? LOL!
Click to expand...

That sounds like a great idea. ;-)

Actually I didn't see your question and now that I have, I see you call my baby a toy, and I am supposped to feel compelled to answer your question? ;-)

To answer, so it goes back to what you do and the emphasis of your business. SD? HD? The SPX800 is very much the same sort of camera as the SDX900. Makes fabulous pictures, has unbeatable controls and frankly is by far the best SD camera in the market at the price point. Its only rival is the SDX900.

Best regards,

Jan
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
To be exact the XL2 has 345,000 pixels in the 4:3 and the DVX has 380,000.
Jan
Click to expand...

Actually the XL2 has 450.000 effective pixels in 16:9.
the DVX has no native 16:9 at all.
 
..xray.. what is your point. not to be snarky, but jan is clearly comaparing the cameras in 4:3 mode..

your statement reffers to 16:9 with a corrective wording as if its information negates jans previous staement. when in fact it does not.

your statement regards apples and appears to be attempting to negate a statement about oranges. when in fact they can both co-exist.
 
iamloser is right ... Jan was explicitly comparing both cameras in their 4:3 modes. In that mode, indeed the DVX has a higher resolution. The XL2's resolution does increase in 16:9, but that wasn't being discussed. xray, your statement does seem to imply that you were just trying to bring out a negative about the DVX.
 
Comments

Comments

I'm writing to stick up for Jan, too.

(begin rant) The problem is I had to to go through extra special effort to view xray's post. I determined on here a while ago to identity users who continually made comments that create a climate of confrontation and add them to my personal Black List in User CP and what do ya know... Xray just happened to be one of the people on my Black List. Way to go, wells, for your excellent intuition. Okay, I'm down from my pedestal now. (end rant)

Back to normal.
 
Jan_Crittenden said:
I see you call my baby a toy, and I am supposped to feel compelled to answer your question? ;-)
Click to expand...

Actually I said it FEELS like a toy to me, and it does, but I do love the image it produces for a number of purposes. I agree that the SDX900 is the perfect SD camera. I can't find a single compromise in the camera and if I had the money I would own one, I may even borrow to get one, only because I love it soo much. Perfect images, perfect gamma, perfect lens, perfect weight, perfect feel. Everything about that camera is first class. Perhaps to not poach on the sales of the SDX certain seemingly simple things were left out of the DVX? I really don't understand why Panasonic would not have given the DVX or the HVX a real lens or have a lens mount to accept a couple different lenses. It's not like it would be that much more expensive to manufacture the camera that way as opposed to using the fixed Leica lens (so don't others start with the "Geez, what do you want for $6K line).

Now to be fair, I have heard that the lens on the HVX has a better feel to it. I hope this is the case. I hate small handheld cameras in general, but at least if the lens had some heft to it and when using it felt like a real manual lens I could get behind it. Again does Pany just not want to poach on sales of more expensive cameras?

Oh and my question was (perhaps I wasn't clear) if one was considering the SPX800 (or the SDX900) would the introduction of the HVX make that (the purchase of an SPX/SDX) a foolish option?

To everyone else regarding resolution, I didn't mean to start a war. The XL2 images are amazing to me (for Video, not filmlook) and I'm perfectly happy with them. If others like something else, great.

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top