Xl2 dvx Gamma comparisons from panny open house

Shiloh Arts said:
But with the P2 technology and firestore drives I can surpass this...correct? Or am I limited to just shooting DVCPro 50 with that cam? (don't want to digress off the topic)
Click to expand...
Nah, don't worry about.. Well, DVCPRO-25 and DVCPRO-50 are codecs, not tapes.
There is only a single DVCPRO cassette and it will work in a PRO25, PRO50, or PRO-HD
tape drive, albiet with different runtimes in each--it's still the same physical cassette tape.

The P2 series are designed to record at different quality levels (eg-codecs) so, the SPX800
can record in DVCPRO-25 (same as MiniDV or DVCAM) or DVCPRO-50. Take your pick.
 
Shiloh Arts said:
Aw ...dude... I never questioned this. I'm totatly ignorant when it comes to pixel comparsison at 4:3 in both cameras. My goal is to shoot at 16:9 not 4:3 seeing that I'm 24 and shooting for the future :thumbsup: One thing I do know is that in the PAL version of the XL2 (based on the same article you provided ...thanks) has 410,000 pixels when shooting 4:3.

I think also it's completely retarded to go to wars over companies, so don't get so defensive.

Thanks
Pete
Click to expand...

Hi Peter,

The same can be said about a PAL DVX, its resolution will be higher just to fit within PAL specifications.

One should get what works for them. I bought the XL2 because I wanted the native widescreen and 24p - and now I have it :-)
 
Oh, and a P2 card fits inside the PCMCIA slot on a laptop or a $50 USB2 card reader for a desktop.
No more need for a tape deck. There are entire threads about archiving on here, use the search.....
 
MattC said:
Why will no one answer my question!!???!!!

:(
Click to expand...

lol ... ok, well no doubt the electronics in the SPX800 are better than what will be in the HVX200 ... but I am still compelled towards the HVX200 (I'd use the camera for Indie FIlmmaking). I guess it would depends on the person's needs ...
 
thisiswells said:
Oh, and a P2 card fits inside the PCMCIA slot on a laptop or a $50 USB2 card reader for a desktop.
No more need for a tape deck. There are entire threads about archiving on here, use the search.....
Click to expand...

That's good to know, thanks a lot.

I wonder if this software upgrade is expensive though, I wasn't able to find any info on the Panasonic site on price so I'm assuming its all incorporated into a new purchase of the camera. I'm shooting a doc this summer in Peru so this camera might fit. Ideally though SDX but if this technology is available on the SPX, then I can spend the extra mony on the right lense and production tools.

to the last two posts:

I thought so too that the DVX would have more pixels in the PAL version, makes sense. The HVX seems really promising, but since I would need it by the first week of August, time is money.

Thanks a lot guys for all your feedback.


Pete from Boston - signing off :beer:
 
mgalvan said:
The XL2 is indeed 1/3-inch chip, but only utilizes that size in 16:9 mode. In 4:3, it deactivates the sides of the chip, effectively using about a 1/4-inch surface size. So although physically, it is 1/3 inch in nature, its actual effective pixel count and ccd size usage is effected depending on the mode you are shooting in.

I decided to buy the XL2 over the DVX and don't regret it at all .... its a great camera. But shooting in 4:3 with the XL2, it seems slightly softer than the DVX in 4:3. Now 16:9 is another story ....
Click to expand...

Okay.
I know the chip and its dimensions, it is a 1/3-inch chip with no full use of its pixelcount for 4:3 recording. It's not 1/4 inch. For me -and for the most EU people- 4:3 shooting is irrelevant. Its the past. HD is nowhere near, there are no HD shoots in the Netherlands but the widescreen PAL 16:9 is everywhere. The quality of the PAL broadcasting signal is good. Investing in a 4:3 cam today makes no sense at all. But the same is true for HD.

So what I like is the possibillity to shoot progressive 16:9 SD with dvcpro/50. We like the DVX gamma bandwith too...Specialy if you can control the image and the light. With time it creates a nice image. And I like to shoot on tape for now, after it it can go -->DVD / webcasting / SD broadcasting / Blu-ray&Hd-Dvd marriage. Blur-DVD is the new name?
 
MattC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why do you want to simulate the DVX? You want to have a kind of filmlook or something than try to simulate your favorite film.

I had a DVX 100AE, Sony PD150P, 300 , FX1 and now I have only a Z1E . I used the Pd150 and DVX side by side many times and never hade any problem to get the look I wanted. Just to adjust the gamma in XL2 ( I don't know this camcorder), because you are reading something about Panasonic gamma curve , can't give you what you want I' m sure. In pd150 a combination of WB, ND, IRIS and User setting + 4x4" glassfilters gave me what I wanted. I'm sure you can find the kind of color and filmlook you want with your XL2.

I've seen so many "non DVX-look" video with a real video-look posted on DVXuser made with a DVX. I was just wondering what they were using because they looked like a Samsung video8 to me.
 
LOL! I've seen the same thing, but then I've seen some DVX footage that is amazing. I don't know I don't really see it that much, I create images that I think look very filmlike but others here say it screams video so I'm just trying to see what they see and correct for it. The problem so far is no one can quantify it for me. But I have to say, I like what I'm getting a lot better than much of what I see posted.

Matt
 
MattC said:
Why will no one answer my question!!???!!!

:(
Click to expand...

Well, don't know why, my earlier answer didn't take but if you have the money to spend on an SPX800, it will make better pictures than an HVX200. If you take those SPX800 pictures and have them upconverted to HD, they will have greater dynamic range than the HVX. Laws of Physics cannot be denied. Point is: what can you afford?

Hope that helps,

Jan
 
Jan,

OK for the dynamic range (2\3 vs 1/3 CCD), but i tought the native HD footage from an HD camcorder could not be rivaled by a SD upconverted footage.

Is it right ?
 
It didn't take because you didn't say what you just said! Thanks. I suppose I have the same questions as Antoine which is I didn't know which would look better native HD out of the HDX or SD out of the SPX upconverted to HD. I've never seen this issue addressed.

Thanks again,

Matt
 
What screams video are chroma loss, conspicuously square pixels, mushy blacks and screaming distorted highlights due to narrow light latitude.

If you can get an image without any of these, then you have a filmic image. Any one of the above will give your picture the scarlet letter or albatross of video. 30fps is actually probably better than 24fps, but because of the convention of film, everyone is stuck with judder on panning shots. That is why panning is such a pain in the ass with real film, while it is such a piece of cake for 30 and above.

DOF is going to be less of an issue in the future as far as filmic look. Still an important tool, but not that important.
 
Why will no one answer my question!!???!!!
Click to expand...

Because it can't be answered yet. Comparing an HVX to an SPX/SDX is really rather impossible at this time, since the HVX doesn't exist. All you can do is go off theoreticals...

So... theoretically... an SPX or SDX should spank the HVX when it comes to DV or DVCPRO-50 recording. Spank it. There's no denying that 2/3" chips, plus bigger/better lenses (remember, a halfway decent lens for the SPX or SDX will cost MORE than the entire HVX camera!) will make for better pictures.

But the HVX does HD, and the SPX/SDX do not. So the only possible comparisons you can make are:

1) is the SD picture of the SPX/SDX so much better that it's worth 6x as much (which is about the price difference);

and

2) If shooting high-def, would up-rezzing the SDX or SPX's picture produce superior results to what you'd get natively from an HVX?

As for 1, only you can answer that for yourself. The HVX will likely produce the very best standard-def image possible from a 1/3" camera, if for no other reason than because it's recording 4:2:2. But the SPX and SDX will be better, undeniably. So you have to decide if the improvement is worth spending six times as much for the camera + lens.

But for 2, we can't answer that yet. Not until we see HVX footage. Many things are possible -- even if the up-rezzed footage from an SDX can't match the sharpness of the HVX, the SDX footage will still have better dynamic range, lower noise, and better low-light response. So maybe its lower resolution will be compensated for, and maybe the overall picture will end up looking better than up-rezzed footage. Maybe. But even if it does, you're still spending 6x as much, plus having to spend a lot of time in post up-rezzing your footage, and even then you'd be giving up variable frame rates and other goodies that come with the HVX. So would it be worth it?

Again, a subjective call. And one that can't be made until we have the camera to test.
 
xray said:
Okay.
I know the chip and its dimensions, it is a 1/3-inch chip with no full use of its pixelcount for 4:3 recording. It's not 1/4 inch. For me -and for the most EU people- 4:3 shooting is irrelevant. Its the past. HD is nowhere near, there are no HD shoots in the Netherlands but the widescreen PAL 16:9 is everywhere. The quality of the PAL broadcasting signal is good. Investing in a 4:3 cam today makes no sense at all. But the same is true for HD.

So what I like is the possibillity to shoot progressive 16:9 SD with dvcpro/50. We like the DVX gamma bandwith too...Specialy if you can control the image and the light. With time it creates a nice image. And I like to shoot on tape for now, after it it can go -->DVD / webcasting / SD broadcasting / Blu-ray&Hd-Dvd marriage. Blur-DVD is the new name?
Click to expand...

Oh, a European guy ... I didn't notice :-)

If that is the case, it would seem almost a no brainer to go with the XL2 as you have more widescreen televisions in homes over there. Here in the US, 4:3 still dominates (although 16:9 is picking up). So a decision on a camera based on aspect ratio here in the US is a little more thought consuming ....
 
So all this talk about Gamma curves and what not got me to remember how excited I was when the DVX first came out. I borrowed my friend's DVX and did a shot comparison with my XL2 last night to compare gamma curves. I have to say ... those DVX gamma curves are quite nice!!!

I love my XL2 ... the image it produces is very clean, and has more noticeable resolution than the DVX. But the DVX has gamma curves that give it such a pleasing, well, filmy look. Truly something that makes the DVX unique ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top