XL2/DVX short concept clip

I

icicle22

Well-known member
This is the first minute of a concept video. A graphic artist conceived it as a musical piece that would show him airbrushing a mural in a creative theatrical way. It was shot with a Canon XL2 and a DVX100 (non a). I shot the XL2 footage and my partner the DVX. I had nothing to do with the editing or color correcting of this piece. Check it out and see the XL2 and DVX together. I may not have a lot of bandwidth so someone may want to grab it and post it somewhere else or it could go bye bye quick.

Let me know what you think. I am not asking for review of the video content but more of the use of 2 different cameras inside the piece as I really didn't participate in editing at all.

http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/switch_back.htm
 
The makeup shot looks like XL2 - just cus the skin looks video-y to me. I could be wrong tho, the DVX doesn't handle the skin tones that much differently - but I duno just looks video-y to me...

Could be DVX tho, just cus it looks softer.
 
wow, that was like some weird 80's euro goth trip...but you said not to review the content, so...

as far as the use of the 2 cameras goes, I guess it went fairly smoothly because even though I have some guesses as to which was which in certain scenes, for the most part I couldn't really tell enough that it detracted from movie itself. I could see that certain scenes looked more flat and video-like than others. like the parts where the artist guy was putting on his make-up looked a little more gritty and had good filmic contrast, but the scenes when he has the full make-up on and the crazy disco lights kick in with the dancers and all that, it looked more like video.

I gotta ask you though, what was it like on the set when you were shooting this thing? was it as weird to shoot as it was to watch?
 
Ok. A few things. I believe the makeup shot was with the DVX. IT does look softer but I believe part of it was a tiny bit of soft focus....meaning the shot was off by a tad when shot. After reviewing the majority of this clip is XL2. You all have valid points that some of it looks more video-like...that has to do with lighting more than camera. The set was large and we just did not have the lighting capacity for the entire location. The shots people are guessing DVX or more filmlike are because of the lighting.

Let me put it this way. The DVX was shot using the default Scene 1 file but with 24PA added. SO no cinegamma, no cine-style colors and all options set at 0. Before color correction the XL2 and DVX looked almost identical.....flat. In post, all curves and colors were added. The shots that come out the most filmic are shots that are lit creatively and with good contrast. Those shots shine. The other shots were too flat and low contrast because of lighting. These could not be tweaked to achieve as dramatic of an effect.

In the end the DVX has a better look in most shots because my buddy went back and did pick up shots......in which he lit the scene to expose just his face or a specific subject. The performance was not as well or creatively lit and that comes off more flat.....or you may say more video. I would think even a film camera would have had this look because the scene was not lit as good as we'd have liked. Too big of a room, too little lights and way too liltle time.

I asked my buddy about how he felt editing the 2 cameras and he commented that other than the XL2 being slightly higher res and having a shallower DOF (in his opinion) they looked about the same. HE felt the best shots were because of lighting and not because of the camera. HE is very DVX biased so this was a compliment to the XL2.

Oh...he also mentioned that I was underexposed on several shots compared to his DVX. That comes from the better light sensitivity of the DVX. I had the XL2 wide open with no gain in certain shots. He had the DVX wide open and no gain in those same areas. HIs shots were a stop or so brighter. So he had to correct for that a little. But in the controlled shots where I was shooting closeups of the girl in a side room with good lighting the XL2 and dvx both look equally film-like.

I have been waiting to hear form John Hudson since he asked for some XL2 and DVX footage together...........anything?
 
Ronald_Raven said:
I gotta ask you though, what was it like on the set when you were shooting this thing? was it as weird to shoot as it was to watch?
Click to expand...

Not weird at all. The artist guy is totally cool and down to earth. It was a long grueling day and those girls got tired of doing their "routine"7-8-9 times so we get different angles. The video is definitely more goth than it felt on location. I guess just a like a real movie, on set the mood is all technical and worrying about lighting and focus and framing . You have no time to realize how weird or scary something might be.
 
I have to say that the lack of response is surprising. I thought there would be more interest in a real world shoot using both cameras. Everyone is so eager to put down the XL2 in comparison to a DVX but when they both look almost identical on a particular shoot the natives seem to have nothing to say?
 
Although... it was a DVX100 and not an "A" camera which I believe has enhanced "cine" features. I'm sure all who love the "A" camera will chime in about this soon enough.
Personally, though, I agree. The images were so darned close you can't really say for 100% sure which is which.
Cheers to the XL2 in the first comparison test.
Certainly far better than most people would have you believe.



:thumbsup:
 
PANA-MAN said:
Although... it was a DVX100 and not an "A" camera which I believe has enhanced "cine" features. I'm sure all who love the "A" camera will chime in about this soon enough.
Personally, though, I agree. The images were so darned close you can't really say for 100% sure which is which.
Cheers to the XL2 in the first comparison test.
Certainly far better than most people would have you believe.



:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Thanks Panaman. LIke I said the chief complaint about the XL2 was that it was not as light sensitive as the DVX in a few of the "darker scenes". That was a very big set and the lights were lacking. But when we got to do small setups with properly lit scenes the cameras were almost identical.
 
That was very cool.

Retro-chic... hahaha...

It really held my interest, maybe it was the dancers, maybe the rest of eye candy you threw in it, but I say you finish this piece. It is looking good!
 
The piece is actually finished. I really have no right to post the full clip as I am neither the artist or the producer of the video. I was just a camera man on this shoot. The editing and effects all belong to someone else. I asked for permission to post a "segment" since I had seen the DVX and XL2 together and was impressed. I am guessing that the artist in this clip will want to launch this on his website and I didn't want to steal his thunder.

If I can get the rights to it and they don't mind I could possibly post the rest. It actually gets a lot better. (the content....not the video/film quality)
 
alot of the shots were really quick and really dark, how are we supposed to tell which camera is which in that kind of testing? DVX all the way. I just filmed a wedding today where I used the dvx and a buddy used an Xl1. I will have to see how the footage turns out on the two.
 
This wasn't a test. This was a real world shoot. And if you can't tell which is which, then that is the point. Agreed that this piece was darker.....but no one said that the DVX is better than the XL2.....only in daylight scenes. This piece only serves to show that the 2 cameras can be used together.....not that one is better than the other.

As far as your wedding using the XL1 and DVX I would expect the DVX to pull ahead. If you shot in 60i on the DVX it will probably not be as noticable. I should note that last year I shot a wedding with my DVX and a buddy helped out with the PD150 and the PD150 has better low light and way better color rendition in the daylight and the dark reception. Of course I shot the DVX footage in 60i. All in all it was not hard to cut together with a little CC here and there. BUt I had to add saturation to the DVX in post to match shots.
 
hey Icicle,
I liked it. I couldnt really tell either camera apart. I'm a dvx100a owner.Where you did you shoot this, in Ohio?Just curious, Im in Cleveland.
David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top