XL2/DVX short concept clip

Yellowdog,
Thanks. Yes I am in Ohio. Believe it or not it was shot in the Eastwood Mall in Niles, Ohio. We were in the warehouse section of the old woolworth store. It has been abandoned for years and they renovated it to be a makeshift set.

I lived in Cleveland for years and was a member of the cleveland film-makers group also. Haven't kept up with it lately. You doing independent film stuff up there? I'd love to hook up with some others in Ohio trying to do dramatic work.

Thanks!
 
Mainly concerts and events on the side. I'm a news videographer by day, so I have to keep my sanity up by doing more creative stuff with my dvx. Woolworth? There's a blast from the past! Seriously, great work on that video. I'd love to see the entire thing when your done with it.Take care.
David
 
Just checked it out. Fun little piece for sure. Nice beat to the music, the choreography, the lighting and editing were all neato (did I just say neato?).

But to me, I believe the DVX was used on the tight closeups and separate rooms and hallway in the beginning. From the point where the dancers and the guy are on our main event stage through the end of the flik is all XL-2 (looked more videoish to me). The skin tones and gamma were greatly different from the stuff in the beginning. Now mind you, mom and pop smith in your average household won't notice the difference so who would care, right? But the production value simply in terms of color depth make all the difference between these shots. One looks pro to my eye and the other looks cheaper by comparison.

Your needs and intent for these cameras will always be key to the debate of which camera is better. Personally, I wouldn't want to show a narrative shot on an XL-2 to a producer as part of a pitch to get funding for a flik. It's just one of those little subliminal drawbacks which could be a make or break point to someone who's skittish about trusting a new film maker.
 
Open water was intentionally shot to feel documentary so a consumer camera worked for that subject matter. Also, It wasn't funded by studios in advance. It was picked up for distribution after it was shot and the high concept dramatic subject matter and execution was the reason it was picked up. So it's the exception to the rule, not a basis to follow that path.

I wouldn't shoot a pitch piece for Jaws or diehard with a PD-150 and expect hollywood to fund it with a new untested film maker at the helm.
 
I agree with you, but I wouldn't shoot a pitch piece with an XL2 or a DVX and expect Hollywood to fund it with a new untested filmmaker either. If it was that important, and short enough to be a pitch piece, I'd more than likely shoot film.
 
STORYTELLER32 said:
But to me, I believe the DVX was used on the tight closeups and separate rooms and hallway in the beginning. From the point where the dancers and the guy are on our main event stage through the end of the flik is all XL-2 (looked more videoish to me). The skin tones and gamma were greatly different from the stuff in the beginning. Now mind you, mom and pop smith in your average household won't notice the difference so who would care, right? But the production value simply in terms of color depth make all the difference between these shots. One looks pro to my eye and the other looks cheaper by comparison.
Click to expand...

You would be incorrect in your assumptions. The majority of the closeups are XL2. There are a few DVX in ther but most are XL2. The issue you are describing is not a function of the camera but a function of the poor lighting once the dancing starts up. Both DVX and XL2 look more video-like then. This is as a result of less contrast in the images. Also.....being so dark you just have a harder time adjusting the gamma curves to get that "film-like" quality out of those shots.

Excellent observations.....just wrong conclusion. The more video look in the clips you speak of is because of poor lighting...or should I say, less controlled lighting.

I respect your opinion but that just goes to show that properly lit footage is just as important, or more important than the camera you shoot with. With proper light levels and exposure you "can" recreate the DVX gamma look in post. But with poor lighting even the mighty DVX can look only average.
 
Don't waste your breath (or fingers) man, ST32 is evangelical in his beliefs in this area....
 
Hi icicle22,
Absolutely, lighting is key no matter what you use. But the truth is, I have yet to see gamma done in post on XL2 to look close enough to DVX to mistake it. But again, I have an annoyingly discerning eye and most average viewers don't pay attention to the little details that jump out at me so it certainly doesn't matter to the viewership of your final product. You did a great job and it looks awesome.

Hey Matt,
Bottom line of course is if you're untested, you're untested so it doesn't matter to Hollywood what you shoot on. But I misspoke when I said hollywood (my bad). I should have said a mid-level producer or indi financing connection of any kind.

When you pitch something to finaciers, you don't want anything to be used as an excuse for them to say no. They're coming at you looking to say no already because they don't want to risk their money and need to REALLY be convinced to do so. All film makers (outside of the 'in crowd' in hollywood) needs every little help to convince those kinds of people to say yes. You'd be amazed at how subtle little production values can make or break a decision of that kind.

And hey, I gave the XL2 a fair shot dude. Still doesn't measure up to the color depth of the DVX for me even with post work done in shake. What can I tell ya? That being said, I'm waiting for the HVX before I buy. Want that 4:2:2 color space for my post work which will be stronger looking than the DVX (I assume) ;)
 
Yes, I've heard about your "annoyingly discerning eye". It must be horrible to live with such a curse, I feel for you. But, as I've said before, a look is subjective. I've watched your trailer a ton of times. At lest half of it looks VERY video to me and I don't particularly care for the look of much of it. That doesn't make it bad, it just means it's not my thing. And the 10% that looks great? Lighting...

Regarding financing, I've been involved in the financing of three independent films (work for an investor syndicate), one that aired on lifetime, one that went to Tribeca and I'm still not sure what's going to happen to the third. Many of my clients (all financiers) have financed independent films (and three broadway shows, at least one of which received multiple Tony awards), so I think I have a handle on that. But thank you. And yes, the HVX may indeed be the best option, I'm looking forward to it as much as anyone.

Matt
 
Hey icicle,
Went back and read the thread a bit and re-watched the video again (which I probably should have done before posting). Didn't realize the DVX was shot flat without the cinegamma on before I posted. But wouldn't you expect the outcome from both cameras to be the same if you didn't use the DVX cinegamma? I mean it's the thing that makes DVX footage have a filmic quality, so if it's off, of course it would look more video like. I mean you handicapped one camera to make it match the footage of another and create a level playing field in post (which was a smart move because you were shooting a video and you don't want the footage to look different in your final outcome of course). So how is that an accurate comparison between what can be achieved using one camera vs. the other?

If you're going to compare footage with a test in mind to see which has the better outcome, better to shoot the camera's side by side on the same well lit scene and push the limits of both in camera capabilities (with the same DP). Then push them both the same way in post and show the side by side results. That to me is a true test of the cameras. I mean who would handicap a camera to get less out of it on their projects? If you can do more to achieve a stronger outcome, you would, right?

Truth is this video isn't a good comparison piece because the cuts in this clip go by too fast to notice much unless you're looking for issues (which we were all challenged to). It's a darkly lit quickly chopped music video and it's not like your eye can sit on any one shot for too long a period of time (in a narrative this might be a different story [unless it's a michael bay film]).

Probably should have watched it more closely. But yeah, shooting flat with both cameras I would expect a same result out of post production because then you've leveled the playing field and relying purely on the same post effects to make the footage match up. But if you were to push the in camera options in the DVX and the XL2 and then put them both in post, I think you would see a vast difference in the quality level. Would like to see a real side by side comparison of that nature if you're game. Do you have access to both cameras?
 
ST,

If this is correct, and I'm willing to concede that it is, then why has everyone I've spoken to who has produced unbelievable professional, filmlike results with video (including the DVX) said to shoot as flat as possible (without cinegamma) and to do all color grading in post. I was also told to do this by the folks at Able Cine Tech and Digital Film Tree. Now, I don't actually have an opinion on this and I personally lean towards using the cinegama function. But more and more I'm hearing that I should capture the flatest image possible with the most latitude and then adjust from there in post.

I'm confused again...

Matt
 
Matt,
You're absolutely right dude. Everything about film making is subjective.

About the financing, hey, that's awesome! Congrats! I get the feeling its a lot easier to hook up that kind of stuff outside of California though (especially since you seem to have connections to financiers with prior relationships already established which obivously makes it much easier to get deals made). That's not the norm for a majority of others though. Lots more competition (out here especially) and my experience so far is you need every little edge possible. You think I have a critical eye? Try showing a pitch piece to someone who is looking for reasons to say no! lol :grin:

About my trailer, well I can't argue with you. It's your opinion. I'm just glad your point of view has been in the minority on that. What I can say is (with the exception of a couple of obvious special effect shots done with some plugins in FCP), everything on my posted trailer is cut together from raw camera footage. No post work done on it (especially noticeable on the audio too). I've been lazy about replacing it with the finished version because my compression program has been crashing whenever I go to make a quicktime of the final version. (still running a 450mhz G4 here) Oh well... But thanks for watching it again and again. You'd be better off watching the final full film again and again if you're looking for something to critique.

Bottom line "evangelical" comment for this long standing debate between us :evil: :
I think all narrative film makers will agree what's most important is that all viewers of their work gloss over the question of what it was shot on and just get lost in the content of what they're watching. The conclusion I (and I think a vast majority of others) have come to is the XL-2 isn't the strongest option out there for that purpose. I still say the in camera gamma of the DVX is a stronger foundation upon which to build your post production color grading. It gets mistaken for film more often than not. I wish the same could be true of the XL-2 because I love the ability to change lenses. Again, I have yet to see gamma changes in post to XL-2 footage which measures up and I did give it an honest and fair shot (had some apple computer shake gurus messing with test footage and well... eh. Still wasn't there).

Matty, sorry you don't like my conclusions or my reasonable arguments against that camera. None of those statements are aimed at you so I don't know why you take that opinion personally. You didn't design the camera and I've never attacked you personally about it.

That's where I'm going to leave it-
Best of luck to you and your projects. :kiss:
 
Oh I don't take it personally, and I don't necessarily think your wrong. I've repeatedly stated that if I had been purchasing a camera for strictly narrative work, I probably would have purchased a DVX. I just find some of your comments to be a bit off as written - but that's probably just how I read it. Also I think things should be quantitative (hard to do with art, I agree) but still, if something is "not right" we should be able to determine what that is. So when someone says, no, it's not right and then points to something that they think IS right, and I think it looks like crap - well I get frustrated because either they don't see what I see, I'm insane, or I'm an idiot - I'd just like to know which of the three it is. Of course when I look at something by Dsjecta I'm completely blown away - but I don't often see narrative dvx footage that looks that way (or any footage, from any camera that looks that way to be honest).

And yes, you should update the trailer (especially the outdoor footage)! Or send me a copy of the film, I'd like to see it. Regarding the financing, please understand - they're not handing ME their money, LOL! But I have been involved in the process of deciding if a particular film project was worth backing. I have no delusions of making it to the other side of that equation.

Matt
 
MattC said:
ST,

If this is correct, and I'm willing to concede that it is, then why has everyone I've spoken to who has produced unbelievable professional, filmlike results with video (including the DVX) said to shoot as flat as possible (without cinegamma) and to do all color grading in post. I was also told to do this by the folks at Able Cine Tech and Digital Film Tree. Now, I don't actually have an opinion on this and I personally lean towards using the cinegama function. But more and more I'm hearing that I should capture the flatest image possible with the most latitude and then adjust from there in post.

I'm confused again...

Matt
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have to see what you saw to give you that answer. Digital film tree makes plugins if I remember correctly? And Able Cine Tech rents equipment? (or am I wrong on that? Or do they do more than that? Are they a production house too?)

If you were talking with them (film tree) referencing the XL2 then maybe they've found better results with their plugins shooting flat with that camera. It's possible with the gamma of the XL2 you're better off shooting flat to get the looks they're selling that can be achieved. I used the XL2 and found I couldn't push it terribly far in camera to begin with (but again, me and my DP at the time didn't have a manual and it was our first time on the camera). I haven't seen any digital film tree DVX footage and if I did, I'd have to know if it was shot with or without the cinegamma on.

I'm of the mind that your foundation footage is key and you have to build on it in post from there. If it's strong to begin with it can only be made stronger in post (assuming you know what you're doing post-wise). If it's weak to begin with (ie. flat) well then I think there's only so far you can push it with SD 4:1:1 color space footage. This just sounds logical to me, what can I tell ya?
 
I own and use both cameras OFTEN... easy to match them up once you know what you are doing. The key is matching the XL2 to the DVX as far as knee/blacks/setup levels and matching the DVX in saturation and color to the XL. The DVX creates more poppy colors (NOT broadcast legal) and a softer image but the XL2 gets more detail. Once you understand how to use both cameras they can be cut together.


ash =o)
 
First let me say this. I never got offended or took anything personally. I posted this clip to show a real world mix of both camera. This was done out of necessity....not out of desire to test cameras. After it was all done we noted how great both cameras looked. Many on this board suggest that the XL2 cannot be used with a dvx or isn't in the same league. I just offered up some footage to show what can be done.

Second.....in real world use, even before the XL2 came out, we have continually gotten better results doing all color timing in post and avoiding the cinegamma in camera. Yes it can look really nice but the level of control of each parameter is not the same in camera as it is in post.

Again this footage was not with a "test in mind". It was just shot with the cameras we have on hand.

And speak of crippling a camera? I had to blur the XL2 footage to make it match the DVX which is relatively soft in 16x9 mode. I had to handicap my XL2 footage! WHy would anyone want to make there camera perform less than it's capable of?

Now you can proceed to tell me how that "squeeze" mode adds to the film look...whatever. The DVX is an awesome camera....but it has drawbacks too.
 
icicle22 said:
First let me say this. I never got offended or took anything personally.
Click to expand...

I know. That was between me and my boy Matt. :grin:

And speak of crippling a camera? I had to blur the XL2 footage to make it match the DVX which is relatively soft in 16x9 mode. I had to handicap my XL2 footage! WHy would anyone want to make there camera perform less than it's capable of?
Click to expand...

One of the major complaints of the XL2 at large is that the footage is too sharp and it's considered a drawback of the camera. I wouldn't say it's a drawback for documentary work, but for narrative or music video where you're trying to get people to gloss over what you shot it on, I'd say it's a drawback. So I would say even if you weren't trying to match footage to a DVX shot, you should always look to lessen that sharpness as it's a halmark of what people associate with standard home video cameras and could possibly take them out of your narrative or music video. But if you call that crippling it... ok. Eye of the beholder and all, etc.

Now you can proceed to tell me how that "squeeze" mode adds to the film look...whatever. The DVX is an awesome camera....but it has drawbacks too.
Click to expand...

oh of COURSE it has drawbacks! lol... Where did I ever say the DVX is the worlds best and most flawless camera? Even though I think you're bringing up an apples to oranges issue (because the squeeze mode has a negligible impact on the imagery just affects the ratio of the frame really).

Mind you, I'm not an owner of either camera. I've been waiting before buying because BOTH these cameras have issues. Issues which I've been betting would be worked out as newer models are released and competition grows (curious about that new JVC in the works too but I'm betting the HVX will have the better quality end result).

The squeeze mode on the DVX is a cheap cheat as far as I'm concerned so I'm with you there. Most annoying indeed (is that the dvx-100 or the 100a? I know the 100 just crops a 4:3 frame, right? Or am I confusing the two issues?). I shot my short using the anamorphic lens specifically for that reason. Skipped the issue entirely.

My question has always been: Which video camera (in a consumer price range) will a majority of people mistake for film and give your project(s) a professional level production value allowing most viewers to ignore what it was shot on and just get involved in the content of what they're watching? Answer still is, for me, the DVX. The XL2 color just isn't as impressive looking. In camera, post, combination of both, whatever. Doesn't do it for me. What can I tell ya? Show me something to change my mind and it will change. I'm not closed minded, just haven't seen it yet.
 
There is a difference between sharpness and clarity. Over sharpening is bad. Crystal clear 16x9 is good.
When you are cutting a DVX100 in squeeze mode with an XL2 you see a hige difference in resolving power. NOt Cheap edge enhancements......actually more resolution sampled down to DV. I know you will find this hard to believe but whenever I start to think "hmm....DVX does have some nice gamma curves...maybe I should get another", I pop in any one of my 20-30 DVX tapes and load it into my editor. Viewing on a large format 16x9 SD monitor the 16x9 of the DVX fills about the middle 1/3 of that screen plus has black bars. Resampling it to fill the screen seriously degrades it. Big time. Especially on a timeline with 16x9 XL2 footage that fills the entire frame with no need to resample. The gamma curves of the XL2 aren;t as good as the DVX. But I can tweak that in software. I can't tweak the DVX lack of resolutiion in 16x9 in software. I have to live with it.

Again my point of this wasn't a comparison. Just a real world example that the DVX and XL2 can live together fairly easily.

I look forward to the HVX or even a 16x9 DVX100b if it were to happen. But true 16x9 is a priority...and until there is a sub 4k camera that has that and the Pana Gamma curves the XL2 is the bomb. For me.
 
Well considering the the shots looked the same on both devices, I dont feel a big rush to get the XL2now :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top