XL2 image nicer than DVX?

MatthewC

MatthewC

Well-known member
I read the 3 way shootout, but from the photos and comparisons in the article, it looks like the XL2 pulls out nicer colours from the images its taking. Anyone else notice this?

I heard the XL2 has really really nice colour and light handling and you can get some damn film like pictures from it.

Anyone can give me some info on this, or some really nice sample image / video links? I'd love to see this baby in action a bit more, and see if I should get it or the DVX.

I plan to make indie films.
 
Both XL2 and DVX are excellent cameras. Though I do like the DVX gamma curves better, the XL2 definitely has a sharper picture in 16x9. I just find the overall image fidelity of the XL2 better to work with (I'll use XL2 footage and then chroma upres with G Nicer and then cc then).

www.filmsuite.com/reels/freshpepper.mov

thats a film I shot with the XL2 for a 48hour film competition - we won 2 awards :)

Hope it helps ....
 
This video has a mix of Super 16mm and XL2 footage in it, but you should be able to tell the difference.

The first room they are in (with the windows behind them) is almost entirely XL2 footage, with the exception of the first two shots of the drummer.

Backstreet Law - Till December WMV 45 mb


Work in progress, so please don't comment on the editing or effects, especially on the conceptual footage yet. I'll post the finished product when everything is completed and you can tear me apart until your hearts are content...lol!
 
I've heard about a comparison that American Cinematographer did between the XL2 and the DVX, and they seemed to have preferred the XL2. Although I've never actually read this article; anyone who has it, could you show me a scan or at least summarize the results and why those were the results?
 
I have used the XL2 a couple times, and enjoy its image. I think the in-camera grain and color balance looks better than the DVX. However, I like the DVX for the gamma and saturation (too much magenta!), and portability.

*Full disclosure: new DVX owner*
 
I dunno? I always felt the Xl2 was a touch flat in its colors.

i mean you can always boost it a little in post.... but, whatever they are practically identical. You can flex a xl2 to match the look of a DVX, and a Dvx to match the look of a Xl2. My freind shot a VideoArt piece on an Xl2, and half way though he had to switch to my camera. ( dvx) and they looked almost identical. we couldnt even tell which scene was shot with which when it was CCed.

But i will say this, if only the DVX had xl2 sharpness, and, if only the Xl2 had Dvx color......
 
The factory settings are flatter, but they're also broadcast legal. But as you said, it can be altered either in camera or in post. Also you get VERY little chroma aberration with the XL2.
 
Again, although the DVX's color output is generally more pleasing to most, the XL2 has natively higher resolution in 16x9. Now thats something you can't add in post ...

Although, if you are looking to shoot in 4x3, I believe the DVX has a higher res in that mode as it uses the full ccd chip while the XL2 crops its ccd chips further ...

Although a user of both cameras, the 4x3 modes seem to be on par with each other. 16x9 though, the XL2 is noticeably sharper.

Hope this helps.
 
mgalvan said:
Although, if you are looking to shoot in 4x3, I believe the DVX has a higher res in that mode as it uses the full ccd chip while the XL2 crops its ccd chips further ...
Click to expand...

Actually, the resolution is the same, in terms of CCD pixels (720x480 for NTSC). The difference is that the XL2 CCD area being used to capture the image is smaller than on the DVX CCD. Other things being equal (which they probably aren't) the DVX should be better for reduced depth of field in 4:3 mode.

Richard
 
DVX/XL2 American Cinematographer

DVX/XL2 American Cinematographer

Gordon JL said:
I've heard about a comparison that American Cinematographer did between the XL2 and the DVX, and they seemed to have preferred the XL2. Although I've never actually read this article; anyone who has it, could you show me a scan or at least summarize the results and why those were the results?
Click to expand...

Hello. I've read the article, it's in one of my issues of American Cinematographer. Actually it was doen within the last few months. But, of course, I am unable to locate it as I have WAAYY too many isues of practically every moviemaking magazine on Earth. But, I do have issue #58 of MovieMaker magazine and American Cinematographer April 2005 (I don't believe this is the AC issue in question as far as a film-out goes but it does make other comparisons to the DVX-100A)

MovieMaker #58
Article by James Tocher

Quote: "We put it into fairly standard settings, (the XL2) 24p and 16:9 engaged, and blew up the footage to 35mm at Digital Film Group. The Canon did not disappoint. In a side-by-side shootout with the two most popular standard def cameras (The Panasonic DVX100 and its big brother the AJ-SDX900), the Canon's resolving power seemed to fall somewhere between the two. That's saying a lot, considering the SDX900 has much larger 2/3-inch CCD's and twice the color resolution when recording to tape". Mr. Tocher went on to talk about how he feels the ability of being able to swap to a fully manual lens with barrel markings is incredibly important for a focus puller when on location or on set. He likes the 20X glass but hates the servo assist. (this is echoed in Mr. Hoblen's thoughts below)

American Cinematographer April 2005
article by Jay Holben

"Side-by-side with the Panasonic DVX100A, the XL2 easily had a cleaner, sharper picture. Shooting a standard resolution chart, the Canon was able to reproduce up to about 600 lines, wheras the Panasonic hit a max of about 500. The Canon has a much cleaner picture in its native 16:9 mode, but the degradation when shooting cropped in 4:3 is very slight. I compared the DVX and XL2 for an extremely limited time, but was able to set the Canon a full stop faster than the DVX when under tungsten lighting, rating an EI of about 1,200.
He begins the article with stuff he didn't like about the XL2: servos on the 20x (I hear ya brother...) but loved the actual glass and resolution of the lens. Also hates the tiny, ridiculous viewfinder (here ya again) The main gist of the article boiled down to this at the end:
"The XL2 can be considered as close to a professional camera as they come. Structural design and electronic compromises must be made in order to manufacture a
camera in the $4,000 price range, and Canon has made its choices. Aside from some design probelms, the XL2's image and sound quality are superb, a significant inprovement over the XL1 and XL1s- a step above the 24p DV competition.

Okay, my fingers are officially cramped...

Both do harp on certain things about the XL2, the camera didn't go by completely unscathed. But the final results from both were pretty enthusiastic thumbs up and seemed to prefer it over the Panasonic in a film-out type situation.
Their have been a lot of movies shot on the DVX as it offered 24p almost 2 full years ? (someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this) before slow poke Canon got its act together and introduced the XL2.
Maybe now we'll start seeing a wave of XL2 movies? Maybe not. Might be too little
too late.

NOTE TOO MODERATORS: Hope this isn't violating any copyright laws from these fine periodicals. If it is, many apologies and yank this puppy.

:laugh:
 
Yea its totally preference man. Which ever you like better. I honestly would just pick based on which style you like. Shoulder mounted or handheld. Other than that, theyre both amazing machines. I really wouldnt mind if i HAD to use a Xl2 for the rest of my life. I would just miss the wide angle lens and the LCD screen.... thats about it.
 
Thanks a lot for sharing the articles PANA-MAN -- I probably wouldn't have taken the time to type all that for someone, unless there was money involved! Thanks again.

So I guess the magazines preferred the XL2 over the DVX for film-out situations; which doesn't really contradict DVXuser.com's comparison of the XL2 and DVX (as I had originally thought), which stated that the DVX looked more film like.
 
John_Hudson said:

No. :beer: :cheesy: :evil:
Click to expand...

...lol...I love the structured arguements you always bring to the XL2 vs DVX debate John... :cheesy:

How do you feel about the subject of camera "mojo?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top