"movie mode" of XL1s compared to.... at DVinfo.net

December 11th, 2002, 11:50 PM

the 24p film or "movie mode" of the panasonic dvx100? I hear the dvx is much better, but was wondering what people who have seen examples of both?

Frank Granovski · December 12th, 2002, 01:18 AM

Frame mode is 30fps in the XL1. The DVX100 shoots progressive scan in both 30fps and 24fps. Though similar, (frames instead of fields), the DVX100 will have sharper progressive footage. This is because it uses progressive scan CCDs, and the resolution is higher. Which one looks better? I don't know. This would depend on what you find looks better.

Jaime Valles · December 13th, 2002, 09:44 AM

I went to B&H video yesterday with the same question. I tried out both and the DVX100 was, in my opinion, better. The XL1 frame mode seems to stutter a lot more, while the DVX100 seems relatively smooth by comparison, while still maintaining that "film look". The image was also sharper on the DVX100.

I'm not sure if what you're using it for is straight to video or transfer to film, but it seemed that the higher resolution and 24p make the DVX100 a better choice for film. If it's staying in video format, either one will work, depending on which look you prefer. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

Bill Ravens · December 13th, 2002, 10:29 AM

The jury is still out on the Panny DVX. It will probably be a year before the hype and hoopla dies back to a level where some pragmatic critical evaluation will be heard. As of this moment, it seems the panny is more hoopla than reality...hehehehe.

Andre De Clercq · December 13th, 2002, 01:39 PM

Apart from the 24p which is good for the "movie makers" or the people who love to see the typical temporal artifacts of movies on their TV screen, there is no reason why the DVX would be "special". Even the gamma gimmick is nothing special and often very scene dependant whether or not this will result in the better picture. I hardly believe it has the sensitivity and noise performance of a VX2000. Maybe some people like the (somewhat) higher wideangle optics and other prefer the 12x zoom of the vx2000 as the standard build-in optics. Lots of people get trapped by the degree of artifical sharpening when they evaluate natural pictures. We have to get rid of these "tricks" because in many cases they deteriorate the real pixture quality and tend to male it "electric". Specifically vertical sharpening introduces or enhances all kinds of twitter, and other aliasing effects when there is motion in interlaced images.

December 11th, 2002, 11:50 PM	#1
gateway1 Posts: n/a	"movie mode" of XL1s compared to.... the 24p film or "movie mode" of the panasonic dvx100? I hear the dvx is much better, but was wondering what people who have seen examples of both?

December 13th, 2002, 09:44 AM	#3
Jaime Valles Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York City, NY Posts: 316	DVX100 I went to B&H video yesterday with the same question. I tried out both and the DVX100 was, in my opinion, better. The XL1 frame mode seems to stutter a lot more, while the DVX100 seems relatively smooth by comparison, while still maintaining that "film look". The image was also sharper on the DVX100. I'm not sure if what you're using it for is straight to video or transfer to film, but it seemed that the higher resolution and 24p make the DVX100 a better choice for film. If it's staying in video format, either one will work, depending on which look you prefer. Anyone, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

December 12th, 2002, 01:18 AM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Frame mode is 30fps in the XL1. The DVX100 shoots progressive scan in both 30fps and 24fps. Though similar, (frames instead of fields), the DVX100 will have sharper progressive footage. This is because it uses progressive scan CCDs, and the resolution is higher. Which one looks better? I don't know. This would depend on what you find looks better.

December 13th, 2002, 10:29 AM	#4
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	The jury is still out on the Panny DVX. It will probably be a year before the hype and hoopla dies back to a level where some pragmatic critical evaluation will be heard. As of this moment, it seems the panny is more hoopla than reality...hehehehe.

December 13th, 2002, 01:39 PM	#5
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	Apart from the 24p which is good for the "movie makers" or the people who love to see the typical temporal artifacts of movies on their TV screen, there is no reason why the DVX would be "special". Even the gamma gimmick is nothing special and often very scene dependant whether or not this will result in the better picture. I hardly believe it has the sensitivity and noise performance of a VX2000. Maybe some people like the (somewhat) higher wideangle optics and other prefer the 12x zoom of the vx2000 as the standard build-in optics. Lots of people get trapped by the degree of artifical sharpening when they evaluate natural pictures. We have to get rid of these "tricks" because in many cases they deteriorate the real pixture quality and tend to male it "electric". Specifically vertical sharpening introduces or enhances all kinds of twitter, and other aliasing effects when there is motion in interlaced images.