Xl2 Or Dvx100a

[Scott Ellifritt]

Robin,

In what way is it better?

And how often do you down rez your projects?

[Richard Alvarez]

What is the buzz I hear regarding the problem with dropouts in the new format? Basically, since the format is averaging across frames, a dropout in one frame will be "averaged" across a number of them? How is that seen as an "increase" in sharpness?

[Aaron Shaw]

I'm not entirely sure about the dropout thing Richard so I can't comment there. I would, however, guess that it has to do with MPEG2 compression on the fly.

Whenever you downsample an image the picture has the tendency to appear sharper. Why that is, technically, I cannot say. It IS however, there.

Is this worth the extra problems and compression (not to mention interlaced footage)? No, I don't think so. Not for me at least. If you plan on blowing up to film it may look better (may.. I don't think anyone can say yet) but honestly, how many people are going to go to film? Hardly anyone... and we still can't produce HD DVDs so the footage really becomes a cute accessory that cannot be fully utilized.

[Scott Ellifritt]

Everybody thinks they're going to film, but even for seasoned filmmakers that can be a crap shoot at best. Staight to video will give you better odds at seeing anything on the back end.
I assume that you know it takes millions to release a film and even if every Dick and Jane scrapes up the money from relatives to blow up their little project to 35mm for the local theater in town, they'll most likely end up pissing off mom & dad or moneybags granny when they lose their investment.

But then we have the Blair Witch's and El Mariachi's that beat the odds and keeps the dream alive for all.

[Aaron Shaw]

In which case if the movie is good enough they'll blow it up to film from SD anyway.

EDIT: Blow it up from SD if the movie is good enough is what I meant.

[Scott Ellifritt]

Let's hope it's good enough. Just because one is a distributor, it doesn't give them the midas touch. I still walk out of idependent cinema sometimes thinking, "What were they thinking?"

[Daniel Runyon]

If you are wanting to make homemade cinematic movies, I would think the DVX + Anamorphic lense has the edge for a variety of reasons. You will get a full res 16x9 image with a wider view due to the wide angle lense. You will also have smoother iris control. You will also have what appears to be superior audio input contol. And more people seem to think the DVX image is more filmic.

The XL2 will give a native 16x9 shaped image, but not as wide of a field.

I would think the most sober thinking, asuming you, like many of us, are low budget enough to want every dollar to give us maximum bang for buck, says the money would be better spent on more tangible things than an interchangable lense which most people in this quandry cannot afford more than the factory one to begin with. The camer is the heart and soul of your studio, but it is not all you will need, and you dont want to spend so much that you will have to cut corners in such important areas as a good fluid tripod head and a good microphone/boom pole. Dont sacrifice on important peripherals in exhange for a camera that is only slightly marginaly "better" in so few ways. Take a holistic view of the total package you will be putting together.

[Scott Ellifritt]

I see too many people shelling out good money to buy accessories that they say will not do much more than "impress the hell out of the clients."
I say (borrowing a bit from a famous quote) let your work talk and the bullsh*t walk!

Hey, don't forget that responsible use of "a lot of money" can go far in helping change the world.

[Richard Alvarez]

Purchase dollars vs rental dollars goes a long way in balancing a budget. An XL2 will accept a wide angle lens... that you might possibly be able to rent when you need it. Likewise the whole series of prime lenses with the PS adapter... what does the film need? Heck, if making a particular film is your goal, then rent everything... it's all about getting the film made, not owning the equipment.

You see why there's no one answer for "What's my best course of action?". Only you know your needs and motives for making the film.

[Peter Jefferson]

"The XL2 will give a native 16x9 shaped image, but not as wide of a field."

not to mention the DVX100's already wider field of view comapred to both cameras.... not to forget weight disstribution, compactness, viewfinder (i still think its better than the XL2's) and heaps of other shit like th ehuuge 3.5' monitor....

as for HDV, its useless to me if it cant retain a full frame rate.. drop a field here or there and my SW will take care of it.. , but dont freeze up on me.. else il l have to put u down like a sick dog...

[Gregory Doi]

HDV could not even come near to comparing with a DVX or XL2. I just sold my XL-1's and im in the process of wondering which is better the DVX or XL2. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Still undecided

[Aaron Koolen]

Do you really need a camera now? If not, wait until later this year and see what Panasonic do in this market segment.


Aaron

[Peter Jefferson]

now THATS what im doing.. i sat back.. and soon enugh JVC will be bringiiiiing out their answer to HDV AND teh XL2.. interchangable HDV 1/3rd CCD prosumer model.. 720p which poos on 1080i in image clarity, and is smaller so u can fir more on tape anyway..

but until then.. and until they sort out a standard wavelet codec which allows me to edit without degredation, (ie Cineform and Vegas 6) i will wait for the Pana DVCProHD ...

in teh longrun i feel it will be a better prodcut due its zero moving parts, cost effective (no tapes) and speed in which i can delivery (no capturing.. not to mention 50mbps HD... hmm.. this in itself will make HDV look like poo..

as for the choice in camera.. DVX100 with anamorphic lens.. no doubt, its image depth jsut cannot be beaten by any camera.. its tonal range is soooooooooo damn wide, its not funny and its Cine Settings allow u to mess with dynamic ranges.. with good settings and decent light, its easily mistaken for a much larger more expensive unit..

the XL2 IS good.. but its price isnt justified.. sorry..

I have 3 Sony Z1's and not one of em gives me the actual FEEL of what teh DVX can. i dunno what it is.. its strange but it still feels liek im watching a super sharp home video..

[Bill Ravens]

The F1/Z1 is a nice toy for amateur photogs with too much money. If you're serious about earning money with your camera, stick with DV. Right now, there's absolutely no way to distribute HD video. Even if you could distribute it, there's very few people with the ability to display it. It'll be a few years before customers even know what HDV is. All these people who rave about their fantastic HDV images don't share their work. How can they. Capture to hard drive is problemattic. It's a new technology, exciting yes, but, not ready for prime time.

[Barry Green]

not to mention 50mbps HD... hmm.. this in itself will make HDV look like poo..

Actually the new camera will be 100mbps in HD mode. It has a 50mbps standard-def mode, DVCPRO-50, a recording format which is on par with Digital Betacam, and then it also has a high-def mode (DVCPRO-HD) which is 100 megabits. Plus regular DV at 25mbps.

I have 3 Sony Z1's and not one of em gives me the actual FEEL of what teh DVX can. i dunno what it is.. its strange but it still feels liek im watching a super sharp home video..

That's exactly what they're supposed to do. And the DVX can't deliver that look either. So right now, you have to choose which you want -- that super-sharp "looking through a window" ultravideo look of the Z1, or the filmlike look of the DVX. When Panasonic introduces their new camera, it will hopefully let you have the best of both worlds -- super-sharp filmlike look from HD 24p, and (hopefully) the super-sharp "looking through a window" HD look of 60p.