Thank you for your great reply Marty. Makes it easier for me to
understand where you are coming from. Interesting read!

From your observations it sounds like the XL2 is probably best
for film out (in comparison to other DV cams) or HD work. It is
probably way better to correctly upscale this footage to HD in
the computer with something like s-spline (was that the good
application out there?) then just let a HD TV do this for you.

Would be interesting to see the differences on that (realtime
uprez and post production uprez) on one of those sets that
did so poorly and perhaps with some other camera uprezzing
tests. Now if i can just find my test bench with all the great
dv camera's of this world on it... hmmm, oh that's right, that
was a dream. Yikes.

As others indicated, the quality of most TV's is probably just
not good enough to see the difference in the quality and
actually make something look better than it is (in the case of
the DVX's noise). Leave and learn eh.

Good luck on your tough decision Marty!

Uprezzing in still digital photography has shown that improved results can be had by uprezzing in a step-wise process, in addition to using more sophisticated extrapolating algorithmns, like Lanczos. I wonder if this would apply to DV to HD? I've successfully taken DV source material and uprezzed it to WMV-HD using Vegas 4. The resulting was lower rez than the source material, but, not blocky, by any means. It may even be worth trying to render to uncompressed 720x480 before re-rendering to HD.

I'm gonna haffta go play with this idea.

Marty,

You are making a mistake if you go back to the XL2. You obviously cannot afford it...so why are you stressing yourself with it? For your financial situation you get so much more with a DVXA package. You are going against your own logic by rethinking of getting the XL2. The truth is if you were mainly doing scripted/fiction pieces then yes the XL2 would worth the extra money but yourself said that you do this for a hobby and don't intend to blow it to film anytime soon....so why the extra expense and stress? Do you really think that the poeple who are watching your hobby film are going to like your film better cause it was shot on an XL2 with a slighlty better resolution (as viewed on a normal TV). I understand always wanting the sharpest and cleanest image but sometimes the cost cannot be justified.
I am not putting down the XL2 or anything or even trying to convince you not to get it but after reading all your posts it just doesn't make any sense for you to get an XL2. I think Barry got it right by saying maybe you're more excited by the look and concept of "the sexy supermodel XLgirl" and are ignoring that the "old confortable DVXgirl" can probably do everything you need and actually fits your needs better.....

Good luck with your decision!

The main reasoning behind wanting to keep the XL2 is that I am intending to use the 16x9 mode exclusively for dramatic fiction work. While both cameras are close in 4x3 as soon as you shot 16x9 the XL2 is much better. Especially considering that the DVX100A crops the image and stretches to achieve it's 16x9.

That is my main concern at this point. And realistically in the next couple of months I will be able to afford a 16x9 field monitor and extras. If I go with the DVX100A in a few months I will be kicking myself. I think. A appreciate your input but I am an admitted techno geek. I keep watching the footage from both and can just see the superior image quality of the XL2. That's what is killing me. Not the coolness factor of the XLgirl supermodel. In fact....that is a drawback as I am not as comfortable with the controls and layout. But the image quality just won't let me go!

I swear I am possessed by it!!!!!

Ahhhhhh!!!!

I've been getting approached a lot more by women since I got my XL2....
;o)

Is that an XL2 in your pocket or are just happy to se me?

:)

"I think Barry got it right by saying maybe you're more excited by the look and concept of "the sexy supermodel XLgirl" and are ignoring that the "old confortable DVXgirl" can probably do everything you need and actually fits your needs better....."

After re-reading this I got the impression that Barry was leaning toward the XL2. Stating that the DVX100 was like the old pair of shoes that are more comfortable and the XL2 as a new pair that are superior but feel awkward until you break them in. In this case getting comfortable wil the XL2 layout and design.

If what was intended was that I am just after the XL2 cause it's the cooler looking camera (hence supermodel analogy) then I took it the wrong way.

ahhh..."fan mail from some flounder...."
-Bullwinkle

I Love Mae West...

Bill...it's not the camera.....your fly is down....The only attention you will ever get from an XL2 is from men (unless Lauri or Maya happen to be in the neighborhood.) I had some serious relationship issues last week over wanting to take my xl2 with us on a date...My girl says I'm just a little to obsessed with the damn thing...too geeky...but I think its because all the guys were looking at me( or rather the xl2), and not her!!!

Marty...you read my post right the first time, although I'm not trying to lean you in the direction of one camera or the other...just trying to restate the dilemma in appropriately figuarative language...ok, that just took all the fun out of it!

Barry

lol Barry... you're right! A man with an XL2 will attract my attention and turn me on like crazy!!!! ;-) The size of the lens alone makes me drool..... (ok...this is going south real fast! ;-P )

Marty,

it is indeed a big dilema....no easy answer for you! I feel your pain! :(
One more question; how many scripted/fictions movies do you make a year? And are you mainly going to be showing them on 16:9 televisions?

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette : Bill...it's not the camera.....your fly is down....The only attention you will ever get from an XL2 is from men (unless Lauri or Maya happen to be in the neighborhood.)"

---

If you're referring to a fin named Lauri, then I have to tell you that in Finland Lauri is a man's name. The same as Larry in english.

I want to show an XL2 jpg image but how does one attach a jpg image to their messages?
I read the instructions in faqs but can't find the browse feature that they refer to.

Michael Hamilton

Michael,

Dvinfo.net doesn't have the capability of attaching images to the messages, but you can place a link to a webpage of your own (like a .mac or p-base account...or similar).

Barry

Thanks Barry,
I'll give it a try.

Michael

Whoops! I don't have a web site.
I'll just try and describe my problem.
Our studio just got an XL2 and I've noticed an "outline" around everything in the image.
Can someone please tell me what this is?
Thanks
Michael Hamilton

Michael,

Sounds like a sharpening artifact to me.. A couple of questions...are you shooting in 4:3...or 16:9? Are you seeing this "outline" on a computer monitor...or on an NTSC monitor/Television.

Barry

It's shot in 16x9 30p.
Outline is consistantly more visible on the left side of objects.
When viewed from tapedeck straight to a Sony PVM 1351Q production monitor it is very clear.
On my computer monitor it is less clear, but still there.

Michael Hamilton

When you say its on the left side of the objects it sounds alot less like sharpening is the culprit (unless your lighting is from the left or right). Additionally the relatively low res monitor you are using shouldn't be showing sharpening artifacts.

I would experiment with a couple of things to narrow it down...

try 60i instead of 30p

try adjusting the sharpness downward on the xl2

try adjusting the sharpness downward on the production monitor..

If you like...send me (email) a frame grab or two and I'll see if I can decipher it for you. You should see a certain amount of sharpening (outlining) on your computer monitor...the system is designed that way so the image looks crisp on an NTSC monitor...but you shouldn't be seeing it on your production monitor.

Barry

Barrey,

I sent you an image.
You should be able to see a faint outline on the left side of the dancer. It's much more prominent when watching it play on an NTSC monitor.
I checked my settings and the sharpness was in defalt (mid) position on the scale, but I will experiment with a lower setting.

Michael

Sorry,
I meant right side instead of left.

Michael Hamilton

Michael..

I got your email, but there was no attachment.

Barry

Hi Marty, I palyed back footage on a Wega TV & the image from XL2 was very blocky & ghosting badly. I have played back images off many TVs & have not been happy with camera. My main problem, however, was bad pixellating on 4 different DV & DVCAM decks I played XL2 tapes on. Dropout rate is very hi too. Returned camera to Sydney Head Office only to find stock cameras coming out of the warehouse doing the same or worse (bad batch?) Colour is very flat, bordering on Blue. Overall I am much happier with XL1s. A brilliant camera producing nice images & warm colour. Stick with your old camera mate. (did you have an XL1s ? )

It is weird to have this thread come back to life after months of silence! I am perfectly happy with my camera at this point. Yes the colors at default are a little less saturated than the Xl1 but with a little tweaking the camera is phenomenal. I have had no other problems with it beyond this.

Just wanted to clear the air as any issues in this thread are ancient history to me now.

Peace!