I don't know witch one to get. HELP ME!!!

Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away.
If you can afford the XL2, then you should wait for the Pro version (HVR-Z1 ) next year.
This camera is seriously giving SD cameras - even the DSR570 - a run for their money.
It's even knocking on Digibetas' doors.

Robin

screw HDV - go for a homemade uncompressed HD camera :D

Screw digital. Go film.

"Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away.
If you can afford the XL2, then you should wait for the Pro version (HVR-Z1 ) next year.
This camera is seriously giving SD cameras - even the DSR570 - a run for their money.
It's even knocking on Digibetas' doors."

The FX1 is far from blowing either of them away, and even the Z1 is not enough to forget about SD and the XL2 and DVX. It just appeals to a different audience. For those indie filmmakers who make shorts and even documentaries, the DVX and XL2 are appealing because of their 24p and progressive scan. The FX1 is more for sports shooters, because of the high res and zoom.

As for the question, it depends on what kind of budget you have and what is important to you. If you like the XL2's design, value true 16x9, and will spend the extra $1000, than the XL2 is for you. If you like the DVX's mobile size, incredible filmic quality, and the low $3300 price, then the DVX is for you.

Couldn't agree more Ricky.

Screw digital. Go film.

:D You make a very good point! I wish I had the money to do so!

Honestly though, about the FX1...

I would NEVER go back to interlaced footage - ever. Not even for HDV (which honestly isn't that great...). There is much more to quality than resolution. While the FX1 has more resolution than either the DVX or XL2 both the standard def cameras produce superior pictures IMO. Of course, this is entirely subjective.

"Forget either of them - the Sony HDR-FX1 is blowing them all away."

err... i dont think so tim...

there are alot of issues with HDV right now.. and more importantly there is no actual delivery option. Put it this way, you may shoot an event in HD, do a nice edit and output a HD MPG2.. or even a WMV9 file.. but how many people do you know that have a HD capable mpg2 player... or even a WMV9 playback device?? Bravo are bringing out their Dddd3 unit which will offer WMV9 playback in 5.1, so that will be a delivery option there, but then again, ur clients will have to fork out more moola for it.

dont get me wrong, HDV seems to be the new upcoming format for the next decade or so, however there are still many niggling issues. one of the main ones being encoder freeze, or static. As far as im concerned, this is not good enough. when i shoot, i expect to shoot at full frame rate with no lockups or any glitches. If im in the middle of shooting a scene or stunt which was very expensive to set up, i expect my cameras to perform without question and with no lockups. I cant afford to risk shooting on a format which may freeze up during the shot. Id rather film it SD then upsample in post.

Until the Sony introduces 24p into the FX1, I wouldn't bother. I've seen comparisons between it and the 100/100A and the Panny comes out far ahead in terms of film look. The FX1 image is sharper than standard 60i and thus doesn't give a film look. Hey Sony...24P?

<<<--
The FX1 is more for sports shooters, because of the high res and zoom. -->>>

I'd say that the FX1 - or at least, the pro model when it comes out - is more for broadcasters. Here in the UK, 16:9 is the norm for picture acquisition. Any camera that will give good resolution in that format is going to be the flavour of the month.
I'd use it for transmission and I know that the BBC is taking the model very seriously indeed. Even by shooting in HDV and downconverting to DV gives remarkable results.
Don't forget that whether one camera is more "filmic" than another doesn't cut any ice with many of us. We don't expect to be blowing up a programme to film.
Just give us good sharp, highly-detailed images - if we need to play around later in Post, then so be it ;-)

Robin

I love the XL2 for one main reason...
it keeps lowering the price of the DVX100.
2 grand versus 5 grand is no decision for me.
I don't need channels 3n 4 of audio in the field, don't need interchangable lenses and have other things I can spend the 3 grand I'd save by going with the DVX on.

If I were in broadcasting, ie news, sports etc. I would stay with 60i until HDV was more the norm here in the US. Some folks insist, but to me, what's the point if you have to down rez to DV just to be broadcast??

<<<-- Originally posted by Grinner Hester :
2 grand versus 5 grand is no decision for me.... [I] have other things I can spend the 3 grand I'd save by going with the DVX on. -->>>

Where can you get a DVX for $2000? Maybe you mean the DVX100, but the lowest I've found the DVX100a for sale used was $2650.

DVX100A used, "Buyer Beware" (as in any other used item) DVX100A new $3400 and up plus make sure it comes with a USA Panasonic warranty.

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Ellifritt : what's the point if you have to down rez to DV just to be broadcast?? -->>>

Scott,
Tests indicate that even down -rezzing will give better pictures than shooting DV straight...

Robin

Better in which way though?

Certainly not compression....

Sharper due to the downres, yes but that hardly makes up for the other elements that go into creating a quality image.

Robin,

In what way is it better?

And how often do you down rez your projects?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

"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...

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

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


Aaron

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..

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.

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.

Barry...

woohooo...!! that new panny sounds awesome.

It does sound good, but seeing as these are rumours it's really hard to know. The thing that interests me is are panasonic going for the same price market as the Xl2 etc. i.e ~USD$5k cameras? It seems like adding DVCPRo in that price range would be out of the question. Maybe it's a "just under" $10K camera.


Aaron

Price is an unknown. We've heard that it will be "priced competitive with the Sony" (which would mean an MSRP in the $6,000 neighborhood) and also we've heard that it will be "under $10,000" (which could mean $9999, or it could mean $6,000, or ... well, it could mean just about anything.)

But it will be DVCPRO-HD, that's already been confirmed.

I'm really looking forward to the cam. It would be great if it could shoot 24P because I'm interested in making low-budget (or non-budget) movies.

It's already been confirmed that it *will* shoot 24p.

So the topic drifted off into HDV vs DV discussion, instead of helping the poor guy make his mind up.

IMO:

XL2 Pros: Cool look (earns you respect from peopl you work with), native 16:9, 24p
Cons: Price, tiny lcd/viewfinder

DVX100A Pros: Immediate film look (point & shoot), Great sound, 24p
Cons: Needs anamorphic adapter

FX1 Pros: Great resolution, 16:9
Cons: Extreme video look, freeze ups, no XLR, no 24p

Maybe we should include the PD170 in this too?

> 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?

Nonononono. It all boils down to this: more than a decade ago, engineers discovered that video could be far better compressed if it was organized not as single frames (like DV) but as groups of pictures (MPEG2). This is what makes the JVC PD1 and the Sony FX1/Z1 (as well as their IMX) offer excelent video at higher than NTSC or PAL resolution at small bandwidths. The problem with this arrangement is that frames within a GOP depend on the information contained within other frames in the GOP. So with a GOP of 15 frames, if you lose a few bytes on tape --what on DV would end up as an averaged frame barely noticable-- with HDV can result in the image freezing for half a second. This is HDV's dirty little secret and major shortoming, and is the reason why Sony is introducing an exotic new tape formulation together with it's HDV cameras.

I have not yet used the HDV cameras myself in a professional scenario, so I don't know exactly how often this problem shows up. But, I have played around with an FX1 while watching a full-resolution HDTV and I can tell you the results are awesome. If you con't like the "videoish" look of it's 60i motion, just shoot CF25 mode and/or spend some extra time in post. I think there is no way the XL2 or DVX100 can beat HDV when seen at full resolution. In capable hands, all these cameras can produce SD broadcast-quality results, but the hiegher resolution of HDV can give you more options and better future-proof your footage.

It is rumored that by april Panasonic will unveil the HDX100 and HDX400, with 720p and 1080i capability respectively, direct to memory recording (no tape drops) and no GOPs, just good ol' DVCPROHD at 100 Mbps, for "less than US$10k". So Panasonic is also betting we will prefer HD over SD and their offering will probably be very attractive and competetive.

In capable hands, all these cameras can produce SD broadcast-quality results


yup... which is why i replaced a DSR570 with 3 of these babies..

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand :

DVX100A Pros: Immediate film look (point & shoot), Great sound,
-->>>

Point and Shoot? No.

Great Sound? No.

Not a POINT & SHOOT Camera and the Sound is passing at best unless using an EXTERNAL MIC.

> and the Sound is passing at best unless
> using an EXTERNAL MIC

Well of course. The camera is usually not the best place to put the microphone anyway, even a good one. In this sense, both cams are more or less the same. Although in more general sound terms the XL2 has some options that the DVX100a does not.

John, would you care to at least explain your points. Just 'no' doesn't really add much to the discussion.

Yes, the sound is great when compared to other cameras of this prices range. I didn't mean great as in 'professional, the best you can have' great. Let's be realistic here, shall we?

As to point and shoot, yes it is. Can't you just click on a cine mode, point it at something and shoot it? Sure you can, it gives you an immediate 'film look', again within reason. With most other cameras you have to tweak and play around with settings until it you get the same non-video look. It doesn't do everything for you, but it helps.

> With most other cameras you have to tweak and
> play around with settings until it you get the same
> non-video look.

Not to mention deinterlacing and other stuff in post, with the added recompression and thus loss of quality, and of course the loss of time.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : John, would you care to at least explain your points. Just 'no' doesn't really add much to the discussion...Yes, the sound is great when compared to other cameras of this prices range. I didn't mean great as in 'professional, the best you can have' great. Let's be realistic here, shall we?...As to point and shoot, yes it is. Can't you just click on a cine mode, point it at something and shoot it? Sure you can, it gives you an immediate 'film look', again within reason. With most other cameras you have to tweak and play around with settings until it you get the same non-video look. It doesn't do everything for you, but it helps. -->>>

Specifically what I meant is;

It is recommended an external mic be used if you want 'great' sound and a very professional sound can be had from the DVX100 using the right set-up. The onboard? I wish they made that as a removable option as it just seems to be in the way most of the time.

Point and Click? Yes, one can turn it on and point and 'click' the record button; one can also turn on the car and push it over a hill; but the results would most definately be undesirable at best. The DVX100 requires attention to the basics

Yes, inherently, the DVX100 has a wonderful 'out of the box' filmic quality; but less we not mislead people into thinking its a magic 'point and click' cam; the basics of photography still apply. The DVX is one of the few cameras that can require such an attention to detail.

Agreed John,

You can indeed often get very good point and shoot results if the conditions are just right, and again, if conditions are right it is an awesome run and gun, and it will indeed look...if not "filmic"...at least far more asthetically pleasing than a comprable interlaced cam, but it does require more attention to get what one would think of as a cinematic movie look.

To get into symantics for just a moment, I think the distinction between "film" look and "movie" look are somewhat important, and more than anything, it seems to my eye that the DVX delivers a very movie like, cinematic look. And, I'll include this info for no particular reason other than it coming to me at this moment. On the Barry Green DVD, it shows a comparison scene (an Eastwood looking western) between the FX1 and DVX.....man o man did the DVX smoke the FX1 as far as delivering a movie look. The difference was astounding.

Clarification: that was DVX vs. HD1, not FX1...

Thank you sir for correcting. I'm really glad you included that footage though, because regardless of the cam, the main thing it did was show a general contrast of standard video look, and the DVX's very cinematic look. That was one well worth while comparison shot, and the type of scene in the example was very suitable to display the subtle differences.

Does anyone find it odd that we're still posting in an old thread started by a long banned individual?

I didnt even notice; is that who I think it is Daniel?

Yessir, it sure is. As much of a forum pain as he is, I still feel love for the boy and hope he's doing ok.

"Yes, inherently, the DVX100 has a wonderful 'out of the box' filmic quality", erm.. so you DO agree with me, then? I never said anything about it being magic. If you interpreted it that way, that's up to you, but my comment was far from suggesting that if you buy a DVX100, you'll automatically become the new Spielberg - no need for actors, script or a DP - it's a miracle camera!

About the sound, of course it's better to have an external mic, but I never suggested otherwise. Let's not enter the realms of accessories: As is, the DVX as great sound compared to most other cams on it's category.

Daniel, I think most people refer to 'film look' as in something shot using a film camera. So 'film' as in, pellicle, celluloid, not as in a Hollywood movie with actors. You could be just shooting people walking down the street, but a PD150 will make it look very video like; a DVX100 will have a closer 'film' look; while a 35mm will BE film.

Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : "Yes, inherently, the DVX100 has a wonderful 'out of the box' filmic quality", erm.. so you DO agree with me, then? I never said anything about it being magic. If you interpreted it that way, that's up to you, but my comment was far from suggesting that if you buy a DVX100, you'll automatically become the new Spielberg - no need for actors, script or a DP - it's a miracle camera!

About the sound, of course it's better to have an external mic, but I never suggested otherwise. Let's not enter the realms of accessories: As is, the DVX as great sound compared to most other cams on it's category.

Daniel, I think most people refer to 'film look' as in something shot using a film camera. So 'film' as in, pellicle, celluloid, not as in a Hollywood movie with actors. You could be just shooting people walking down the street, but a PD150 will make it look very video like; a DVX100 will have a closer 'film' look; while a 35mm will BE film.

It was the term "Immediate film look (point & shoot)" that can cause someone deciding on this kind of a purchase to be misinformed. It is important they realize the differences; inherently the camera looks surreally film-like but I have seen footage submitted 'out of box' that looked nothing like film and that was due to operator error; But that's already been covered.

Regarding the sound? Yet another important note for someone considering the purchase. If quality sound is what they are after, then a external mic is mandatory; hence be prepared to spend extra duckets on accessories. Is there a need to get into accessories? I think it prudent to acknowledge these little facts to the potential buyers.

I'm not sure what most people refer to definitions of 'film look' or 'filmic'. Lord knows this has been discussed to death. I think
we all know what it means when someone says 'Film look' and there is really no need for semantics. Film Look, Filmic, Film Quality, Cinematic. Everyone knows what is being referred to.