Stupid comparison but.. XL2 vs DVX100?
 

Ok, here's my dilema... I have a project to shoot 2-3 music vids within the next month or two and I want as close to an MTV look
as possible without using film. (i know, before you start flaming "you want film, get film)

I have 2 XL1's and an XL1s right now but have heard raves about the DVX100 being rather solid in that area. Now that the XL2 is available (not sure when street date is) should I hold off or go with the Panasonic for now?

Haven't seen any captures as of yet but we're having a Vegas seminar next week that DSE will be having, I know he'd got a few.


thanks guys

Well, the xl2 isn't out so we can't see much from it. Initial blurbs on it's performance and discussion on some of the design decisions (<1/4" CCD for 4:3) aren't super impressive (If it was, we'd be hearing about it for sure). You know the DVX is pretty well solid and well tested and the results are good. Just go DVX.

Aaron

Stick with your XL1s for this shot. The XL2 will only be available in 6 to 8 weeks, and the price will be high. You already know how to operate your XL1s, the camera is the least important factor to acheive a specific look. Instead of bothering which camera to use, perfect your lightning techniques, practice your camera movements, improve yourself. You already own an amazing camera.

Yeah, but you know how it goes, been there, now what can I do to improve the whole project. I pretty much have the whole package. (10ft. jib, steadycam, lowell lighting kit, CREW!)

Only other thing I was considering would be different lenses, car mount, and different camera.

hey, check this site out, it was shot with DVX100

VERY film-like

http://www.arkhamfilms.com/california_large.html

That is awesome! Very cinematic look. Exactly what I'm looking for! Thanks Young.

Rob, great work, excellent color. What did you use for this project? DVX100 or DVX100A? Anamorphic? Magic Bullet?

Sorry, I meant great work Young! I'm sure your work is good too Rob.

I'm currently considering the DX100a vs. XL2. I owned an XL1 which I sold a couple of years ago including all lenses etc. I owned a couple of DVX100's for about a month before a financial scam forced me to sell them.

While both are great cams (at least the XL2 looks so far), here's my take after reading extensively:

Bottom line is, unless you are heavily invested XL1 user, is native 16:9 & long telephoto worth several thousand dollars more?

The DVX costs $3500. The XL2 is $4900. Or body only at $3900. You need the 3X lens to get as wide as the DVX. Plus you need a second lens, either 16x manual or 20x OIS.

The glass on the XL2 looks nice, but the manual offers no OIS, yet the DVX offers OIS and smooth manual feel with focus display and has a manual focus adaptor (CO).

Certainly nature or event users that need huge telephoto ranges benefit with the XL2, but I'm dissapointed Canon does not make a more useful wide lens for the XL2. You still have to slap a WA on front of the 3X to get wider than 32mm (35mm equivalent), identical to the DVX.

Native 16:9 is very compelling - but the dollars are steep, too steep I think. And $800 gets you native via anamorphic on DVX, albeit with an adaptor on the lens and tricky operation.

The CCD block overall and few test shots look excellent. But the combo CCD/viewfinder is not exciting nor do I care for the shoulder mount, heavy design (I direct and DP).

But I think for "bang for the buck" the XL2 falls short. If either the price were lowered dramatically or the lens offerings were better for wide and normal focus lengths and/or it offered HDV or SDI output or some factor that would make a dramatic, not subtle difference in image quality, I'm don't see the value for new camera buyers, only for existing XL1/s users.

Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms.

I don't see the XL2 being a big threat to DVX100a at the current price levels unless the XL2 pulls some magic out of the DV format image quality that I don't think it technicially possible.

thanks for your take Stephen. After viewing the clips and videos at the site posted above, I'm getting a DVX100. Looks way too solid! Thanks for all the input though from everyone!

oops... double post.!

<<Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms.
>>

Like the XL2, unless you've worked on a G5 running Panther and integrated with the high end suite of FCPHD, LiveType, Shake and DVD Studio Pro you really have no idea how powerful/productive/creative an environment you're missing...there's simply nothing like it in the PC world. that's a fact, not conjecture.

The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k (and many significantly above, if native 16:9 and 24p, cine gamma etc. are part of your creative canvas.)

Like a G5/Panther suite, you have to look at what it's concept and integrated strategy is all about. Both have a specific tarrget of creative professionals and high end amateurs who need the creative strength and flexibilty and integration that they offer.

It's more an issue IMO of deciding whether you want/need to step up to another level. Honestly, if you're doing work at the level that either provides...an extra 1-2 k isn't a big issue. If you're a student film maker, or someone who wants a simple all in one design more for the masses tool with it's inherent lack of flexibilty and growth options for various professional situations...the DVX is the tool.

If your of the other stripe, there should be little question that the XL2 is the right tool.

<<Kind of analogous to the Mac G5 - compelling upgrade for existing Mac users, but not much bang for the buck for most PC user to switch platforms.
>>

Like the XL2, unless you've worked on a G5 running Panther and integrated with the high end suite of FCPHD, LiveType, Shake and DVD Studio Pro you really have no idea how powerful/productive/creative an environment you're missing...there's simply nothing like it in the PC world. that's a fact, not conjecture.

The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k (and many significantly above, if native 16:9 and 24p, cine gamma etc. are part of your creative canvas.)

Like a G5/Panther suite, you have to look at what it's concept and integrated strategy is all about. Both have a specific tarrget of creative professionals and high end amateurs who need the creative strength and flexibilty and integration that they offer.

It's more an issue IMO of deciding whether you want/need to step up to another level. Honestly, if you're doing work at the level that either provides...an extra 1-2 k isn't a big issue. If you're a student film maker, or someone who wants a simple all in one design more for the masses tool with it's inherent lack of flexibilty and growth options for various professional situations...the DVX is the tool.

If your of the other stripe, there should be little question that the XL2 is the right tool.

<-- The XL2 offers a level of professional control (we're all waiting to see real test footage and really run it through it's paces) that simply goes beyond the DVX line and all others under 5k -->

is this based on any facts or is just what you feel, if this is based on fact please educate me on how xl2 "professional" control goes beyond the dvx or pd170 for that matter...

after reading many posts here it simply comes down to what you have invested in the xl line, if you need interchangable lenses, if you will shoot 16:9 and finally if you prefer a body style...except for the 16:9 most of those are very subjective reasons to get an xl2...

i have been fortunate enough to own an xl1 xl1s an dvx, also have been lucky to try out a preproduction xl2...let me say the xl2 is a wonderful piece of technology, simply put the output is excellent, but the reality is i did not see any significant increase in resolution on my xl2 footage vs my dvx, i read somewhere that the dvx and xl2 share the same ccd, if this is true then that makes sense

i'm still undecided on getting an xl2 or getting another dvx, i think my decsion will be based on my wallet, if i can get the same picture out of camera thats 1,500 less then i think i may go that route, either way i know i can't go wrong...

I don't think it's a stupid comparison. There's a clear winner feature-wise (XL2) but when price is considered, the decision becomes harder.

XL2 has true 16x9. No one will be filming in 4x3 in a few years so 4x3 performance is irrelevant. It has interchangeable lenses. It's a Canon so it's going to have gorgeous PQ.

The DVX100A lacks true 16x9 (But you can get an anamorphic lens) and it lacks interchangeable lenses. It's also much much less money. How many of us need interchangeable lenses?

So, again, not a stupid comparison.

<<is this based on any facts or is just what you feel, if this is based on fact please educate me on how xl2 "professional" control goes beyond the dvx or pd170 for that matter...
>>

It's very simple, aside from image quality, color reproduction etc, which aside from test charts are very subjective (for instance many people would prefer the look of either the DVX or the XL1 in frame mode over a 70k digibeta, BVM etc), the critical issues of film making and other quality work are the quality of the lens on the front, the ability to use various types of lenses for different circumastances and the ability to accurately monitor this important work.

Only the XL line offers both this range and variety of glass, as well as a pro quality B&W VF. I hope i've educated you now <g>.

But seriously, that is the professional difference and niche that Canon has gratefully provided as this level. That's not even considering the ability to use EF, Optex and P&S adaptors to add virtually any piece of high end glass imagineable to you project.

When they greatly improve their resolution (all reports to date) and add 24p and native 16:9 to this paradigm, it of course makes the XL2 yet better foundation for a wide range of professional work. And unique in the wolrd in this regard.

Jim:

I don't think it's a case of spend more money, get better image. With that logic, just buy a Viper or IMAX or other cam and get the best image possible.

My argument is price/performance. The price increase in the XL2 system, either in base form or with all the extra glass, viewfinders etc. does not appear to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in image qualilty. It's a issue of diminishing returns. When all is said and done, it's still a 720X480 DV image (NTSC).

I don't see the $5000+ DV market to be growing - HD is coming down, HDV is making a little noise and DVC Pro etc are close.

This camera two years ago would have been interesting. Now, it seems aimed primarily at XL systems users.

I also think there some concerns about the dense CCD block and 8-bit DSP on the XL2 that may produce some issues with quality though the reports I saw were very unscientific and reproducable.

With the information available today I don't see how the XL2 justifies the very high price except for small number of users outside of XL system users with a investment in lens etc.

Canon can probably make a good deal of money upgrading all those users and if I had a XL1/s - you bet I would be thinking XL2.

<<I don't think it's a case of spend more money, get better image. With that logic, just buy a Viper or IMAX or other cam and get the best image possible.>>

Do you have any idea what those cost? One way or the other Stephen, we're talking a few thousand dollars here. I'm talking apples to apples you jsut started talking apples to diamonds.

<<My argument is price/performance. The price increase in the XL2 system, either in base form or with all the extra glass, viewfinders etc. does not appear to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in image qualilty.>>

No offense but that is just a silly statement seeing as though neither of us has seen the quality. If you've read things here, and put any trust in some of the experienced videograhers and film makers that have tested it, their opinion is opposite of what you've stated with no experience.

<<It's a issue of diminishing returns. When all is said and done, it's still a 720X480 DV image (NTSC).>>

Which has been good enough for major releases and millions of dollars in work in recent years. What's your point?

<<I don't see the $5000+ DV market to be growing - HD is coming down, HDV is making a little noise and DVC Pro etc are close.>>

I don't know about you, but I've got a years worth of projects lined up and I'd hold them all back if I could add the native 16:9, 24p and high res to my conventional and Mini 35 shoots. HD is not a money maker at this level. IF you wwant to drop a few hundred grand into a real HD camera amd the glass it requires then that's one thing. The promise" of HDV is simply a discussion point. The viable, day to day production in HD is just not a reality...720x480 NTSC is how most of us make a living and will for a long while.

<<This camera two years ago would have been interesting. Now, it seems aimed primarily at XL systems users.>>

Well it's pretty darn interesting to a boat load of high end users I know. If you don't seee the attraction that's cool, but why denigrate something you haven't even held or seen?

<<I also think there some concerns about the dense CCD block and 8-bit DSP on the XL2 that may produce some issues with quality though the reports I saw were very unscientific and reproducable.>>

There are some concerns with everything in life. Canon makes really nice cameras at a very important pro price break. I'm betting they'll deliver again with the XL2

<<With the information available today I don't see how the XL2 justifies the very high price except for small number of users outside of XL system users with a investment in lens etc.>>

Again the term "very high price" is even more subjective than image quality. Personally I think it's ridiculous that I can grab a camera of this quality, with a gorgeous manual lens and a pro hi-res VF and produce work on the fly better than with systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars more for as long as I've been involved in this biz.

The investment of 5 to 10K for a full blown system of thei potential is cheap..if you're getting paid for your work. If not, sure the cheaper cameras are the way to go.

Jim:

Your points are accurate for you - I have no disagreement with your statements applying them to you or similar users. You have a large investment in a XL/mini35 macintosh system.

But take me. I'm a PC user inbetween cameras. I own neither any XL system parts nor a mini35. Are your sure that I would earn that much more money with a XL2 than a DVX100a? I'm not convinced. Price/performance is a issue even without final quality results from the XL2 - DVX100a pushes the limits of DV, even with it's 16:9 limitations.

I still see DV as format without huge growth expect in low cost cams - in a couple of years, we can see what happens, for now, we can agree to disagree.

To take the G5 analogy:

While a G5 is a nice machine, I would have rebuy every piece of software I own (I own nothing that is cross-platform) for two machines not to mention the cost of a high end PowerBook and Dual G5 - how would this be a good business decision? My existing Vegas, After Effects etc. system works wonderfully and very fast, very stable.

Regardless of platfom personal preferences, as a new buyer, DVX100a has the bang for the buck, nice glass, plenty of system options for much less money. For me, it's the smarter decision despite the fact that I was emotionally prepared to prefer the XL2 as I own a Canon 35mm and Handycam.

<< take me. I'm a PC user inbetween cameras. I own neither any XL system parts nor a mini35. Are your sure that I would earn that much more money with a XL2 than a DVX100a? I'm not convinced. Price/performance is a issue even without final quality results from the XL2 - DVX100a pushes the limits of DV, even with it's 16:9 limitations.>>

First Stephen let me say I'm enjoying a little down time after a looong weekend in the music and video editing suite, and enjoying this little discussion with you. Of course I can't say that you would make more money with any camera.

What I am saying is that categorically, by the nature of their design and market, the XL model and now specifically the XL2 offers a totally different spectrum of professional enhancements than the DVX. And for a grand or so more, it is certainly the choice I would make, even if I were not already invested in the XL line.

<<I still see DV as format without huge growth expect in low cost cams - in a couple of years, we can see what happens, for now, we can agree to disagree.>>

Well we really dopn't disagree, my point is that if you make your living today in this creative field...tomorrow will take care of itself.


<<While a G5 is a nice machine, I would have rebuy every piece of software I own (I own nothing that is cross-platform) for two machines not to mention the cost of a high end PowerBook and Dual G5 - how would this be a good business decision? My existing Vegas, After Effects etc. system works wonderfully and very fast, very stable.>>

Absolutely, but my point was and is, if you've never sat at a Dual G5 running Panther and the suite of programs I cited that you'll never see on your PC, then you can't extrapolate from your experience.

For a quick instance, I had to do a presentation very recently that, didn't require but, this setup allowd me to bring in, in 24 hours a completely interactive DVD with full motion menus, animated (I mean really nice) text and grahics, composite work..the whole shebang, plunk down the powerbook and let the clients sit and play it in the conference room (and leave copies behind for all the parties).

Now I've been doing this for a while and it would have taken three teams in two departments to pull that off a couple of years ago...and even then we'd need an outside source to integrate everything and author it onto interactive DVD.

I was able to do it because of this whole new paradigm of integrated OS, Hardware and software suite designed to optimize performance and move in real time between these amazing new programs. Trust me you couldn't do it on your PC no matter what you're running.

Here's my point...what's that worth to you...to me? Well, if that presentation was worth a hundred thousand dollar project, then I would be crazy to not spend the, say...$7500 for that setup. What if I do 20 presentations a year?

When you consider that no other salaries and overhead were involved, then it becomes even more compelling. When you get to a point where you could be turning out a higher end product in much less time, that's when a thousand or two stops being an issue and starts being insignificant by comparison to profit.

That's why I say focus on your talent and skills and get to a place where the better tools are not a luxury but a pragmatic choice...and remember I'm still talking thousands...not tens of thousands.

<<Regardless of platfom personal preferences, as a new buyer, DVX100a has the bang for the buck, nice glass, plenty of system options for much less money. For me>>

Which is why there are different camera companies and models, and why I love the DVX, but would never consider the XL2 any kind of disappointment

I think this horse is limping badly now :)

but I hear your points. However, I will clarify that my "dissappointment" over the XL2 pricing is only for me, not a global judgment. I understand completely why Canon designed and priced it the way they did.

My comments were to illuminate my thinking and what's best for me - I enjoy reading the same from others.. Your arguments seem to be more about what you think is best for others. I'll stand by that each person has to make that decision for ourselves.

Personally, I earn income from computer consulting. As I am primarily an indie filmmaker, musician and artist, price/perfomance is important to me as my gear just has to pay for itself, not pay my bills. I need the rest of that time for purely artistic pursuits as well as running the local indie film group. I see the DVX100a as helping me reach my goals faster, cheaper and better.

I also direct and dp all my projects, so how I relate to my actors is very important. I like the DVX form factor to boot vs. XL2. Other shooter prefer the XL2.

Ulimately any camera, computer platform is personal preference. I've seen it from huge enterprise systems down to the most basic user.

Fortunately, there are still plenty of platforms available - personally I would like to see more camera and computer platforms available.

We are long way from truly easy to use, intuitive, powerful technology.

<<We are long way from truly easy to use, intuitive, powerful technology.>>

you need to visit my new studio.

Hey post a pic Jim!
------------------------
My 2 cents on the XL-2/DVX100 debate ...

I think the XL-2 doesn't really compete with the DVX100. It's just that there's a huge gap in Canon's line up where the DVX100 sits - a 16:9/24p/30p fixed lense camcorder - so everyone's looking for the next closest thing which is the XL-2.

Though similar, XL users have fundamentally different priorities from those in the DVX camp. Well ... and then there are those who go both ways :-p

Perhaps the GL-3 could fill that gap?

The Gl3 might fil that gap but it's probably a wee way off yet - read about a year maybe? Even then, if it's like the other GL series, which is basically a cut down version of the XL, with fixed lens and sometimes an improved resolution CCD (In the case of the GL2 is was) and little else, then it might still.

But any talk of a Gl3 is even crazier conjecture than the talk about the Xl2.

Aaron

yeah, I have a client now that's going to be paying me pretty decent so for now I probably have to go with the DVX. I'm on waiting list for an XL2, only reason is I have several chargers, already balanced jibs (i know, lazy... :-) ) and we already have 2 XL1s.

Question though, what about the editors that shoot 4:3 and just place bars using a 16:9 template? I'm still relatively new to the "real" applications for it but just curious what some of your thoughts are.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren:

Price/performance is a issue even without final quality results from the XL2 - DVX100a pushes the limits of DV, even with it's 16:9 limitations. -->>>

A good 2/3" camera fed to a DV deck will produce a higher quality image than the DVX100a or the XL2, or any 1/3" for that matter; I certainly can't see the DVX100a being the pinnacle of DV technology. If there wasn't a movement towards HD on the horizon, we'd be likely to eventually see cameras at the same price point as the current crop that would continue to raise the bar.

<<Hey post a pic Jim!>>

I will Michael...we're shooting for a 1st of August move in date. All new audio, video, design suites and a small soundstage, all at the top of the mountain.

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert :g
A good 2/3" camera fed to a DV deck will produce a higher quality image than the DVX100a or the XL2, or any 1/3" for that matter; I certainly can't see the DVX100a being the pinnacle of DV technology. If there wasn't a movement towards HD on the horizon, we'd be likely to eventually see cameras at the same price point as the current crop that would continue to raise the bar. -->>>

Charles:

I don't disagree, but the price/performance question is still valid. How much better picture will a 2/3" camera give you on a DV deck than a DVX100. A 2/3" camera is going to be several times the price of DVX100 and won't deliver several times better pictures.

True progressive scan was a big revolution in 3-chip minidv cameras. 16:9 using more pixels does improve as well, though not as revolutionary as progressive scan.

There just are not any revolutionary imaqge quality improvements available in the DV format. Any improvements will corrur in HD, HDV or home-built uncompressed cams like Juan P.s

That's what I mean by DVX has pushed the limits. The XL2 adds 16:9 to the table, but that's it. Anthing else, even hooking a Viper Cam upto a DV deck is incremental at a best and unnoticable to most viewers at worst.

After much thought, I still see the DVX100 as the price/performance leader in the 25 mbs DV space.

<<After much thought, I still see the DVX100 as the price/performance leader in the 25 mbs DV space.>>


And that conclusion having never even seen an XL2..there's sound empirical reasoning at work <g>.

Jim:

I've seen a reasonable number of frame grabs, clips and user reports to know that the quality of the XL2 is not revolutionary compared to the DVX100.

What I really want to know is let's say both cameras were the exact same price - which one would you actually buy?

I think many people here are trying to justify why the difference in price makes it worth it for them to keep the DVX100. If they were the exact same price and you were in the market for a new SD camera obviously you would go for the XL2 because of the higher resolution, new processing effect/filters and lens mount as an option. But because the XL2 is more money, we will all have to justify it to ourselves.

I own a XL1se (pal) with mini35 rig here in Canada and a week ago was extremely close to dumping the XL1 part of it and going to the DVX100 just to save me from creating 24p in post from my PAL footage. When I learned of the XL2 I was happy that I would not have to move to the Panny line and now can do 24p with an improved 16:9 resolution that is DOUBLE. Say what you will but the XL2 is the new king of the castle.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hingsberg : When I learned of the XL2 I was happy that I would not have to move to the Panny line and now can do 24p with an improved 16:9 resolution that is DOUBLE. Say what you will but the XL2 is the new king of the castle. -->>>

Now that's a little biased, don't ya think? :)

Doesn't the DVX100a offer 360 lines of resolution in its anamoprhic 16:9 mode (for 30p/24p)?

Thats not shabby at all and I believe I read a review that says if you shot 16:9 and progressive on the DVX100A you can forego the purchase of the Panasonic anamorphic adapter.

I will agree with others that price is a big factor in the decision making process.

I shoot with whatever makes sense for me at the time and will yield the best quality for what I'm doing. I don't care about what the brand is, I actually started off with Sony and cried when I had to part with my PD150 to get money for the mini35 with XL1 setup I was investing into ($13,000 US). Ergonomically though using the XL1 with the mini35 made (and still does) a whole lot of sense. (mainly the EVF positioning and removable lens)

So when I wanted 24p I was happy not to have to move to the Panny because the camera kit for the mini35 adapter would cost me an additional $1530 Euros (approx $1850 USD) and then I would probably have difficulty selling the adapter kit for the Canon on its own. As you can see it was going to be a bit of a hassle for me to go 24p and either way its a lot of money. If I'm going to spend the money I'm going to get the best so I can justify it in my mind ;)

Now that the XL2 is out my problems are solved, I am good to go and will be shooting 24p at 16:9 with 460k pixels instead of 16:9 at 300k with a camera that does not work well ergonomically with the mini35.

I would like to think that this is logical, not biased.

Tommy is right. It's going to boil down to whether you want an all-in-one piece like the DVX with a shorter, wider lens or a modular system like the XL2. In my opinion they'll each have their place.

Nobody should jump from the DVX to the XL2. However, XL1/XL1S owners would do themselves a favor to upgrade to the XL2. That's just my take on it.

Yes I agree with Chris and that was exactly my point - I already have other pieces that work with the Canon platform so switching brands now would be a hassle. If you already own a DVX100 you are set... but also don't deny that having a higher pixel count in 16:9 is cool.

You have to understand and try to relate that after wanting 24p for so long it was like winning the lottery for me when I first heard of the XL2 - I even got all giddy like a little girl on her birthday.

<<You have to understand and try to relate that after wanting 24p for so long it was like winning the lottery for me when I first heard of the XL2 - I even got all giddy like a little girl on her birthday.>>

We're prety niche users Dennis, but I feel the same way (well maybe not the little girl part <g>). When it was confirmed that the XL2 would be compatible with the Mini35 mount I was very pleased. I would never use the faux 16:9 on the XL1s and have been really happy with a good deal of the studio work and location work with the combo in 4:3 (always in frame mode). But let's face it, this now allows for the Mini35 to shoot in wide screen at a higher native resolution at 16:9 rather than a degradation as well as higher res at 24p.

It makes the Mini35 a better investment than when I got one of the first models a couple of years ago...the camera will actually be better able to create "cinematic" images from aspect ratio, res and gamma. Pretty freakin cool I think.

And I've decided to get the whole kit simply because the 20x lens sounds too nice for run and gun work. For that matter there are times when the new color vf and new lens setup could be a plus rather than the big B&W VF and P&S setup. I'm thinking some quick over night trips to L.A. and D.C next month where it could actually be carried on flight. For an extra 1k, I think it's a good deal.

We'll just forget that little girl part then.. . ;)

Yeah I mean it's all really where you are with your productions or what you're using your equipment for. When I'm not working on my own films I'm being paid by others to shoot theirs and the XL2 will definitely be a selling feature for my mini35 camera services. If people are going to pay $850 a day they are going to want the best looking product and won't want to settle for less... it doesn't even matter 'how much' less. Less is just less period!

Anyway it all just worked out for me in the end I guess you could say and I'm really happy about it. I just attended a 4 day film festival here in Toronto and you could imagine after seeing so many great films on the big screen wanting the ability to produce a product that has a better chance to look alike with the real thing (real thing being 16 or 35mm film)

The SD by Canon gets us just a wee bit closer and that's amazing! I just wonder why Sony hasn't jumped on the 24p bandwagon with their PDX10 which offered true 16:9? Sony's HD cam will be interesting to see later this year but I'm willing to bet it will be way over $6999 (US) ?!