Since sound is 70% of what you see, what about the sound quality on the XL2 vs. the DVX?

Sound Quality and Low Light ( a newbie's thoughts )
 

Well, this is my first real camera, ( upgrading from a sony hi-8 ). I found the sound almost spooky! I was listening on headphones, and for lack of a better term, it almost sounds like surround sound.

The only downside however, is that I have to learn consideration for factors such as: "air conditioning". Normally your brain ignores such ambient sound. The XL2 considers it the soundtrack :-) And records it in all it's noisy glory.

One other note for guys like me, that are upgrading from older, or greatly inferior technology:
The low light performance of this camera is stunning. It reminds me of the first time I used an slr camera as opposed to the point and shoot type.

Barry,

You are being a big help posting that footage. Any chance you can post a DV clip without the QT stretch? I would love to see the raw 16:9 so I can get it to work in FCP properly.

Thanks.

Greg

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Since sound is 70% of what you see, what about the sound quality on the XL2 vs. the DVX? -->>>

WTF does that statement mean? I guess I could look it up, but sound is 0% of what you see :) Do deaf people have poor eyesight?

Our audio forum host, Grammy-award winner Douglas Spotted Eagle, has often been heard to say that audio makes up about 70% of the visual experience. According to him (and I'm inclined to believe him), sound is about 70% of what you see. Hope this helps,

Tony: it is just that sound adds a lot to the images we see.
Watch a movie without sound and it will quickly become quite
boring in most of the cases (yes, I know we had a silent era).

The most often complained things about in an indepedent movie
production is bad audio (#1) and camera instability (#2 on the list).

Nothing will make a good movie bad faster than bad audio. I personally feel that the thing that makes bad independent films stand out more than anything else is bad audio. I don't care if it looks like crap, well, I do, but a cheap dv camera shot movie, that has some great "in your face" sound and a killer sound track will do much better than a Varicam shot high budget thriller that has echo"y" audio and horrible soundeffects coupled by a sucky soundtrack.

Barry, was this shot with a PAL or NTSC camera? The Quicktime file looks like it must be PAL from my poor NTSC adapted eyes...

EDIT:

Also, If I understand correctly this is noraml 720x480 4:1:1 (5:1 compression) DV that has been stretched in post? It just seems remarkably detailed for such low resolution....

nice image but a bit short =). anyway i liked the sun glistening off of the ocean waters. the bird is very detailed. nice shots... but obviously we're hungry for more!! =).

Just back from a few scorching days in San Diego...Here are a few comments on my extended use of the camera, as well as responses to a few of your questions.

Lenses.. I had time to put the 3x and 16x manual lenses on the camera for a comparison with the new 20x. Not a scientific test, just real world stuff. The 20x looks superb next to the 16x...just as sharp, if not even better. The 3x footage was interesting...in autofocus mode, the 3x tends to lose focus when zooming. I think this was also a problem with my xl1s...but I haven't used it much, so I'm not sure. When set to manual focus, the 3x produces beautiful results...much better than what I remember from using it on the xl1, where everything always seemed a little soft.

Low light...I'm pretty impressed with what I'm seeing so far...in fact I shot some exterior dusk footage of buildings around the convention center and ballpark, at 1/60 sec, f 3.4 0-6db gain and it looked really nice...when I got back to the room only to realize that I had left my polarizer on the camera... meaning I had 1 2/3 stops less light coming in than I thought.

Manual focusing in 16:9 is getting easier all the time...I'm not having as much trouble with the cropped viewfinder as I thought I might.

Now some answers...

Marty--I'm not seeing any problems with color reproduction on this camera. The footage I posted was shot in some situations where there just wasn't any color. The still shots I posted show that the color saturation of the DVX and XL2 are in the same, very small, ballpark. On my trip, I had opportunity to shoot some more vibrant scenes...I will try to post some soon. Curious...your shots of the hawk in the tree (are they posted somewhere?)...Just a possibility...did you have the camera white balance on auto, and have the camera pointed at the tree for a while....this could have caused the AWB to try to neutralize the green...which would have made them look grey. Just guessing. I shot some stuff at the botanical garden...greens look great.

Aaron- my camera is an NTSC model.

Greg- The stretch was added only in preview. You should be able to open the file in QT...go to movie properties>video track>size>normal. This will return the preview to its un-stretched, native, proportions.

Barry

thx4 being a 'guinea pig' for the new XL2. we really appreciate you giving us tons of feedback so that a variety of us can decide whether or not to get the XL2 or upgrade from XL1s. we're very interested in the footages =P

Barry,

how would you compare the dynamic range (XL2 vs DVX100A) ?

I don't have an (A) model of the DVX for comparison, but the grabs I posted show that the first DVX and XL2 are almost identical at default in terms of dynamic range.(there is about a 1/6 stop exposure variation between the two shots which accounts for the differences in highlight detail between the two cameras....)

The only thing notable in this one comparison is that the DVX shadows seem shifted to the red, and the XL2 yellows are shifted red.

Barry

thanks for the info !

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Goyette :
Greg- The stretch was added only in preview. You should be able to open the file in QT...go to movie properties>video track>size>normal. This will return the preview to its un-stretched, native, proportions.

Barry -->>>

Barry,

That did the trick. Now if I can get FCP to display the footage without insisting on rendering it. I think I'll post this in the Mac board.

Greg