Rob,
I currently film 50% of my work footage in 16x9 and was using the dvx100 which means I have to scale the footage in an effort to get the proper aspect ratio. The other 50% is still in 4x3 land. I sold my DVX100 with the intentions of getting the DVX100A as it was the best option for 16x9 (Squeeze mode or anamorphic) at the time. With the announcement of the XL2 I shifted my direction based on its 16x9 mode. I previously owned the Xl1 for 4 years and loved it, except for its low res viewfinder servo-controlled focus. I know that all cameras in the prosumer range have these but the XL1-2 servo behaves completely different than the others.

And to clarify this. I had already sold my camera and had no camera to complete upcoming jobs. I absolutely needed to make a purchase and the decision between the DVX and XL2 was made. It was a timing thing. I hesitate to purchase the DVX100A when I knew the next great thing was lingering. And the XL2 is a great camera. But in my case I don't know that it is $1500 better that the DVX100A when I won't be using the interchangable lens features anytime soon.

I had about $3500.00 to spend when a side job came up that bumped my allowed expenses to hit $5000.00. I decided if I was going to upgrade my camera the XL2 was the best path. I knew it would be tough money-wise but I figured the increase image quality would be worth the struggle ( have to add 300-400 dollars for batteries and case on a credit card or something). Plus it would hold it's value more than a DVX should I choose to sell it down the road.

Anyway...based on expectations from early reviews and images posted of the 16x9 mode I was hyped! I may have expected too much from a DV camera based on the early reports. I also expected a much bigger impovement in the viewfinder. When I received my camera I was underwelmed. I found the quality of the image not as impressive as I expected and the viewfinder left me still guessing if I was in focus. However I worked with it and shot 1 event that I had scheduled. I now see in 16x9 mode it has some amazing clarity. I still don't feel 100% comfortable of when I am in exact focus or not. But that is a different issue.

So I now accept the camera for what it is. But because of the need for a new case (bigger cost 2-3 times more) new batteries, a new tripod plate.......I am looking at spending another 500-600 bucks beyond what I imagined. Add to that I need a field monitor capable of 16x9 display you are looking at another 600-900 bucks. I didn't expect all of these extra things just to use the camera. The case and batteries yes....a new field monitor and tripod plate no. MOst of this I was willing to accept based on the res and clarity I see on my pro JVC monitor. However as soon as I started bragging about how clean and hi res the image looked and started taking it to all of my peers who watch it on regular tvs and plasma monitors they all think I am crazy. They don't think it looks any better than what I have shot on DVX.

So I take both cameras and shoot 10 scenes at my workplace. I closely mimic footage on both. I capture them and drop them in the timeline and do A/b switching. On my pro monitor I am seeing amazing results in the favor of the XL2. It looks much cleaner and sharper than the DVX. The DVX is showing noise and grain even in well lit shots. I am prepared to prove that the XL2 looks better.

But upon taking this footage to be viewed by several other pros in the field I find that the footage loses all of its main advantages on televisions and retail caliber equipment. In addition the offensive grain and noise of the DVX are gone too so the camera appear about equal. Now....my one justification for paying all of this extra for the cam...and now all of the extras I need......is gone. I am told by my peers that if all of my clients are going to be viewing it on this equipment then it is not worth it at this time. It is easy for them to decide as I have essentially become their Guinea Pig and indirectly have tested the XL2 for them and validated their reasons not to get one. They add that by the time the clientelle get up to speed with better equipment the next gen of cameras will be out and the XL2 would never have really seen its potential. In my case anyway.

I realize everyone has their own reasons for owning whatever camera they want. I have mine. I wanted the XL2 and I still really like the camera a lot. It's image is amazing on a good pro monitor. But in the end I am not seeing any noticable improvement over the DVX100 on a regular television and that has me feeling that I should reconsider the XL2's value to me at this time.

If I ultimately decide on the DVX100A I will be forever looking at the footage on my JVC monitor thinking how much sharper and cleaner the XL2 would be. BUt when I hand over the footage on DVD or tape to be displayed on 55' plasma screens at the tradeshows I know there will be almost no difference.

All of this is my opinion which I hope is respected. If my budget was a few grand more then this cam would be a no-brainer. At lease for now.

Thanks for the detailed response there, Marty.

<< But in my case I don't know that it is $1500 better that the DVX100A when I won't be using the interchangable lens features anytime soon. >>

I think this is one of the major factors (not the only one, but a very important one) which everyone should consider when choosing between these two cameras.

<< So I now accept the camera for what it is. But because of the need for a new case (bigger cost 2-3 times more) new batteries, a new tripod plate.......I am looking at spending another 500-600 bucks beyond what I imagined. >>

Yes, it's like I've always maintained, a person should budget at least 15% and sometimes up to 50% of their total available finances for the required extra gear for the camera. Spending the full amount on the camera alone has the potential to be a crippling mistake.

<< Add to that I need a field monitor capable of 16x9 display you are looking at another 600-900 bucks. I didn't expect all of these extra things just to use the camera. The case and batteries yes....a new field monitor and tripod plate no. >>

When I suggested a high-res monitor in my article "Five Essential Items for the XL2," I wasn't kidding. All of those really are essential and should be budgeted for, right away.

rob, it's all about NOW NOW NOW!!!!!! =^). a VERY easy example is the recently released star wars. it was just released yesterday 9/21. i had to have it then so i immediately got it! but it was around $40 whereas XL2 is $5k... if i had $5k laying around i would have gotten it right away as well. it's all about the having of things more than anything else =).

as for buying without thinking, hindsight is 20/20. i bought my XL1s in january but haven't really used it much (save for june wedding shoot) since. i thought i was gonna have time to do some short DV moviemaking but haven't touched since i got in january. canon had a $500 rebate. i dunno what rush i had in getting it... it was kind of an 'expensive' hobby. if i had waited and not purchased XL1s i would have utilized my budget to buy the XL2!!!! *sigh*. the cost of selling XL1s and then buying XL2 is too rich for my blood. besides i've barely used XL1s, it just doesn't make sense. i know that you all know that, so why do i even have it? instant gratification? i suppose. but it was mostly in preparation for the second coming... second coming of what? i dunno. =). when XL2 came out, i salivated but then this time my wallet kicked my arse and my mind thought it through. i will get XL2 eventually but not until i have an immediate need for 24p.

so what's the lesson here? make sure you have an overwhelming need for the cam and THEN buy/rent it. otherwise it's just an expensive piece of paper weight!

Based on what you reported Marty, it seems like there are some pretty clear advantages for people using the camera to make fictional work that might be projected in a theatre one day, or transferred to film. It seems like Canon has really made this camera more for the fictional/film-oriented crowd than for videographers. In the 16x9 image, 24p, the addition of more controls affecting the way the image looks during shooting, as opposed to tweaking later, and the increased resolution that might not be visible on SD tv's. This is good for me, and others that plan on shooting scripted stuff, but I understand how someone in your position could be disappointed. Maybe you should just return the camera?

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Shaw : Marty,

What setting did you use for those images? From the few you posted I like the look - especially the horse frame-grab. -->>>

Sorry to get back to you so late. I don't have the camera currently as Canon requested to look at it based on a few comments I made about it. I should have it back soon.

I will try to recall my basic settings.

I turned Cinegamma on
I turned on Cinecolors
I bumped up the color gain 2-3 steps
I increased the sharpness by 1-2 (i think 1)
I turned on noise reduction to medium...
I turned on Coring

This was based on some input from Don Berube. I was initially biased that the camera wasn't very colorful or sharp in low-average home lighting. I felt that I should not have to turn on gain and image enhancement features to get good color and clarity. This is from a past that demanded you never use gain if you want clean footage.

I had to reprogram myself and start realizing that these same features are there to use. And in the XL2 there seems to be no penalty in image quality or very little for using them. (+12 gain may be pushing though)

In fact....I found myself turning the gain to +3 when I was shooting an outside scene with the horse. I had both neutral density filters on and the horse was travelling through a wooded area behind my house where the proper exposure was changing dynamically as he went in and out of sun and shade.. I found that without gain a wide open iris was not enough in the shadows. However taking off the ND would force me to stop way down and I would lose my shallow DOF. So with both ND's on I gained up to +3 and now I had a comfort zone on the iris wheel/switch. I could easily traverse between 4.0 range to 2.2 and get all of the exposure latitude I needed. Without the gain.....I was stuck in this strange area where I would need to keep taking the ND on/off , accept underexposed footage or take off 1 ND and step down so far that the DOF would increase too much for my taste.

Anyway.,..I saw no drawbacks to +3 gain in this setting at all! IN fact....the 4-5 minutes of footage looks much better than the rest as it was all properly exposed and you can tell I was concentrating on my shot compostion and not fighting the iris/exposure.

<<<-- Originally posted by Joel Guy : This is good for me, and others that plan on shooting scripted stuff, but I understand how someone in your position could be disappointed. Maybe you should just return the camera? -->>>

Well therein lies part of my dilemma. While I do corporate and event videography to pay my bills, I also shoot low budget (read no budget!) short fiction pieces for a hobby. I don't pretend to think that it will be converted to film anytime soon but I still like the look of the camera for that! Damn it does look very clean!

And let's be honest....we all want to have the most awesome camera and the highest image quality. Even when it may not be financially justified it is hard not to want to have the biggest and baddest!

The sad thing is I may have to make this decision based totally on finances. I'd rather have the XL2 with all of the accessories. But given the curent financial status I can have the DVX100A, case, all of the batteries, anamorphic adapter and a 16x9 field monitor and still come in just under the cost of the XL2 alone. And this isn't a cut on the XL2 but with the DVX and it's peaking circuit I don't absolutely need the 16x9 field monitor as I can tell critical focus very well on the LCD. So I could theoretically save even more.....and buy that new Hummer2 that I've been eyeing!

I guess I want it all! And I want it now!

Marty, I think you make a fair assessment there regarding budgets and camera choices. In my opinion, you really should sell the XL2 and move into a DVX package like you describe. When your XL2 comes back from Canon (and I have a feeling they'll find everything to be perfect to specs), it will have been cleaned and in like-new, mint condition. Which is a perfect opportunity for you to sell it here on our Private Classifieds board. I'm sure you'll have a buyer immediately, and you won't lose too much on depreciation since it's practically unused and fresh from CUSA service. That's your best course of action in my opinion. Hope this helps,

Chris,
The camera was sent back to the vendor that I bought it from and they are dealing with canon directly for me. This vendor is one of the DVinfo sponsors and has been great to deal with. Pending the outcome from Canon, I will be dealing with this vendor to either replace my XL2 with a DVX100A or get the Xl2 back. I really want to keep the XL2 so I am exploring financial options currently that would allow me to get the accessories I need and therefore stop the endless worrying about which camera fits my needs better. I mean....the DVX obviously fits the financial needs easier now....but in the long run I am not so sure.
I really don't want to make a decision I'll regret.

Also....can someone agree/disagree with my statements about not seeing the quality of the XL2 on standard televisions and equipment? Is this to be expected? The DVX100 and Xl2 appearing about the same? This would help me greatly in deciding. If anyone thinks this is innaccurate and that I should be getting different results plese let me hear your opinion.

Marty

A few weeks ago, Marty and I exchanged emails, and I could hear in the back of his voice that he really missed his old girlfriend (DVXgirl) but that his new girl was so much... well....more exciting (you know, she's a supermodel...but definitely high maintenance). I recommended to him then that maybe he'd be happier (and better off) with good, old and comfortable. The problem for him now, I think, is that he's starting to figure out the XLgirl, learning how to get her to, umm.... put out. So his dilemma now is a little deeper. It's going to be hard to give up that oh so sexy 16:9...even if it's only in his studio...and he may never get to find out if there is a soul hidden under that hard body of hers. It's a difficult choice, and I'm glad it's one I don't have to make.



Barry


Edit: Marty---what is it with you and I always writing over the top of each other. I can definitely agree with you on this issue, I don't think there is much difference between any of the 3 chip DV format cameras on an SD television set. (largely because they all outperform the what a typical set is capable of). The differences would only be seen on some output device that outperforms the DV format...like a computer monitor, or an HD television. You've mentioned that you hoped that there was a way for your customer to see the difference you are seeing on your JVC, and you had a bad experience down at Circuit city....I hope you won't completely discount that the XL2 can look stunning on an HD set, and that this may be one way for you to feel good about your purchase. Realistically, though...these two camera's both produce great stuff..and the vast majority of your customers will never know the difference. If you feel more financially correct owning the DVX, then it's really the direction you should take.

Barry,
I definitely have not ruled out that the Xl2 or DVX can look good on HDV sets. I even said that I was disregarding those results as I don't know WTF was wrong with that circuit city setup. I can tell you that my old pioneer elite 55" projection TV that is almost 10 years old now looks better than the HD set at circuit city. At least how they have it setup.

I am currently checking with my boss and seeing if the company (not my own side company but the 9-5 gig) can absorb the cost of the add ons that I need. You see.....I use my own personal camera (XL2 or DVX) for most of my work jobs. It was kind of like a perk that I got this cool video edting/production job and I had my own camera to shoot until the departents budget was increased. They have repeated to me that they would pay me a rental fee for the gigs where I use my own stuff. I never took them up on it but I might do that now. If they are willing to pick up the tab on case and batteries then I think I should stick with the Xl2. But personally I can't swing the extra cash right now which is why I started doubting the XL2 in the first place!

by the way...I love the DVXgirl and XLgirl analogy! LMAO!

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.

help!
 

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!