|
|||||||||
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 45
|
the ongoing dvx vs. xl2 debate. observation.
Shot a film with both cameras. Not a very fair trail under different circumstances, but it seems like the dvx is more grainy or pixilated in a low light (bathroom) area. Granted i didn't shoot with the xl2 in the same shot/scene but the other xl2 footage doesn't look as grainy or less pixel filled as the dvx does. thoughts any one. low light performance? robert's crazy?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sherman Oaks CA
Posts: 255
|
Quote:
I am praying that you're crazy cuz I have a DVX... Hopefully you or I will have the time in the future to research the actual LUM level of these cams. And maybe you or I or someone else can do a more "scientific" test. Or what the hell, maybe we should just visit the manufacturer's web site for specs. Wow, what a concept. Will go there tommorow for our benefit. Stay tuned, Steph |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Westford, MA
Posts: 145
|
I paid close to $2000 more for my XL2 than I would have for a DVX. I would hope the XL2 performs better in most situations, low light included. I have used both cameras and I am much happier overall with the results I get from my XL2.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canton, Ohio
Posts: 1,771
|
Quote:
Using and loving my XL2. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
The DVX does not capture as much detail and this is more obvious in lower light IMHO, especially in 16:9 mode. The DVX color curve is more vibrant but not broadcast legal in most cases and can also introduce noise. I use them both pretty much daily, both are great...
ash =o) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|