the ongoing dvx vs. xl2 debate. observation. at DVinfo.net

Robert Luke · July 27th, 2005, 10:14 PM

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?

Stephanie Wilson · July 27th, 2005, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Luke

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?

Dear Robert,

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

Brent Ray · July 27th, 2005, 11:16 PM

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.

Marty Hudzik · July 28th, 2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Ray

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.

The DVX will be a little better in low light because it has larger pixels on the CCD. The XL2 is higher res because it has more, smaller pixels. IT is a tradeoff. I would have hoped that the XL2 would have been better in low light.....but it isn't. That being said it is less noisy...so you will see less pixels and noise dancing around in the blac areas.

Using and loving my XL2.

Ash Greyson · August 1st, 2005, 01:31 PM

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)

July 27th, 2005, 10:14 PM	#1
Robert Luke 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?

July 27th, 2005, 11:16 PM	#3
Brent Ray 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.

August 1st, 2005, 01:31 PM	#5
Ash Greyson 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)