It's too bad that all the narrative storytelling done on video, up to now, is crap. There are a lot of great stories I just won't be able to watch until they are redone by some amateur with a DVX100. That will make it the perfect story, I'm sure.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see what happens at the next Sundance Film Festival. Are the independent film makers adopting the DVX100? Or is it the gear heads and wannabe's?

So the most transfer houses that prefers one format wins? Well, PC's are better than Mac's, more software. GM makes the best cars, they make and sell more. All it takes is one transfer facility to do quality work. Some may prefer frame, others progressive, it really matters none.

Glenn,
I really don't want to dog-pile but I do feel compelled to remark on one of your quotes:I couldn't agree more. But, at this time, the XL1s' suite of lenses, especially the manuals, offer me the best focus control. If I had to pick focus control -vs- 24p and the other innovative features of the DVX100 I would (and, in fact, do) choose focus.

Howdy from Texas,

<< I don't the generic and politically correct answer "every camera has it's pro and cons, what really matters is story, acting, etc. etc." If I had a nickel for every time I saw that in a camera thread...I'd be shooting 24p on HD with A,B and C cameras. >>

Like it or not, but that's the reality of the situation. The single most commonly mis-phrased question in this market is "what's the best camera." It should be asked as, "what's the best camera for my purposes." The truth of the matter is that camera selection is a very personal issue, just like choosing a new car, or as Randy Turner put it in another thread, a new guitar. Because each one *does* have its pro's and con's, and all of that must be evaluated. Whether that answer is generic or politically correct is irrelevant... what matters is that it's *true.* The reverse of this is splitting such fine hairs which in my opinion is an even bigger crime than being generic or politically correct. These cameras have far more things in common with each other than any real differences.

Glenn:

I still wonder why few miniDV folks take advantage of the big depth of field available in miniDV.

The shallow depth of field thing is such a silly thing. It's has about as much do with filmlook as does having Mel Gibson in your shot :)

Jeff:

Progressive or frame makes no difference. I shot a lot of frame mode on my XL1 and stopped shooting it do to resolution loss on wide shots. Primary reason I traded cameras.

Also, why do you think all video narrative storytelling has been crap so far?

Ken:

I can rack focus better on my DVX100 with the LCD focus scale than I could with my Canon manual focus lens on my XL1. I think the focus on DVX100 is superior to the XL1. I was worried when I switched, but don't think about it now.

Chris:

"More in common" - that phrase is open to debate. Depends how you feel about progressive scan vs. interlaced. I would argue there's the DVX100 and all other 3-chip miniDV cams. Plus, as an ex-XL1 owner, the lens options do set it apart as well.

My point is I want to spend more time creating and less time fussing.

The DVX100 lets me live in a 24fps world without lots of pre and post production fussing. More time for the fun, creative stuff, less time trying to make stuff 24fps progressive.

<< The DVX100 lets me live in a 24fps world without lots of pre and post production fussing. More time for the fun, creative stuff, less time trying to make stuff 24fps progressive. >>

Well, I would have to call that the bottom line right there, and an excellent way to sum up your decision to choose the DVX100.

As for myself, someone who doesn't need 24p, I've been giving serious thought to the DVC80. But that's for another thread.

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : >>If you guys think the DVX100 is the best miniDV camera, you probably haven't got to use an XL1 with a mini35 adapter and a set of REAL lenses. It makes the rest of the miniDV cameras look like a big joke and puts an end to this discussion. It's time we all admitted that the 4 year old XL1 is still the best miniDV camera for film because of the mini35 adapter. ;)<<

yeah, but how much is that adapter? Like 8,000, or something like that? Plus a high quality lense, another 10,000? This package puts the XL1s out of the prosumer league. The rental price for all of this is comparable to a Sony MPEG IMX camera.
-->>>

That's an easy one to answer. If you are shooting with the intention of transfering to film, and you can afford to transfer to film, then you can also afford to rent a mini35.
If you aren't planning on transfering to film, or can't afford it, then the DVX100's 24p function is irrelevant.


So to answer Stephen's question:
a) DVX100
b) Canon XL1

I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. They are both pretty good.

PS, stuff that can be duplicated in post shouldn't really count as a feature, since it can be done with any camera.

On the other hand, if it came right down to the picture itself (from an out of the box camera), I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. IMHO anyway.

Howdy from Texas,

<< I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. >>

This has a lot to do with the camera's digital signal processor. Each manufacturer has a certain "flavor" of video (the "sony" look, the "Canon" look etc.). A significant advantage of the DVX100 is the six internal scene-store files over the two in the XL1S.

However I would have to agree with Dylan that if you have the budget or the backing for a transfer to 35mm, then the cost of renting the P+S adapter and cine lenses should be a non-issue.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. -->>>

Many indie people shoot on the hope of getting money to transfer to film, most don't have film transfer or many either items in the budget.

Plus the mini35 adaptor only marginally improves the sharpness on the XL1, it's only useful for shallow DOF which some of us think is overated.

Howdy from Texas,

<< it's only useful for shallow DOF which some of us think is overated. >>

There's much more to it than that... a large portion of the "film look" is in the high-end motion picture glass, such as very fast Arri or Cooke prime lenses. It's not just a shallow depth of field... in fact you can have deep focus if you want it. The main thing is the quality of the optics, the cinema-style glass. It makes a huge difference which is not neccessarily related to DOF. There's a 2/3rd-inch version of the P+S adapter which allows PL-mount lenses on HD cameras; in my opinion this is where the real DV revolution lies, not so much with the standard-definition stuff we're talking about here.

Originally this thread was about shooting National Commercials and Music videos, and shorts for television...No one is going to shoot a big budget video or commercial on mini dv...Unless it's some kind of "Reality" concept MTV is going to laugh at a video shot with an XL1, I don't care if you're Allen Davieu, the camera has too many limitations, period...I purchased the DVX because of the way the 24p looks right out of the box...It gives me a good platform to work with...A little advice for anyone worried about chip size and bla bla, use your eyes and look at the raw, unfiltered image, and realize how much further some shaping and filtering can take it...Someone earlier brought up Ansel Adams...To make a living while doing his landscapes he used to shoot weddings...I'm sure he didn't use the same large format camera for that. My point is, the right tool for the right job. Using skills and the DVX, I can fool people, maybe not DP's, but the public (And some executives at Sony) into thinking it's film...I just did it. I wouldn't attempt it with a PD150 or XL1, and I wouldn't bring a pea shooter to a gun fight. Also very shortly, there will be a mini 35 adaptor for the dvx...Then you'll have a cannon.

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : <<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. -->>>

Many indie people shoot on the hope of getting money to transfer to film, most don't have film transfer or many either items in the budget.-->>>

I have to agree with Stephen on this. I am in exactly this situation; shooting an indie hoping to later raise the dough to transfer to 35mm. If your camera budget is under $4000, and you're planning on going to film afterwards, the DVX100 wins. It looks A LOT better than the XL1s when transfered to 35 (by the folks at DuArt labs). Now, the footage I saw of the XL1s was not using the mini35, but by default the DVX100 has better specs than the XL1s, and if a mini35 comes out for the DVX100, the result should be amazing.

So, Stephen, my answer is a)DVX100 if you're hoping for 35mm in the future. If you already have an XL1s, it will also produce good enough images for the big screen, but with slightly fuzzier results.

I guess if you don't have the budget for the extra Canon lenses and add ons, the DVX100 is a better value for the dollar, and if you want the filmy look, it's probably a better choice for the lowe budget Indie-only types.

A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something...

<< A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something... >>

Actually I think this is a distinct possibility. P+S has a version for the Sony PD150; shouldn't be too much trouble for them to do a DVX100 version as well. I would love to see the results from that!

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : << A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something... >>

Actually I think this is a distinct possibility. P+S has a version for the Sony PD150; shouldn't be too much trouble for them to do a DVX100 version as well. I would love to see the results from that! -->>>

I know for a fact it will be available soon...I'm sure the boys at ZGC will make some dough off that....That was one of the deciding factors for purchasing the DVX for me....I can't wait to see what it will look like through my Ultra Primes...