DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Panasonic DVX / DVC Assistant (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/)
-   -   Room 214 trailer.... (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/9371-room-214-trailer.html)

Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 04:17 PM

Yes, he's in that list, Joe Otting.

I absolutely do not have an axe to grind with a camera I've never used. Personally, I've seenthe XL1S have much better results, from someone on this board I believe, somewhere....

I'd admit I'm leaning toward a GL2, but it depends. Will a really higher end camera really make a difference?

Like Varicam? Maybe that's a bit high, but what about the higher end $4000 JVC DV cams? They don't look consumer friendly is all.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 06:55 PM

Bob, I asume that you want to make film, since I'm about to invest in a camera myself I've been reading boards, reviews and compared footage like crazy the last week. I was actually set on the XL1s from the beginning, but in the end, I've decided that I will go with the Panasonic DVX100 as soon as I get the money.

Just as you pointed out, you can get really good looking footage with the XL1s, but you have to have very good lighting in order to get that. And if you look at the outdoor scene with the bridge, in the footage you saw, it still looks a little video-ish and the guy actually use lighting in that scene if I'm not mistaken. If you look at the DVX100 in comparison it will look more like film even without lighting in the day scenes, of course one have to light the darker/night scenes no matter what.

To your question about bigger chips, I was an assistant director on a low budget feature and we shoot with a Sony DSR500, it has a 2/3 chip, if you release your movie in the theaters, you'll probably notice that it is sharper, but since it wasn't very well lit, becuase of time constraints, it still looked video-ish. I'll bet the DVX100 would have done a better job, but this was 2 years ago.

So from my point of view, I will be able to achieve more of a film look more easily, with the DVX100 than with an XL1s or GL2.

Of course you have pros and cons with both, like what about DOF vs little DOF, resolution, Frame Mode vs true progressive scan, 24fps etc. And the XL2 launch is still more than a year away and I can't wait that long.

Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 07:08 PM

Well, I was saving for the GL2 and I think that with a steadicam/glidecam, lights, and good movement, editing it would be just as effective as the Panasonic after all said and done.

Let's say you take both cameras.....

Record both at max fps, might be 60 right???

Then after you are done editing it, compress it to 24fps Progressive using Vegas 4.

I think the Canon might have the edge on overall picture quality, no?

Glenn Gipson May 7th, 2003 07:38 PM

Anytime you take a non-progressive image (GL2, XL1s) and make it progressive in post (Magic Bullet, Twixtor, etc.) you are loosing resolution. Keep that in mind....

Glen Elliott May 7th, 2003 08:07 PM


Let's say you take both cameras.....

Record both at max fps, might be 60 right???

Then after you are done editing it, compress it to 24fps Progressive using Vegas 4.

I think the Canon might have the edge on overall picture quality, no? -->>>

Canon having edge over image quality? Since when? And what Canon are you comparing it to? I own a GL-1 and DVX100, and despite the fact the GL-1 makes beautiful video it cant compare against the DVX100 even in 60i mode. 1/4" ccds vs 1/3" ccds.
You wont be dissapointed if you go with the GL-2 though don't expect to have a "better" picture quality than the DVX100....just ain't gonna happen. lol

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 08:17 PM

Bob, no DV camera is 60fps, unless you talk about 29.97 fps with 1/60s of shutter speed. If your goal is to project it on the "silver screen" you will see the degradation of Frame Mode real fast, plus I've read that the image looks a little out of focus because of that, no matter how well it was shot. Check out the feature film 28 days that is going to be released in the theaters, (sorry don't know the link) it was shot on an XL1s PAL version, remember that it gives a 20% higher resolution compared to the NTSC one. The DVX100 just seems to hold on to the resolution better.

And just as Glenn Gipson says, you will loose resolution that way, the goal is to do as little extra work as possible in post in order to maintain image quality. Of course as long as you only watch it on a 29" TV you probably won't notice a big difference.

Zac Stein May 7th, 2003 09:21 PM

ok ok, i have now watched it, so everyone can calm down. *grinz*

First of all anybody who says they can judge the quality of the camera but looking at a compressed video downloaded over the internet is well just speaking crap. Sorry, but that is truth.

Yes a couple of shots had some lighting decisions i wouldn't have made, and again this is an artform, hence no correct or incorrect decisions, just different ones from what others would make.

The black level was fine, it is a fact i have seen with many files, you compress them down they seem to get all the shadow detail sucked from them, and it may have been gamma corrected for a tv display not a monitor, so what.

Akos, you state you can get good looking footage from an xl1s with really good lighting, while the dvx100 can look more film like under worse lighting conditions. I can get a very film like look from my super 8mm camera using the cheapest reversal stock i can find, dosn't mean it will look good. Do a search on the forums for threads comparing professional look and film look, i think you are looking for that. Again just because my car is fast dosn't make it an f1, but hey if i drive it very well, i may look like a professional driver.

ANY camera can look good (within reason) when handled correctly and professionally.

Anyways, back to topic, i enjoyed the teaser, i thought it looked fine, if not good, if i was to suggest some of the decisions i would make, i would say when modelling the faces for some of the shots, like the younger girl, i would either bounce a bit more light onto her darker side, or use a more diffuse light for the scene.


Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 09:57 PM

Can I assume that getting the Pal version is a better idea since editing is going to happen regardless???

I mean, getting the NTSC version is only benefitial if you're going to watch it straight out of the camera. TRUE???

Is it safe to say film looks better not because of 24 fps, but because it's a true picture at 35mm. Heck, even film can look bad though. Some B-movies shot in 35mm or even 16mm don't really have that high end look.

You can only do so much I suppose unless you got high end panavision stuff.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 10:09 PM

Zac, of course you can get film look with super 8mm, and yes it can still look like crap depending on what kind of framing, f-stop setting, time of day etc. you shoot. I didn't really mean to compare real professional look compared to DV, just the image quality between DV cameras.

If you look at some shots filmed during the day with an XL1s, it will look more video-ish compared to the DVX100. Since I cannot afford a couple of 18k HMI's to over power the sun I have to shoot without lighting, possibly use a flexfill and a sail. Based on what I've seen so far, the DVX100 is closer to a film-ish look from the get go, compared to the XL1s and others. From that point of view, the DVX100 has a slight advantage compared to other DV cameras right now.

Ken Tanaka May 7th, 2003 10:13 PM

You're Wandering
Please stay on track with constructive remarks concerning Marc's trailer. Film -vs- video and camera -vs- camera discussions are off-topic.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 10:23 PM

Bob, yeah getting the PAL version is definitely better, but also remember that all of your editing equipment have to be able to handle PAL, and before you can watch it on a regular NTSC TV, you have to convert it. I read someplace that you can convert it in FCP, but quality is pretty bad, so in order to get good quality you have to go to a professional conversion house.

This one of the reasons I'm going with the DVX100 NTSC version, it has higher resolution so it will still maintains a decent image quality when blown up, plus I don't have to worry about these kind of things.

Akos Szemenyei May 7th, 2003 10:25 PM

Oh, ok, sorry, didn't know it was this strict.



Robert Poulton May 7th, 2003 10:26 PM

LoL I don't see at as being bad. It just looks like he didn't set his fade in to 100% and it quit halfway through. The other shots do look nice but still nothing of interest happening within the frame. Add someone doing something. Maybe you need some quicker edits showing the cast off in their characters. But then you would have to change that slow music.

The shots look good other than the dark ones. Trailer needs more work. Just keep it up and give us some updates if you decide to adjust the trailer.


Bob Benkosky May 7th, 2003 10:39 PM

Yea, but can't Vegas 4.0 convert NTSC to Pal and vice versa?

Zac Stein May 7th, 2003 10:44 PM

Ken, we are a wandering people, i went on 'walkabout' before. :)

I believe the topic of the camera, and film look does fit in to the dicussion, being an organic dicussion of human nature and not a direct relation to topic at hand in the strictest sense.

But pal + ntsc stuff is off topic.

In relation to the camera and it's attributes, people are welcome to feel any way they want towards it, but don't feel like it is the holy grail substitute for film, if you want the film look, shoot on film, if you believe in your project enough, then others will too, and the money can be found (sponsors, funding, working).

But in the mean time enjoy using what you have to its fullest.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:12 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2020 The Digital Video Information Network