Need advice on the new direction

[malcolmvexxed]

ooh i'll be making a similar start to research in about 6 months for my own camera look forward to hearing how you like whichever one you end up choosing.

[Raji]

cool! Do you have any particular cameras in mind yet?

After being given the suggestion of the XL2, i'm considering it very very seriously. It has a MUCH cleaner image than the DVX does and has comparable low-light performance. It has its issues like the iris being slow, the stock viewfinder being hard to manually focus with, etc. Some (on another forum) have suggested the Sony cameras because they have the best low-light performance, but for me, because they don't have progressive scanning, they're not even in my list of choices. At this point, i've almost settled on the XL2 but i'm concerned about the viewfinder/focusing issue. If i do get the XL2, i'll be sure to post my impressions in a separate thread.

any suggestions are still always welcome!! don't be shy, people! :D

[malcolmvexxed]

cool! Do you have any particular cameras in mind yet?

After being given the suggestion of the XL2, i'm considering it very very seriously. It has a MUCH cleaner image than the DVX does and has comparable low-light performance. It has its issues like the iris being slow, the stock viewfinder being hard to manually focus with, etc. Some (on another forum) have suggested the Sony cameras because they have the best low-light performance, but for me, because they don't have progressive scanning, they're not even in my list of choices. At this point, i've almost settled on the XL2 but i'm concerned about the viewfinder/focusing issue. If i do get the XL2, i'll be sure to post my impressions in a separate thread.

any suggestions are still always welcome!! don't be shy, people! :D

haha funny you say that.

Learning about progressive vs. interlaced scanning is what pushed me away from the Sony cameras. Since the type of film i'll be shooting will look for an asthetic that requires image sharpness that pretty much eliminated all of the sony products. I plan to get a laptop specifically for filming to do onsite edits etc. so the last thing i need is lesser clarity on the shots (unless i'm confused on the problems that the non-progressive scanning would present.)

The xl2 lux rating i thought was an issue. I mean it seems really high to me unless you expect to have great lighting for the whole shooting process. I'm concerned that when you make adjustments to get a good image you're going to have a noisy image due to the compensation but I could be wrong. but the camera otherwise seems great. I would really need to work with all the different cameras to get an idea.

so... basically i really don't know yet lol.

[Raji]

haha funny you say that.

Learning about progressive vs. interlaced scanning is what pushed me away from the Sony cameras. Since the type of film i'll be shooting will look for an asthetic that requires image sharpness that pretty much eliminated all of the sony products. I plan to get a laptop specifically for filming to do onsite edits etc. so the last thing i need is lesser clarity on the shots (unless i'm confused on the problems that the non-progressive scanning would present.)

The xl2 lux rating i thought was an issue. I mean it seems really high to me unless you expect to have great lighting for the whole shooting process. I'm concerned that when you make adjustments to get a good image you're going to have a noisy image due to the compensation but I could be wrong. but the camera otherwise seems great. I would really need to work with all the different cameras to get an idea.

so... basically i really don't know yet lol.

A laptop for onsite work? Damn! That sounds cool, but won't your clients be breathing down your neck, asking why it takes so long to edit stuff together? "Hey, i thought computers did all the work!". Don't you just love hearing that? lol.

I'm not sure what you meant with "lesser clarity". The non-progressive cameras are just as clear in their image compared to progressive cameras, it's just that the motion ends up looking more like a home video than film footage. I might simply have misunderstood what you meant...

Today i went to check out the XL2 first hand and let me tell you it's really impressive. Like everyone says, a liittle front heavy, but i didn't have a problem with using the viewfinder to focus the picture (maybe this is because i'm used to a TINY viewfinder from the Canon's 350D Rebel). I got to watch the comparison of the video on a big screen TV for both the DVX100B and the XL2, which were aimed at a "color board". Their still life was lit, so it didn't pose any serious problems for either of the cameras with low-light, BUT, you could see some noise in the video of the DVX in the blues and reds. I don't know if it's specific to those colors, but yeah, given that the scene was decently lit and the XL2 displayed NO noise whatsoever, i was further convinced that the XL2 did a better job at keeping noise away for longer. On the other hand, the DVX displayed some punchier, more saturated colors, but i understand that the XL2 is capable of the same. I wonder if there's any noise when it creates the same saturation the DVX did...

anyway man, lemme know when you start getting into it all, i'd be happy to tell you what i think of my XL2. I'm buying it, clearly :)

oh here's a link too. This is from a DVinfo.net user who bought an XL2. He doesn't review much of anything, just posted a whole bunch of video i thought was really useful to get an idea of the comparison between the DVX and the XL.

his stuff, including video and still samples. Shows some low-light situations (only with the XL2, you'll have to find your own footage - and post it here please! - of the DVX)
http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/PhotoAlbum13.html

the thread
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=31360&page=2&highlight=dvx+xl2

basically, their discussions of different cameras seem to be as heated as a discussion here about "hey guys, i'm new, which softwarez is better, MAX or Maya? kthxbye"

[Kjack]

DVX100b or an XL2 would be an excellent choice. You cant really go wrong by going for either.

A lot can be done with both the cameras since both of them are broadcast quality. I did a short film with the DVX100b and the results where great. If you are thinking about doing a any fiction with a paid professional crew then I would say say the DVX100b but if you are thinking about taking some gritty documentary style footage then XL2. I personally have only had experience with the XL1, and not XL2, but ive heard a lot of good thigs about it.

[dbates]

Raji, you've probably read this already, but there's a thread on a way to get 4x4x4 out of a DVX-100a (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=254109). The company might (crosses fingers) make a XL2 version. It's not really cheap, but for uncompressed HD. . . .

--dbates

[Matty2Phatty]

A lot can be done with both the cameras since both of them are broadcast quality.

I'm under the impression that you guys aren't actually after broadcast cameras. I don't know what it's like in your countries, but here in Australia, DV is NOT broadcast quality. Your film needs to be shot on film or high definition, or it won't cut it. The television stations don't broadcast at standard definition any more, it's all high def.

The only way you'll get DV footage onto TV here is if you caught something amazing for the news, or if you're being shown on one of those short film programs.

The XL2 looks better to me than consumer HD cameras, but, it is at a lower resolution. If you were actually planning on shooting something and releasing it i would suggest you get the $3000 - $4000 you were going to spend on buying a consumer DV camera and rent a professional one.

Ofcourse if you're just planning on shooting home video then it doesn't matter.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.