XL1s or dvx100 ? best film look ? - 'Q' for real film heads

[Scotness]

James your criticisms re the JVC HD1 are well founded I think - but you get what you pay for I guess and it is the cheapest HD camera around -- also that standard that it uses has been agreed upon by alot of manufacturers so more might come of it yet

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.p ... adid=11605



As for the XL2 yeah I've only read rumours - search on the net you'll find stuff


Also Soderbergh used a PAL XL1 on that film


Scot

[nonkjo]

Also Soderbergh used a PAL XL1 on that film

didn't know that...

also that standard that it uses has been agreed upon by alot of manufacturers so more might come of it yet

That may be but a 4:1:1 DV25 stream of HDV is still a far cry from 4:4:4 that a Thomson Viper HD camera is capable of. It's not even the same kind of animal. The usage of the term "HD" is misleading because when you compare the two side by side, a blind man could tell the difference. What i said before is from the perspective of a content creator standpoint. I've seen nothing thus far that would suggest that the HD1 is targetting anyhting more than the consumer video market.
Sure, you get what you pay for, but that doesn't mean you don't try to get the best you can afford...When faced with a choice between the HD1 or the DVX100...i pick the DVx100..

James Green

[MovieStuff]

modern 1 CCD chip cameras do beat out old model 3 CCD chip cameras

Who are you kidding. Gimme 3 ccd's 8 days a week...even old ones.

Normally, I would agree. But I recently worked on a video that was shot with the very first Canon XL1. They needed some iso cams around the set (it was a cooking show) and they picked up some cheapo Panasonic single chip cameras to suppliment and, I gotta say, the single chip Panasonics looked much sharper than the Canon XL1; better color, better contrast, just better all around. I mean, there was no question about it. The Canon sucked eggs. Likewise, I have a little Canon ZR60 that I use for tests on the WorkPrinters and, compared to something like an early Sony DXC3000, the Canon looks Imax. So not all three chip cameras are going to blow doors off of a single chip camera. I still prefer a three chip camera but single chip cams have come a long way compared to some older three chip dinosaurs.

If Soderberg can do it shooting with a Canon that doesn't shoot 24fps...I'm sure it can be done with one that does...

Ah, but he did use a Canon that could shoot at 25fps, and that makes quite a difference when trying to print back to film that runs at 24fps.

FWIW: I have used the new Panasonic DVX100 and it rocks. Much better than the Canon XL1s, IMHO.

[Lex colby]

but the only feature stopping me from the dvx at the moment is the "frame mode" feature on the xl1s - which supposedly creates that fast hi-energy stutter look - like in gladitor or saving private.. & more recently "28 days" danny boyle, in an article here:

http://www.28dayslaterthemovie.co.uk/vi ... te_hi.html

he talked about using "frame mode" on the xl1s to acheive this mad fast stacatto effect - that I have seen on a few music videos also.
Is this possible on the dvx100 or dvx100 a ?
& also isist possible on an s8 cam ?

I not totaly shure, but I think if you get the AG-DVX1 -- You would not be able to print to film from a 24p shoot.

Also Im confused about 24p going to film - surely this 24p mode would be perfect for translation to film?

[MovieStuff]

I not totaly shure, but I think if you get the AG-DVX1 -- You would not be able to print to film from a 24p shoot.

On the contrary, poor resolution notwithstanding, there is plenty of software that will allow editing in native 24P for print back to film. There is no reason that you couldn't print to film from any 24P camera.

[Alex]

In the Oct 1, 2003 issue they reviewed 1 CCD chip DV camcorders (which, as you know, are not as good as modern 3 CCD chip DV cameras, but modern 1 CCD chip cameras do beat out old model 3 CCD chip cameras).

I respectfully disagree.

3 chip CCD video cameras usually offer 700-800 lines of resolution and superior lenses.

[Alex]

modern 1 CCD chip cameras do beat out old model 3 CCD chip cameras

i seriously doubt it. source please.

/matt

Just saw this!

[crimsonson]

DVX100 can resolve more lines. You have control over detail [aka edge enhancement], color matrix, built in XLRs, etc.

Yes the XL1s has interchangeable lens but there is really only 3 or 4 lens you can use - and one is WA lens and the other is just a manual lens. Other lenses that can be used are Canon 35mm lenses. With the 4-6x factor how useful can it really be in a everyday production?

There is a new version of the DVX100 coming out in 2-3 months called the DVX100A. It addresses some of its shortcomings. DVX100 by itself beats out XL1S IMO [except the lens change thing]. DVX100A makes it a bigger gap.

[jhoneycutt]

modern 1 CCD chip cameras do beat out old model 3 CCD chip cameras

i seriously doubt it. source please.

/matt

I attended the local cable access school here in Portland Oregon. They trotted out some older Sony and other vendors 3 CCD chip cameras and then showed us some modern 1 CCD chip cameras. They also showed us a DV cameras that cost in the $20 thousand dollar range. A guest speaker (a tech guy from a local station <CBS, NBC, or ABC?>) gave us a talk. He told the class that a modern 1 CCD chamera could beat out the old 3 CCD chip cameras. It was apperently no news to the Cable Access teachers. He used overheads to show us mostly technical stuff. It had to do with color, noise and oher stuff I did not follow very well. This was to point out how the old 3 CCD chip cameras were behind the 1 CCD chip cameras of today. He was was a "film is better" guy who did not care for the fancy "tricks" (as he called them) that moden DV cameras can do, All he was interested in was the best picture.

If this is not true, then some big time players do not know the truth (or maybe some of the tech guys don't)

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I personally know as much about DV camcorders to fill a thimble (read: not much!). So, as the other teachers acted like this was old news, I just assumed it to be true.

Was I mislead? Always easy fool a guy like me who does not know much about this new technology.

Advice appreciated.

jack in Portland Oregon
jhonycutt@qwest.net

[Alex]

I would guess that the 3 chip cameras made from around 1988-1990 until the present should all be better than even the current 1 chip cameras. Back then most of the 3 chip cameras were over $10,000 to as much as $50,000 they acheived their quality by being more expensive!

Their one weakness may be that they weren't as light sensitive as the newer one-chip cameras. Ikegami introduced some lower cost 3 chip cameras around 1990 that put out a beautiful picture with enough light, but they had horrible gain settings and you could actually see a grid pattern appear when the higher gain settings were used.

I would say the safe thing to say is in non-gain mode and with enough light the 3 chip cameras are still king. Many 3 chip cameras made in the last 10 years (since 1993) look good even at the 9DB gain setting.

[calgodot]

MiniDV counts as "small gauge film" now I guess.

Newspeak?

[mattias]

no serious producer worth his salt is going to use mpeg anything as a source format...

i'm not sure what kind of mpeg this particular cam uses, but if it's i-frame mpeg like the imx and many broadcast servers use this statement doesn't hold much truth. mpeg is used by serious producers every day.

/matt

[mattias]

why didn't anybody bite my imx hook? a hd camera that records in sd? why? the same great latitude and depth, native 16:9, progressive scan, but you can edit on any nle and use existing video post processes. here's a pretty good article for those not familiar with the format.

http://millimeter.com/ar/video_shooting_sundance/

/matt

[nonkjo]

but if it's i-frame mpeg like the imx and many broadcast servers use this statement doesn't hold much truth. mpeg is used by serious producers every day.

True if you look at it that way...the studio my friend works at has a video server that works that way...for *delivery* to the audience, it will be just fine...to use something like this as a starting point...to edit, add titles and effects, color correct....rerender...I'm very hesitant to say that this si the way to go. Everyone is worried about generational loss when rerendering DV25...check out how rerendered mpeg will look...
For a broadcaster, mpeg is a boon. For a moviemaker (which i think more people around here tend to be) I just don't think it is a robust enough format.

James Green

[nonkjo]

Was I mislead? Always easy fool a guy like me who does not know much about this new technology.

I don't think you were misled. I just don't think you were led all of the way. Be careful that you don't assume that CCD's are exclusive to DV. In school, our in-studio camera's are professional SVHS camera's with 3 CCD's each. And they look fantastic. I'm thinking that maybe what was shown to you is what the video looked like after it had already gone to tape. If this is the case, then yes, a one CCD camera will compare very favorably to the 3 CCD content when you play them side by side but this is a limitation of the tape media (VHS/SVHS vs. DV)...not the CCD's. We do a show for cable access that we shoot with these SVHS studio cams but we record to BetaSP and the picture is awesome. Not as good as Digibeta mind you but good enough to make your previous argument a little more difficult. I think maybe this is where some of the confusion came from.