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

Post by **S8 Booster** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:46 pm

Sort of offset but I read an article about the new semiPRO DV cams (a couple of years ago) which pointed out the following factors:

1) Sony is anxious to not produce very high quality PROSUMER cams which will directly treaten their PRO range.
2) Canon is anxious to not treaten Sony by any measure because they supply a LOT of lenses to the Sony PRO cams.
3) Panasonic is free to manufacture and supply whatever they want.

Not saying their PROsumer cams nessecarily are better.

R

Post by **Scotness** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 12:34 am

That would explain alot of things actually

After seing the rsults of both cameras - to me the biggest difference is the gamma settings - the DVX100 assigns the colour distribution alot more like film than the XL1 does.

A few months ago I was at a cinema seeing about a dozen shorts - and one of them which I really liked looked quite nice - I happened to be sitting next to the DOP and I asked him if it was shot on 16mm - I was most embarrased to find out it was shot on DVX100.

I should point out all the shorts were projected digitally - and had it actually been a 16mm film that was projected it would have looked better than it did having been done on the DVX -- but that's not really the issue here as we're evaluating the video cameras themself - and honestly the colours and the way they fell off to darkness was alot more like film than the other vidoe projects I saw that night - and honestly I think this is more important than resolution factors.

I should also mention too that all the shots in this film were locked off -and with not much quick action from the actors either -- if there was there would have been alot of motion strobing I think.

Scot

Post by **Lex colby** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 4:10 am

Hey scotness,

What about "28 days" - did'nt that look good considering the blow up to 35mm ?

I mean that was'nt even an xl1s - it was an xl1.

Ok scenario: what about this new dvx100A - does it have enough xtras to warrant waiting for ? Or do think the dvx100 (pal) would be still good to go for a kick start to my new dv career?

Post by **jumar** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 5:03 am

Lex colby wrote:What about "28 days" - did'nt that look good considering the blow up to 35mm ?

I mean that was'nt even an xl1s - it was an xl1.

I'd like to see a source for that. I can't understand why they would use an outdated camera when the xl1s was available to them, unless it was shot a few years ago.

I didn't think it looked good in the theatre at all, but I think it looked exactly as they had intended... rough and gritty. It'll look fine for the video market. The switch to clean 35mm right at the end had an impact on me because of the grittiness of the whole thing.

I missed "Pieces of April" in the theatre, but hope to see it on the second run circuit. It was shot on the PD-150.

I recently saw a mocumentary feature that was shot on Digital Betacam (originally at 29.97 fps) that looked quite good in the theatre. Really suited the genre.

Lex colby wrote:Ok scenario: what about this new dvx100A - does it have enough xtras to warrant waiting for ? Or do think the dvx100 (pal) would be still good to go for a kick start to my new dv career?

It's only going to be a couple hundred dollars extra. You should absolutely wait, as it has a lot of user-requested features and new gamma control settings. It should be out in January (rumours of December, but I doubt it seeing as we're half way through). There are DVX-100 boards that discuss the differences.

Post by **mattias** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:26 am

Lex colby wrote:What about "28 days" - did'nt that look good considering the blow up to 35mm ?

not very imho.

jumar wrote:
I mean that was'nt even an xl1s - it was an xl1.
I'd like to see a source for that. I can't understand why they would use an outdated camera when the xl1s was available to them, unless it was shot a few years ago.

it came out more than a year ago, and since it's a low budget film it was probably shot at least a year before that, so it's entirely possible that they didn't have access to an xl1s. other than that you can check out the following links. every other article says is the original xl1 and the others say xl1s. wasn't someone on this board part of the crew? first hand info please.

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/
http://www.dtvprofessional.com/2003/08_ ... ct0803.htm

/matt

Post by **shaggy** » Thu May 13, 2004 4:56 am

there is something that bothers me with the new prosumer cameras they come out with, they make a 24p or hd camera about the size of a pop can. how can you do 'film style' shots without having to tack on heavy equipment to the camera. don't get me wrong, i love the dvx100a and it being 24p and i would have long been purchased but i have a problem with working with a camera that i can hold with one hand and no support. i love the xl1s because of it being big and bulky of all the mini dv cams. you can move with it supported to your body and you can get good steadicam shots. as well with the xl1s, you have so many options for lenses and viewfinders. you can get a 35 mm lense attachment, its expensive but your not paying for film, development, linear editing and transfer to digital and back onto film print and cost of projecting and if its even good to sell. then with the new option final cut pro HD offers 2:3.3:2 pulldown capture at 23.97fps. then drop a cinelook filter onto it after throwing 16:9 bars across the top and bottom in post. (just a thought)

Post by **calgodot** » Thu May 13, 2004 11:09 pm

Scotness wrote:A few months ago I was at a cinema seeing about a dozen shorts - and one of them which I really liked looked quite nice - I happened to be sitting next to the DOP and I asked him if it was shot on 16mm - I was most embarrased to find out it was shot on DVX100.

I too was recently tricked by some very good DVX100 24p footage. I've been attending a number of local screenings and there's (no surprise) an abundance of DVX100 and XL1S footage. Most of the stuff is either handheld with whip pans (which makes my eyes hurt) or so poorly lit as to be a dead giveaway that it's video. When it's like that, shot witout care, neither camera gives you anything as smart as similarly carelessly shot film.

Only one shot in this short (wish I could remember the title) made me suspicious: a wide shot of a room full of people, a sort of 'family photo' shot with about 20 actors facing the camera - there was a distinct loss of resolution in the faces, but the furniture behind them was in focus. But there were no dead giveaways like pans, and the palette was very somber and muted, wood tones and muted wines (the scene was a party in a nice house). The DP said she lit with candles and other warm lights with heavy diffusion, unless she needed a hard key on something, then she used a 250W mini.

Having seen about 4 hours of DVX100 footage in the last month and probably 3/4 times that much XL1 footage, I'd have to say the winner in this question (best 'film look' with least effort) is the DVX100.