Jump to content


Photo

Question about the DVX100 and the XL1/XL2


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 kyrceck

kyrceck

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 July 2006 - 02:22 PM

I'm new to cinematography. I took a film class last semester in my high school; and though it was mainly film theory, I got the opportunity to use the XL-1. Now that I'm out of the class, I've been filming with a relatively cheap Sony miniDV. I want to step it up; for a few days now, I've been searching through several forums and film sites for comparisons between the Cannon XL family and the Panasonic?s DVX100. I want a camera that can shoot 24p (which, I believe, applies to both the XL2 and the DVX100), but I also want to film in widescreen. Again, I don't know much about DV cameras, but I'll be willing to learn.
  • 0

#2 Kevin Masuda

Kevin Masuda
  • Sustaining Members
  • 209 posts
  • Director

Posted 30 July 2006 - 04:49 PM

I'm new to cinematography. I took a film class last semester in my high school; and though it was mainly film theory, I got the opportunity to use the XL-1. Now that I'm out of the class, I've been filming with a relatively cheap Sony miniDV. I want to step it up; for a few days now, I've been searching through several forums and film sites for comparisons between the Cannon XL family and the Panasonic?s DVX100. I want a camera that can shoot 24p (which, I believe, applies to both the XL2 and the DVX100), but I also want to film in widescreen. Again, I don't know much about DV cameras, but I'll be willing to learn.



Well I can vouch for the DVX because I use one but if you want to film in widescreen you might want to look at the XL2 or for the same price of a DVX you could step up and get a Sony FX-1(native 16:9 widescreen) however the FX doesn't have 24p. Maybe try and see if you can borrow or rent both cameras and do a comparison yourself.


Kev
  • 0

#3 kyrceck

kyrceck

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 30 July 2006 - 07:51 PM

Well I can vouch for the DVX because I use one but if you want to film in widescreen you might want to look at the XL2 or for the same price of a DVX you could step up and get a Sony FX-1(native 16:9 widescreen) however the FX doesn't have 24p. Maybe try and see if you can borrow or rent both cameras and do a comparison yourself.
Kev


Do you know if the XL2 includes both 24p and 16:9 widescreen?

And yeah, I was planning on renting out both cameras to see which might suit my needs better.
  • 0

#4 Robert Goodrich

Robert Goodrich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Director

Posted 08 August 2006 - 10:13 AM

Do you know if the XL2 includes both 24p and 16:9 widescreen?

And yeah, I was planning on renting out both cameras to see which might suit my needs better.



It has both, yeah.

I own an XL-2, but have worked a little bit with the DVX. They both really are fantastic cameras.
I have found the DVX's cinegamma settings to be better right out of the box. But after fudging with the settings in the XL-2, I was able to get a look I'm happy with for my narrative movies.

And the 16:9 footage on the XL-2 impresses me. Perhaps I'm easily impressed. But if you light something well, the image can be stunning.

And although many find the XL-2 to be a bit ergonomically challenged, I find it just the opposite; and I find the controls on the DVX to be "crammed" everywhere.

But obviously to find which camera works best for you, you just have to try them both.
  • 0

#5 Tom Bays

Tom Bays
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Producer
  • Cincinnati, Ohio

Posted 08 August 2006 - 10:39 AM

JVC GY-HD100U
  • 0

#6 Thomas Fant

Thomas Fant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 24 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 August 2006 - 11:54 AM

Check out this url for a comparison of three similar cameras, about as good as it can get without personally testing them.


http://www.dvxuser.c...rticles/shoot3/



I have used both the dvx and xl2 extensively, and slightly prefer the xl2. Definitely agree that the dvx is a little easier right out of the box, and I can understand how people would dislike the form factor of the xl2, but for me it is more comfortable.
  • 0

#7 Jordan Brade

Jordan Brade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles, California

Posted 09 August 2006 - 02:56 AM

I've worked with both before. There both very awesome cameras.

The DVX-100 has amazing captures colors amazingly! The gamma, as said before is also very beautiful. I, like many other people found the design very "comfortable" in regards to button placement. I feel it looks a little more "cinematic" than the XL2 at times.

However, the XL2 has a native widescreen 3CCD sensor. The Panasonic can go widescreen, but you lose a bit of quality unless you use the widescreen adapter lense, which will cost you around $700. With the XL2 you also have the interchangeable lense system, so you can use many different lenses instead of being stuck with a fixed zoom lense. They shot even 28 Days Later using an XL1 with Panavision lenses! Quite frankly though, if you're on a strict budget you're probably not going to be renting Panavision lenses anytime soon.

Quite frankly, either will do you just dandy.
  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 August 2006 - 11:43 AM

However, the XL2 has a native widescreen 3CCD sensor.


There's some confusion over that. The XL2 actually has a 4x3 3CCD set-up, but it pulls a smaller 4x3 image from the center of the 4x3 sensor area, not using a border area on all sides. Then when it is in 16x9 mode, it uses the full width of the sensor but less of the height.

The Sony PDX10 had a similar design.

The end result is that the 4x3 and 16x9 modes use about the same total number of pixels to create their images, so there is no loss of quality when switching into 16x9 mode. But that's not the same thing as saying it has a 16x9 native CCD.
  • 0

#9 Jordan Brade

Jordan Brade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles, California

Posted 09 August 2006 - 03:25 PM

There's some confusion over that. The XL2 actually has a 4x3 3CCD set-up, but it pulls a smaller 4x3 image from the center of the 4x3 sensor area, not using a border area on all sides. Then when it is in 16x9 mode, it uses the full width of the sensor but less of the height.

The Sony PDX10 had a similar design.

The end result is that the 4x3 and 16x9 modes use about the same total number of pixels to create their images, so there is no loss of quality when switching into 16x9 mode. But that's not the same thing as saying it has a 16x9 native CCD.


Oops. My bad. Thank you for catching me on this mistake.
  • 0

#10 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 12 August 2006 - 02:16 AM

There's some confusion over that. The XL2 actually has a 4x3 3CCD set-up, but it pulls a smaller 4x3 image from the center of the 4x3 sensor area, not using a border area on all sides. Then when it is in 16x9 mode, it uses the full width of the sensor but less of the height.

The Sony PDX10 had a similar design.

The end result is that the 4x3 and 16x9 modes use about the same total number of pixels to create their images, so there is no loss of quality when switching into 16x9 mode. But that's not the same thing as saying it has a 16x9 native CCD.


Actually, the XL2 is, for all important reasons, native 16:9 CCD. The total area is 4:3 but who cares when the 16:9 area is the effective pixel area. It is native in the sense that you dont have to squeeze or stretch it to achieve true 16:9. Camcorderinfo.com even mentions that Canon uses "oversized" 4:3 chips just for the purpose of cutting out a good 16:9 image.

I personally do not see where the outcome would be any different than a 16:9 chip with the same effective pixel count as the XL2. I think sometimes people get so technical that they lose sight of what's important.

Edited by lakmir0, 12 August 2006 - 02:17 AM.

  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 12 August 2006 - 03:25 AM

I personally do not see where the outcome would be any different than a 16:9 chip with the same effective pixel count as the XL2. I think sometimes people get so technical that they lose sight of what's important.


I didn't say there would be a different outcome, only that the CCD is not 16x9.

If it were "native" 16x9, then it would be using fewer pixels in 4x3 mode because 4x3 would lie inside 16x9, compared to how the Canon XL2 actually does 4x3. In other words, it's just as "native" 4x3 as it is 16x9.

BTW, we have a policy here of asking people to sign their posts with their real first and last name, or change their User Name to that, either way. Thanks.
  • 0

#12 Julian Seeto

Julian Seeto

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Other

Posted 13 August 2006 - 11:09 PM

the XL2 is also around $1k more expensive over the DVX, right?
so if you do intend to buy in the future, that might be one of your considerations.
but if you want widescreen, then the XL2 is the way to go (y)

julz
  • 0


Wooden Camera

The Slider

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Opal

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

The Slider

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Visual Products