Jump to content


Photo

Which is sharper? xl2/16:9 or dvx/4:3


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 elvworks

elvworks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director

Posted 27 October 2005 - 12:41 AM

(Thank you to all the pros out there who generously share their knowledge.)


The movie I intend to make is going to be at the 2.35:1 aspect ratio which will be achieved by cropping. My question is between the xl2 and the dvx (I know, what else is new):

(I understand the dvx100a might have a slight edge in the film look, possibly very slight)

Here is the question:

For SD and also output to film, what has a better picture cropped to 2.35:1.....the xl2 in 16:9 mode OR the dvx100a in 4:3 mode? I really appreciate your answer on this. I will also be checking this forum hourly for your answers.

Thanks a bunch,
All the best,

elvworks.
  • 0

#2 Tomas Koolhaas

Tomas Koolhaas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • los angeles

Posted 28 October 2005 - 03:36 AM

Hi,
The XL2 has higher resolution in 16:9 mode than the DVX, since you are going to crop to 2.35 you should definatley go with a higher res. at 16x9 than lower at 4:3 because you will have to crop even more from the 4:3 image, loosing even more resolution. Also I would disagree that the DVX has better 'film like' qualities. The XL2 has more extensive menus which, in my opinion, allow for more extensive in camera image manipulation (see the many XL2 Vs DVX topics for more info.).
Cheers.
Tomas.

Edited by Tomas Haas, 28 October 2005 - 03:37 AM.

  • 0

#3 elvworks

elvworks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 October 2005 - 08:40 AM

Thanks Thomas,

You answered my question exactly. I just didn't want to lose any more resolution than I had to. Cropping 2.35 on a 4.3, there isn't anything left. At least with the native 16:9, you're only cutting off a little bit of the original picture.

All the best,
Rick
  • 0

#4 Robert Sanders

Robert Sanders
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Director
  • Studio City, CA

Posted 28 October 2005 - 11:58 AM

Thanks Thomas,

You answered my question exactly. I just didn't want to lose any more resolution than I had to. Cropping 2.35 on a 4.3, there isn't anything left. At least with the native 16:9, you're only cutting off a little bit of the original picture.

All the best,
Rick


I recently finished an XL2 project and was very impressed with the camera. In some instances, it was too sharp. An unsqueezed 16x9 XL2 frame has an effective resolution of 853x480. Depth of field is still an issue on any 1/3" chip camera, so using longer focal lengths and multiple grades of ND to keep your iris open are important on the XL2.

You can check out the film here.
  • 0

#5 elvworks

elvworks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 October 2005 - 12:03 PM

Thanks Starway2001,

I look forward to seeing the clips, (have to get to brother's computer, this one is archaic)

Thanks also for your input, insightful.

Rick
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

The Slider

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

CineLab

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks