Jump to content


Photo

question on quality at 16:9 (XL2/DVX)


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 elvworks

elvworks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director

Posted 27 October 2005 - 08:53 AM

What has a better picture?

The XL2 in 16:9 or the DVX100a with an anamorphic lens to 16:9. I plan on cropping to 2.35:1 but I just want the best possible picture in that 2.35:1

My understanding is the XL2 in 16:9 is not stretched, but rather compressed into that area and the dvx is stretched, but if the dvx has the anamorphic lens, I think it would be quite close.

This is a question for a very soon camera purchase(s).

Thank you

elvworks
  • 0

#2 Jay Gladwell

Jay Gladwell
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • Miami, FL

Posted 27 October 2005 - 09:19 AM

The XL2 is native 16:9--far superior to the DVX100a in any case.

Jay
  • 0

#3 elvworks

elvworks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director

Posted 27 October 2005 - 09:35 PM

Thanks Jay, that pretty much answers it.

Rick
  • 0

#4 Matt Lazzarini

Matt Lazzarini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 53 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Toronto, ON

Posted 27 October 2005 - 10:19 PM

Adding my 2 cents:

Having shot a couple of times with the dvx in 16:9 mode and now shooting a feature on the XL2, I'd take the Canon any day. The native 16:9 puts it over the dvx, but I also feel overall the picture, when modified correctly to achieve a 'film'-ish look, is superior to the dvx.
  • 0

#5 Charlie Seper

Charlie Seper
  • Guests

Posted 27 October 2005 - 11:14 PM

The Panny has 1.140 effective pixels total.

The XL2 has 1.380 effective pixels plus it doesn't stretch the pixels to achieve 16 x 9, so there's more detail overall. And then there's the fact that the 16 x 9 won't look out of whack in the viewfinder since its also set for 16 x 9.

What the Panny has going for it though is Panasonic's ability to replicate film. They've really got this down in my opinion. This has been true for a while now in their hi-def models. A lot of people will choose to rent a Panny of lower quality over a Sony that has a bigger signal just for that fact.

I've only seen stills from the new XL2 however so I can't say too much about it's ability to replicate film. I read a review that pitted the cams against each other and it said that most of the people who saw the two screens side by side thought they were pretty even in the film replication department, with a slight edge going to the Panny. Those same people thought the XL2 was slightly more detailed. However, this test wasn't done on a big screen where the XL2 would have probably looked much better yet.

If I had to choose one I'd probably go for the XL2. Rent a 35mm lens for it and you'd really have something that would look even better on screen than "November" did.
  • 0

#6 elvworks

elvworks
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 October 2005 - 08:36 AM

Thanks Charlie and Blastdoors,

It's settled, the toss up was between those two cameras. I had a good feeling about canon's native 16:9.

Thank you for your generousity with your knowledge. That suggestion of the 35mm rocks!

All the best guys,
Rick
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine