Why not get an XL2 vs. DVX100?

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Henry Padilla, Mar 29, 2005.

  1. I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    examples I am leaning towards the XL2.

    http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv


    http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html


    Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are these
    not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to highlight
    the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?

    Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?

    If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    versitile, it looks like it has more options.

    Help me out here please.
    Thanks for the input.
    Tom P.
     
    Henry Padilla, Mar 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Henry Padilla

    Joe Guest

    For anything DVX related try www.dvxuser.com.



    "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >
    > http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    > http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    > http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >
    >
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >
    >
    > Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are these
    > not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to highlight
    > the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >
    > Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >
    > If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    > versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >
    > Help me out here please.
    > Thanks for the input.
    > Tom P.
    >
     
    Joe, Mar 29, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Thanks,
    I noticed a clip that makes me ask (since I can't post there, I'm not
    registered): Does the DVX100 have an AE Lock? There were a couple of clips
    I saw where lights turned on and you could tell the AE was freaking out.

    Tom P.

    "Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:aFf2e.28014$b_6.13992@trnddc01...
    > For anything DVX related try www.dvxuser.com.
    >
    >
    >
    > "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    > news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>
    >> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>
    >>
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>
    >>
    >> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are these
    >> not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to highlight
    >> the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>
    >> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>
    >> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    >> versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>
    >> Help me out here please.
    >> Thanks for the input.
    >> Tom P.
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Henry Padilla, Mar 29, 2005
    #3
  4. Henry Padilla

    C.J.Patten Guest

    I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
    VX-2000/2100?

    I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?

    C.



    "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >
    > http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    > http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    > http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >
    >
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    > http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >
    >
    > Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are these
    > not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to highlight
    > the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >
    > Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >
    > If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    > versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >
    > Help me out here please.
    > Thanks for the input.
    > Tom P.
    >
     
    C.J.Patten, Mar 29, 2005
    #4
  5. Henry Padilla

    nap Guest

    "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    news:uEg2e.12330$...
    > Thanks,
    > I noticed a clip that makes me ask (since I can't post there, I'm not
    > registered): Does the DVX100 have an AE Lock? There were a couple of
    > clips I saw where lights turned on and you could tell the AE was freaking
    > out.
    >


    Yes.. Iris can be manual or auto.


    > Tom P.
    >
    > "Joe" <> wrote in message
    > news:aFf2e.28014$b_6.13992@trnddc01...
    >> For anything DVX related try www.dvxuser.com.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >>>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>>
    >>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are
    >>> these not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to
    >>> highlight the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>>
    >>> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>>
    >>> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    >>> versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>>
    >>> Help me out here please.
    >>> Thanks for the input.
    >>> Tom P.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    nap, Mar 29, 2005
    #5
  6. Henry Padilla

    nap Guest

    "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
    >VX-2000/2100?
    >
    > I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?
    >
    > C.


    Why?







    >
    >
    >
    > "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    > news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>
    >> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>
    >>
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>
    >>
    >> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are these
    >> not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to highlight
    >> the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>
    >> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>
    >> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    >> versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>
    >> Help me out here please.
    >> Thanks for the input.
    >> Tom P.
    >>

    >
    >
     
    nap, Mar 29, 2005
    #6
  7. Henry Padilla

    C.J.Patten Guest

    Please forgive me - a lot of that is my "low light" bias - if it doesn't
    shoot well in low light, it's no good to me.

    http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/owner.php
    http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm

    I didn't see any mention of the PD-150/170 (or VX' equivalents) but I do
    think it would be wise to consider those as alternatives to the XL's and
    DVX's where picture quality is the ultimate goal.

    C.



    "nap" <> wrote in message
    news:07k2e.16712$...
    >
    > "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
    >>VX-2000/2100?
    >>
    >> I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?
    >>
    >> C.

    >
    > Why?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >>>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>>
    >>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are
    >>> these not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to
    >>> highlight the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>>
    >>> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>>
    >>> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    >>> versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>>
    >>> Help me out here please.
    >>> Thanks for the input.
    >>> Tom P.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    C.J.Patten, Mar 29, 2005
    #7
  8. Henry Padilla

    nap Guest

    I was just curious about your observations

    best
    n

    .. "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Please forgive me - a lot of that is my "low light" bias - if it doesn't
    > shoot well in low light, it's no good to me.
    >
    > http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/owner.php
    > http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm
    >
    > I didn't see any mention of the PD-150/170 (or VX' equivalents) but I do
    > think it would be wise to consider those as alternatives to the XL's and
    > DVX's where picture quality is the ultimate goal.
    >
    > C.
    >
    >
    >
    > "nap" <> wrote in message
    > news:07k2e.16712$...
    >>
    >> "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
    >>>VX-2000/2100?
    >>>
    >>> I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?
    >>>
    >>> C.

    >>
    >> Why?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>>>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >>>>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are
    >>>> these not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to
    >>>> highlight the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>>>
    >>>> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>>>
    >>>> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    >>>> versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>>>
    >>>> Help me out here please.
    >>>> Thanks for the input.
    >>>> Tom P.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    nap, Mar 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Henry Padilla

    C.J.Patten Guest

    Strictly academic! I have little real-world experience with any of these
    cameras but intend to aquire a camera of this class over the next few
    months.

    A lot of my opinions have been shaped by input from folks around here.
    Again, I'm strongly biased by a camera's low light performance and so far,
    all I've seen points to the PD150 series (VX2000, PD170, VX2100) being the
    best in the "sub-$5000" class for low-light.

    A point to consider: "work grows to fill available resources."

    Maybe you have a shoot where you want to depict someone racing down the
    highway in their car. With a camera that does well in low light, you might
    get a shot of the drivers foot pushing down on the accelerator pedal. It's
    rather dark down there so this is a shot you might *not even consider* if
    your camera weren't capable.

    From what I read, the other cameras you mentioned perform similarly under
    good lighting.
    They MAY even be easier to use, better ergonically etc - I don't know. My
    only concern is the final picture quality.

    As I've said in this forum before, I'm also influenced by a still
    photography background where I shoot fast lenses and film with the mindset
    "if I can see it, I can shoot it." I want to approach that kind of freedom
    in a motion-picture camera without ridiculously grainy images.

    Hope this helps a bit!

    C.




    "nap" <> wrote in message
    news:TRp2e.6842$...
    >I was just curious about your observations
    >
    > best
    > n
    >
    > . "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Please forgive me - a lot of that is my "low light" bias - if it doesn't
    >> shoot well in low light, it's no good to me.
    >>
    >> http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/owner.php
    >> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm
    >>
    >> I didn't see any mention of the PD-150/170 (or VX' equivalents) but I do
    >> think it would be wise to consider those as alternatives to the XL's and
    >> DVX's where picture quality is the ultimate goal.
    >>
    >> C.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "nap" <> wrote in message
    >> news:07k2e.16712$...
    >>>
    >>> "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
    >>>>VX-2000/2100?
    >>>>
    >>>> I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?
    >>>>
    >>>> C.
    >>>
    >>> Why?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>>>>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >>>>>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are
    >>>>> these not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to
    >>>>> highlight the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems more
    >>>>> versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Help me out here please.
    >>>>> Thanks for the input.
    >>>>> Tom P.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    C.J.Patten, Mar 30, 2005
    #9
  10. "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Strictly academic! I have little real-world experience with any of these
    > cameras but intend to aquire a camera of this class over the next few
    > months.
    >


    <-- SNIP-->

    > As I've said in this forum before, I'm also influenced by a still
    > photography background where I shoot fast lenses and film with the mindset
    > "if I can see it, I can shoot it." I want to approach that kind of freedom
    > in a motion-picture camera without ridiculously grainy images.
    >
    > Hope this helps a bit!
    >
    > C.
    >



    Did you take a look at the first link in the list I posted first (I think
    you've already seen it)? That's pretty good low-light performance. Those
    night scenes were pretty good too. That's why I wanted to know how they
    were shot and what a normal person would need to get shots like that.

    If that's the low-light performance of the XL2, I can live with that. I
    shoot weddings, so nothing I shoot will ever be lit correctly and this looks
    like it will perform.

    I am also looking for 24p so I can give my customers more of a film feel (I
    have to cater to the lowest common denominator so the more I can make it
    look fancy the better). The VX2100/PD170 doesn't have 24p (that I know
    of...does it?).

    Also, to be honest I like a couple of the features I saw on the XL2: Set
    Focus point, Set Zoom point, set exposure point, many more f/stops than the
    dvx100 (29 or so on the XL2 around 8 on the DVX100), AE Lock, stuff like
    that.

    I've looked on dvxusers.com but didn't find anything that excited me. If
    someone can find a good use of the DVX100 I'll have something better to go
    off of. Or a proper feature list, Panasonic doesn't seem too woried about
    promoting this camera (from the look of their feature list on their site).

    That's where I'm comming from.
     
    Henry Padilla, Mar 30, 2005
    #10
  11. DVX 100 all the way. And light your footage if low light is a problem. But
    I've shoot available light in a night street scene a just filled the talent
    and the look was great with the Panasonic. And what was that comment about
    picture quality on the Sony's being better? I've used them all (many times)
    and my eyes prefer the DVX100 for the look, sharpness and nice on board WA.

    Mike

    "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Strictly academic! I have little real-world experience with any of these
    > cameras but intend to aquire a camera of this class over the next few
    > months.
    >
    > A lot of my opinions have been shaped by input from folks around here.
    > Again, I'm strongly biased by a camera's low light performance and so far,
    > all I've seen points to the PD150 series (VX2000, PD170, VX2100) being the
    > best in the "sub-$5000" class for low-light.
    >
    > A point to consider: "work grows to fill available resources."
    >
    > Maybe you have a shoot where you want to depict someone racing down the
    > highway in their car. With a camera that does well in low light, you might
    > get a shot of the drivers foot pushing down on the accelerator pedal. It's
    > rather dark down there so this is a shot you might *not even consider* if
    > your camera weren't capable.
    >
    > From what I read, the other cameras you mentioned perform similarly under
    > good lighting.
    > They MAY even be easier to use, better ergonically etc - I don't know. My
    > only concern is the final picture quality.
    >
    > As I've said in this forum before, I'm also influenced by a still
    > photography background where I shoot fast lenses and film with the mindset
    > "if I can see it, I can shoot it." I want to approach that kind of freedom
    > in a motion-picture camera without ridiculously grainy images.
    >
    > Hope this helps a bit!
    >
    > C.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "nap" <> wrote in message
    > news:TRp2e.6842$...
    >>I was just curious about your observations
    >>
    >> best
    >> n
    >>
    >> . "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Please forgive me - a lot of that is my "low light" bias - if it doesn't
    >>> shoot well in low light, it's no good to me.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/owner.php
    >>> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm
    >>>
    >>> I didn't see any mention of the PD-150/170 (or VX' equivalents) but I do
    >>> think it would be wise to consider those as alternatives to the XL's and
    >>> DVX's where picture quality is the ultimate goal.
    >>>
    >>> C.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "nap" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:07k2e.16712$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>>I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
    >>>>>VX-2000/2100?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> C.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>>>>>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing these
    >>>>>>examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are
    >>>>>> these not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken to
    >>>>>> highlight the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems
    >>>>>> more versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Help me out here please.
    >>>>>> Thanks for the input.
    >>>>>> Tom P.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    R. Michael Walker, Mar 30, 2005
    #11
  12. Henry Padilla

    C.J.Patten Guest

    Re: Why not get an XL2 vs. DVX100? (ergonomics?)

    Interesting...

    Admittedly, the majority of the input I've received to date has related to
    the VX2000/PD150 versus XL1, XL1s, GL1, GL2.

    The DVX100 is starting to look like a contender.

    Any idea how the control layout on the DVX100 compares to the Sonys and
    Canons?

    I'm thinking ease of accessing manual exposure controls, custom presets,
    white balance, exposure lock (in auto mode) etc.

    My acid test: "Open Water" (the Lions Gate movie) was shot on VX2000 and
    PD150. Could you do an equally acceptable job with another camera, in this
    case, the DVX-100?

    Here's a link I'm still digesting: http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/
    (thank you Adam... ;)

    BTW: this "24p Advanced" mode... does the original 100 have it or just the
    100a?
    Comments on the usefulness of that mode? (what compromises does it make -
    eg: halved vertical resolution?) Can Premiere Pro 1.0 handle that type of
    file or do I need to download to my workstation using some other utility
    first?

    Very curious about the DVX100...Chris.



    "R. Michael Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:JhD2e.18480$...
    > DVX 100 all the way. And light your footage if low light is a problem. But
    > I've shoot available light in a night street scene a just filled the
    > talent and the look was great with the Panasonic. And what was that
    > comment about picture quality on the Sony's being better? I've used them
    > all (many times) and my eyes prefer the DVX100 for the look, sharpness and
    > nice on board WA.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    > "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Strictly academic! I have little real-world experience with any of these
    >> cameras but intend to aquire a camera of this class over the next few
    >> months.
    >>
    >> A lot of my opinions have been shaped by input from folks around here.
    >> Again, I'm strongly biased by a camera's low light performance and so
    >> far, all I've seen points to the PD150 series (VX2000, PD170, VX2100)
    >> being the best in the "sub-$5000" class for low-light.
    >>
    >> A point to consider: "work grows to fill available resources."
    >>
    >> Maybe you have a shoot where you want to depict someone racing down the
    >> highway in their car. With a camera that does well in low light, you
    >> might get a shot of the drivers foot pushing down on the accelerator
    >> pedal. It's rather dark down there so this is a shot you might *not even
    >> consider* if your camera weren't capable.
    >>
    >> From what I read, the other cameras you mentioned perform similarly under
    >> good lighting.
    >> They MAY even be easier to use, better ergonically etc - I don't know. My
    >> only concern is the final picture quality.
    >>
    >> As I've said in this forum before, I'm also influenced by a still
    >> photography background where I shoot fast lenses and film with the
    >> mindset "if I can see it, I can shoot it." I want to approach that kind
    >> of freedom in a motion-picture camera without ridiculously grainy images.
    >>
    >> Hope this helps a bit!
    >>
    >> C.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "nap" <> wrote in message
    >> news:TRp2e.6842$...
    >>>I was just curious about your observations
    >>>
    >>> best
    >>> n
    >>>
    >>> . "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Please forgive me - a lot of that is my "low light" bias - if it
    >>>> doesn't shoot well in low light, it's no good to me.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/reports/owner.php
    >>>> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/camcorder--comparison.htm
    >>>>
    >>>> I didn't see any mention of the PD-150/170 (or VX' equivalents) but I
    >>>> do think it would be wise to consider those as alternatives to the XL's
    >>>> and DVX's where picture quality is the ultimate goal.
    >>>>
    >>>> C.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "nap" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:07k2e.16712$...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>I think a more important question is: why not buy a PD-150/170 or
    >>>>>>VX-2000/2100?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I mean, isn't comparing an XL2 with a DVX100 kinda missing the point?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> C.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:4yf2e.12309$...
    >>>>>>>I am still trying to decide which camera to get and after seeing
    >>>>>>>these examples I am leaning towards the XL2.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/xl2dvx.wmvx
    >>>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/XL2Video.wmvx
    >>>>>>> http://xl2.stylezracing.com/nightxl2.xwmv
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html
    >>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html
    >>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html
    >>>>>>> http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing25.html
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Was there some kind of special settings these were taken with? Are
    >>>>>>> these not examples of default XL2 behavior? Are these shots taken
    >>>>>>> to highlight the XL2 as opposed to show what it can and cannot do?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Can anyone show me a place to get DVX100 clips that I can review?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> If I can find them both for ~$3000 why not get the XL2? It seems
    >>>>>>> more versitile, it looks like it has more options.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Help me out here please.
    >>>>>>> Thanks for the input.
    >>>>>>> Tom P.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    C.J.Patten, Mar 30, 2005
    #12
  13. Henry Padilla

    Tom Padilla Guest

    Re: Why not get an XL2 vs. DVX100? (ergonomics?)

    "C.J.Patten" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Interesting...
    >
    > Admittedly, the majority of the input I've received to date has related to
    > the VX2000/PD150 versus XL1, XL1s, GL1, GL2.
    >
    > The DVX100 is starting to look like a contender.
    >
    > Any idea how the control layout on the DVX100 compares to the Sonys and
    > Canons?
    >
    > I'm thinking ease of accessing manual exposure controls, custom presets,
    > white balance, exposure lock (in auto mode) etc.
    >
    > My acid test: "Open Water" (the Lions Gate movie) was shot on VX2000 and
    > PD150. Could you do an equally acceptable job with another camera, in this
    > case, the DVX-100?
    >
    > Here's a link I'm still digesting: http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/
    > (thank you Adam... ;)
    >
    > BTW: this "24p Advanced" mode... does the original 100 have it or just the
    > 100a?
    > Comments on the usefulness of that mode? (what compromises does it make -
    > eg: halved vertical resolution?) Can Premiere Pro 1.0 handle that type of
    > file or do I need to download to my workstation using some other utility
    > first?
    >
    > Very curious about the DVX100...Chris.
    >


    Actually PP 1.5 is where I first heard about it. They have a specific
    plug-in that handles it without the pull-down so you get true 24p all the
    way 'till render.

    I'm not sure but I think the 100 had 24p and the 100A has 24pA (I'm not sure
    what is so "A" about it but...).

    It has the "look" of film and some of my clients may appreciate a
    documentary of how they met and such. I was thiking I'd shoot that in 24p
    and see how it looks.

    Tom P.
     
    Tom Padilla, Mar 31, 2005
    #13
  14. Henry Padilla

    Tom Padilla Guest

    "R. Michael Walker" <> wrote in message
    news:JhD2e.18480$...
    > DVX 100 all the way. And light your footage if low light is a problem. But
    > I've shoot available light in a night street scene a just filled the
    > talent and the look was great with the Panasonic. And what was that
    > comment about picture quality on the Sony's being better? I've used them
    > all (many times) and my eyes prefer the DVX100 for the look, sharpness and
    > nice on board WA.
    >
    > Mike
    >


    Mike,
    I apreciate it but I'm still looking for some decent footage shot on the
    DVX100A. Maybe this weekend I can get some time to concentrate on this and
    look harder at dvxusers.com.

    I saw some clips here (most notably "erins movie") and they didn't have the
    same "natural" look that the XL2 samples I've seen have. Of course, I can
    tell just by looking that the guy did no camera work at all. He just kind
    of held it there and hoped it worked. He actually turned a light on between
    the camera and his subject - the AE freaked out and the resulting clip is
    horrible to see. He also had his talent in a huge white shirt jumping into
    frame a couple of times and the AE went wild every time.

    Maybe it's just talent. The samples I've seen with the XL2 have been shot
    by people with real talent that took their time and so far I haven't found
    that level of work in a DVX100A clip.

    If you know of some serious work using the DVX100A I'd love to see some
    samples and compare them.

    Tom P.

    BTW I hate lighting a subject with the camera lights. It NEVER looks right.
    And since my subjects will be moving almost constantly I'll need something
    that has great low-light and an easy AE Lock/Auto.
     
    Tom Padilla, Mar 31, 2005
    #14
  15. Henry Padilla

    C.J.Patten Guest

    Re: Why not get an XL2 vs. DVX100? (ergonomics?)

    Adam Wilt (God bless him! :) has a great explanation of 24pA on the DVX100
    which is synonymous with "2:3:3:2" 24p mode on the XL2. (regular 24p is,
    apparently, just labeled "2:3" on the XL2 - obviously references to
    pulldown - see below)

    From his site: "...24p Advanced isn't intended for making the 60i video look
    like film; it's designed to allow the best possible recovery of the original
    24 frames..." and "...In my experience so far, about half the people looking
    at a 24p Advanced clip can see that the motion is a bit different, and half
    cannot."

    That page can be seen at: http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html
    Once you've read it, I'd really like your input on it's merits.

    Of importance: I've read (perhaps on Adam's page?) while the CCD and capture
    process changes when you switch between 24p and 24p Advanced (or 2:3 and
    2:3:3:2 for the XL2) - it ALL goes on the miniDV tape EXACTLY the same way -
    60i - emphasizing the advantage of the *advanced* 24p mode is recovery of
    the original frames. (it's all on the page liked above)

    Oh dear. We're getting ridiculously geeky here.

    C.



    "Tom Padilla" <> wrote in message
    news:miL2e.16433$...
    >
    > Actually PP 1.5 is where I first heard about it. They have a specific
    > plug-in that handles it without the pull-down so you get true 24p all the
    > way 'till render.
    >
    > I'm not sure but I think the 100 had 24p and the 100A has 24pA (I'm not
    > sure what is so "A" about it but...).
    >
    > It has the "look" of film and some of my clients may appreciate a
    > documentary of how they met and such. I was thiking I'd shoot that in 24p
    > and see how it looks.
    >
    > Tom P.
    >
     
    C.J.Patten, Mar 31, 2005
    #15
  16. Henry Padilla

    Poet Fury Guest

    On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 04:56:20 GMT, Tom Padilla wrote:

    > If you know of some serious work using the DVX100A I'd love to see some
    > samples and compare them.


    These films were shot with the Panasonic -
    http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Panasonic AG-DVX100

    Back at DVXuser.com, are some links to the monthly contests we've been
    having. Most of the links should still be active.

    Here's Feb - http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=4180

    Here's January's - http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=4191

    I'd give you the link for December's, but I've got an entry in it, so no
    way. :)

    --
    http://www.genjerdan.com/bfp/lmp/index.html

    Putting all your begs in one ask it.
     
    Poet Fury, Mar 31, 2005
    #16
  17. How come no ones mentioned the Sony Z1? This full HD 1080i HDV camera
    also offers SD DVCAM and DV at both PAL (50f interlaced mode suitable
    for film conversion and post de-interlacing) and NTSC and uniquely has
    1/3rd inch 16x9 CCD's. Even in SD mode it beats all other DV compacts,
    falling only just behind the broadcast 2/3rd inch CCD DSR 570, it only
    rates lux 3 but this is well mitigated by virtually noiseless gain
    (with 36dB hyper gain also available, but don't expect it to be noise
    free). It has bags of features and in HDV mode has twice the resolution
    and four times the pixels of Digi Beta. Quite frankly I think anyone who
    buys an SD camera today is simply out of touch with reality, or too poor
    to seriously be contemplating a professional business model.

    If the extra 50% premium over a DVX100 is too much then the much cheaper
    FX1 HDV is a very similar camera but without the DVCAM (still has DV)
    and XLR audio inputs and lacking a number of the pro facilities of Z1,
    but it's still twice the resolution and four times the pixels of Digi
    Beta. I think it's actually cheaper than the DVX100.
    --
    John Lubran
     
    Moving Vision, Mar 31, 2005
    #17
  18. "Moving Vision" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > How come no ones mentioned the Sony Z1? This full HD 1080i HDV camera also
    > offers SD DVCAM and DV at both PAL (50f interlaced mode suitable for film
    > conversion and post de-interlacing) and NTSC and uniquely has 1/3rd inch
    > 16x9 CCD's. Even in SD mode it beats all other DV compacts, falling only
    > just behind the broadcast 2/3rd inch CCD DSR 570, it only rates lux 3 but
    > this is well mitigated by virtually noiseless gain (with 36dB hyper gain
    > also available, but don't expect it to be noise free). It has bags of
    > features and in HDV mode has twice the resolution and four times the
    > pixels of Digi Beta. Quite frankly I think anyone who buys an SD camera
    > today is simply out of touch with reality, or too poor to seriously be
    > contemplating a professional business model.
    >
    > If the extra 50% premium over a DVX100 is too much then the much cheaper
    > FX1 HDV is a very similar camera but without the DVCAM (still has DV) and
    > XLR audio inputs and lacking a number of the pro facilities of Z1, but
    > it's still twice the resolution and four times the pixels of Digi Beta. I
    > think it's actually cheaper than the DVX100.
    > --
    > John Lubran


    I'm sure that's a great camera but as we speak I've had a grand total of 11
    clients (minus pro bono work for friends). My customer base is your average
    joe who's probably going to go into debt having his wedding. I don't really
    see the explosion of HDTV's _AND_ progressive HD DVD's to think not having
    this would really kill my business.

    Besides, my product is a DVD. I can't very well give my client 5 DVD's for
    them to watch one at a time just to get through a 1 hour wedding. When
    BluRay takes off, or something of the kind, _IF_ I'm still in the business I
    can think about it then.

    Right now I'm just trying to get a camera that looks good and customers
    don't laugh at.

    Tom P.
     
    Henry Padilla, Mar 31, 2005
    #18
  19. Henry Padilla

    nap Guest

    Henry..

    I own the DVX100A. used to own XL1 cameras. The XL2 is HEAVY and HUGE. I
    love my DVX100, I shoot commercials and indy features with it.. As do many.
    It is light, fast and produces an awesome image. You can not go wrong.
    "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    news:fpU2e.19866$...
    > "Moving Vision" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> How come no ones mentioned the Sony Z1? This full HD 1080i HDV camera
    >> also offers SD DVCAM and DV at both PAL (50f interlaced mode suitable for
    >> film conversion and post de-interlacing) and NTSC and uniquely has 1/3rd
    >> inch 16x9 CCD's. Even in SD mode it beats all other DV compacts, falling
    >> only just behind the broadcast 2/3rd inch CCD DSR 570, it only rates lux
    >> 3 but this is well mitigated by virtually noiseless gain (with 36dB hyper
    >> gain also available, but don't expect it to be noise free). It has bags
    >> of features and in HDV mode has twice the resolution and four times the
    >> pixels of Digi Beta. Quite frankly I think anyone who buys an SD camera
    >> today is simply out of touch with reality, or too poor to seriously be
    >> contemplating a professional business model.
    >>
    >> If the extra 50% premium over a DVX100 is too much then the much cheaper
    >> FX1 HDV is a very similar camera but without the DVCAM (still has DV) and
    >> XLR audio inputs and lacking a number of the pro facilities of Z1, but
    >> it's still twice the resolution and four times the pixels of Digi Beta. I
    >> think it's actually cheaper than the DVX100.
    >> --
    >> John Lubran

    >
    > I'm sure that's a great camera but as we speak I've had a grand total of
    > 11 clients (minus pro bono work for friends). My customer base is your
    > average joe who's probably going to go into debt having his wedding. I
    > don't really see the explosion of HDTV's _AND_ progressive HD DVD's to
    > think not having this would really kill my business.
    >
    > Besides, my product is a DVD. I can't very well give my client 5 DVD's
    > for them to watch one at a time just to get through a 1 hour wedding.
    > When BluRay takes off, or something of the kind, _IF_ I'm still in the
    > business I can think about it then.
    >
    > Right now I'm just trying to get a camera that looks good and customers
    > don't laugh at.
    >
    > Tom P.
    >
    >
    >
     
    nap, Mar 31, 2005
    #19
  20. Have you shot many run-n-gun situations? Does the lack of auto-focus get in
    the way?
    There's that and the Focus points and Zoom points. You gotta admit, that's
    nice. And the less I can make my clients stand around while I get the shot
    right the better.

    Tom P.

    "nap" <> wrote in message
    news:5dW2e.10282$...
    > Henry..
    >
    > I own the DVX100A. used to own XL1 cameras. The XL2 is HEAVY and HUGE. I
    > love my DVX100, I shoot commercials and indy features with it.. As do
    > many. It is light, fast and produces an awesome image. You can not go
    > wrong.
    > "Henry Padilla" <> wrote in message
    > news:fpU2e.19866$...
    >> "Moving Vision" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> How come no ones mentioned the Sony Z1? This full HD 1080i HDV camera
    >>> also offers SD DVCAM and DV at both PAL (50f interlaced mode suitable
    >>> for film conversion and post de-interlacing) and NTSC and uniquely has
    >>> 1/3rd inch 16x9 CCD's. Even in SD mode it beats all other DV compacts,
    >>> falling only just behind the broadcast 2/3rd inch CCD DSR 570, it only
    >>> rates lux 3 but this is well mitigated by virtually noiseless gain (with
    >>> 36dB hyper gain also available, but don't expect it to be noise free).
    >>> It has bags of features and in HDV mode has twice the resolution and
    >>> four times the pixels of Digi Beta. Quite frankly I think anyone who
    >>> buys an SD camera today is simply out of touch with reality, or too poor
    >>> to seriously be contemplating a professional business model.
    >>>
    >>> If the extra 50% premium over a DVX100 is too much then the much cheaper
    >>> FX1 HDV is a very similar camera but without the DVCAM (still has DV)
    >>> and XLR audio inputs and lacking a number of the pro facilities of Z1,
    >>> but it's still twice the resolution and four times the pixels of Digi
    >>> Beta. I think it's actually cheaper than the DVX100.
    >>> --
    >>> John Lubran

    >>
    >> I'm sure that's a great camera but as we speak I've had a grand total of
    >> 11 clients (minus pro bono work for friends). My customer base is your
    >> average joe who's probably going to go into debt having his wedding. I
    >> don't really see the explosion of HDTV's _AND_ progressive HD DVD's to
    >> think not having this would really kill my business.
    >>
    >> Besides, my product is a DVD. I can't very well give my client 5 DVD's
    >> for them to watch one at a time just to get through a 1 hour wedding.
    >> When BluRay takes off, or something of the kind, _IF_ I'm still in the
    >> business I can think about it then.
    >>
    >> Right now I'm just trying to get a camera that looks good and customers
    >> don't laugh at.
    >>
    >> Tom P.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Henry Padilla, Apr 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Robert Morein

    AG-DVX100 vs. GR-HD1 ?

    Robert Morein, Oct 8, 2003, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    343
    Brian Quandt
    Oct 25, 2003
  2. Jason Chong

    To Panasonic (about ag-dvx100) packaging.

    Jason Chong, Oct 16, 2003, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    333
    SHOOTER
    Oct 17, 2003
  3. Henry Padilla

    Why not get an XL2 vs. DVX100?

    Henry Padilla, Mar 29, 2005, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    534
  4. Five

    Why does the XL2 have such a tele lens?

    Five, Nov 16, 2004, in forum: Professional Video Production
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    325
    R. Michael Walker
    Jan 16, 2005
  5. Reza

    Why shots get blurry with XL2?

    Reza, May 24, 2006, in forum: Professional Video Production
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    451
    Ty Ford
    Jul 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page