I have an XL2, and have used the DVX100 series a fair amount.

So, over time, having used the XL2 a fair amount, I notice there is a certain something I am not getting visually that was always easy with the DVX when I used it. It's a subtle something, can't really put my finger on it, but most apparent when dealing with skin tones.

I did some talking head interviews for a documentary several years ago with the DVX, and even though the background on one of them is pretty crap, they still look magnificent, to me. There is something very high-end, elegant, "cinematic", blah blah, about the look. I lit them nice as well, of course, but still, there is something specific to the way the cam renders colors/saturation/etc. that I can't quite pinpoint that I haven't been achieving with the XL2.

Sometimes I am blown away by my footage, but when I do something with people being the primary subject, there is a quality to skin tones that is not quite pleasing. Someone in another thread described it as a "mushy pink quality" and they are absolutely right. . .the camera tends to do this in a lot of situations.

I believe that you can match the XL2 to that DVX-y look (within reason, since the DVX can push contrast, color saturation, and color balance/white balance to more extreme degrees than the XL2), I just don't know exactly how to do it.

I did some tests (I have something else I need to work on, but if I'll upload footage when I can), footage of just me, with a chimera keying me and a edgy/fill/kicker light, didn't care about the background, just trying different settings. It seems like the key lies in the way the XL2 handles reds, and possibly in color saturation. Moving the color phase toward green seemed to help the most. Using the cine color matrix appeared more pleasing at the time.

Just wondering if anyone shares this frustration or has any tips/solutions/etc. I don't usually have too much time do mess with this stuff on set, where it counts, as I'm usually pressed for time when I actually have a shoot with the camera, so it'd be neat if next time I had some things to try on a shoot.

I can't believe I was able to find this. I used the settings (within small variations) on the DVFilm site. DVFilm is a company out of Austin that specializes in DV to Film transfers (or did back in 2004 and 2005). So I used the settings from their site on the DVX, when we did this documentary:

# DETAIL LEVEL = -3 (see note 1)
# CHROMA LEVEL = 0
# CHROMA PHASE = 0
# COLOR TEMP = 0
# MASTER PED = -6 (see note 2)
# A. IRIS LEVEL = -1
# GAMMA = CINE-LIKE (for DVX100A use CINE-LIKE-V)
# SKIN TONE DTL = OFF
# MATRIX = NORMAL
# V DETAIL FREQ = THIN
# PROGRESSIVE = 24P(ADV) for NTSC / 25P for PAL models

Thanks.

Yeah, every DP I know is crazy about Panasonic. To me the DVX looks way over saturated. The picture is prettier, sure, but to me the XL2 looks closer to what the subject actually looked like. Apparently most people don't want that.

You think it's oversaturated? To me, that cam always made very naturalistic tones, if your chroma gain (or whatever it's called on there) was set to neutral. I did notice that if you push it, your reds bleed much faster than other colors. Shooting outside on a rainy, nasty day, I boosted the color saturation just to put some punch back into the image, and noticed upon reviewing it that anywhere a real saturated red was present, super bleed-y.

I don't mean to say that the colors are oversaturated to the point of being a problem. I just don't think the picture looks like real life. When I look at XL2 footage in a monitor it's looks like the subject really looks. With the DVX and HVX it looks prettier than the real thing, and okay, maybe you could figure that saves you time in post, but me, I want to start with the neutral image.

interesting. Do you mean with the DVX with its color gain at 0 (neutral), it's already over-saturated, to you taste?

Yup. To me anyway.

If I can continue this thread...I'm shooting a music concert with an XL2 and a DVX100B (don't ask) shooting 16:9 and 60i. Anway, I know the XL2 (and miniDV for that matter) doesn't like the reds, so I bring the Red Gain down a bit and crush the blacks a bit...will that match up well with the DVX?

Thanks,

Jonathan

The DVX100b doesn't shoot real 16:9. . .or are you letterboxing a 4:3 image from the XL2 to match it? Otherwise you'll have one image that originated at 960x480 (though it'll end up 720x480) an another that originated at 720 by 480. Even if they're both 16:9 in the final product, one should look a little softer/lower res.


I found I was getting much better tones on the XL2 (i.e. less "mushy pink") by using cine color matrix, and moving the color phase toward green a few notches. I also found a pleasant look by setting the blacks to press, but leaving the gamma on video instead of cine. So you get a rich, contrasty look without it being too contrasty. I shot a recital in a church, using just their lighting, and it came out pretty nice.

I don't know I can get some pretty surreal saturated looking tones on my XL2. This is a pretty good example I think. I haven't even messed with this in post, but it has a strange look to it.

http://photos-h.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v248/176/60/16906813/n16906813_36738767_2670.jpg

That is nice! Yes, it handles some things very well, like greenery. My issue was basically with skin tones.

Thanks for the quick reply, Josh...

I've shot a few concerts with the XL2 at different venues with different settings/outcomes.

Following links I shot 24p w/o any changes to the settings. The band's lighting was REALLY low and muted. Wasn't too happy about the 24p, though:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NpVWoF57sZg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XGmnDoAHaoI

Next link is same band, different venue. This was a 2 camera shoot, the XL2 (with pressed blacks and lowered red value) 16:9 30p...and the 2nd camera is a Sony Betacam (don't remember which model) shooting 16:9 60i. Starting with the first shot, every other shot is the XL2 (3rd shot, 5th shot, 7th shot, etc).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXqIxzeS460

As for the DVX100B, I knew it doesn't shoot native 16:9, but isn't there a setting on it that is like an Anamorphic or something (I've only shot with it a couple times a few years ago). For editing purposes (in Final Cut Pro), since the XL2 is actually the 960x480, do I use the standard 4:3 timeline and change the distort value (but it'll have black bars on the left/right sides on a 16:9 TV) or the Anamorphic timeline?

I want the whole shoot to be 16:9 (using the same XL2 and Betacam as before, but adding the DVX100B. Is it possible?

Thanks,

Jonathan

Seems like if you shoot in anamorphic mode, you'll use a real 16:9 timeline. The issue though, is that you'll still have two different resolution images. If that's okay with you then go for it.

Thanks again for the info, Josh.

How bad is the difference going to be? Is there any way to compare it to anything? Is it something that we, as professionals, are obviously going to notice, but not the untrained eye? Unfortunately, I don't have time between now and Thursday to test it out.

Jonathan

That I couldn't tell you, I've never a/b'd it before. I do know that when I shot my short film in widescreen on the XL2, I had a lot of shots of a particular actor that I zoomed in in post (by quite a bit), and because of the higher resolution, you could barely tell, even on a large screen. On the other hand, when doing the same with a 4:3 originated signal, you see it soften pretty quickly. I don't know if that helps you at all.

A little bit, although I'm pretty sure I'm not going to be doing any scaling in post. I think I'll try the Squeeze mode and see how that turns out. Thanks for your help.

Jonathan

As far as I know, squeeze mode gives you the same results as letterboxing, it's just how it's handled in post that's different. Either way, it's cutting off the top and bottom of your image to simulate 16:9. It's like the way the old XL1s used to do it.

OK, now ya got me confused (sorry). Is squeeze just covering up the top and bottom with black bars (and not "squeezing" the picture)? I only ask because if it's just covering up the top and bottom with black bars, I'll have to stretch it in Final Cut (put the distort on 33.33) to fit the 16:9 anamorphic timeline and the picture will be stretched vertically.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but letterboxing 4:3 video "looks widescreen" on a 4:3 monitor, but has black bars on top AND sides on a 16:9 monitor, right? So if squeeze mode just throws black bars top and bottom, then a that part of the 16:9 timeline is going to look REALLY small on a 4:3 tv, right? It's not going to be the same dimensions, unless I distort it in post, right?

Wow, this sucks. I gotta get my own equipment so everything's the same. I guess I could just shoot 4:3 with all 3 cameras, but I gotta see if that's cool with the client.

Sorry, did not mean to confuse. I mean as far as end result, they're essentially the same. In letterbox mode, it blacks the top and bottom, leaving you with 360 lines (I think) of vertical resolution. In Squeeze, it crops the top and bottom the same way, but THEN squeezes it so it fits a 4:3 frame, and you can unsquish it in an anamorphic project. But, on that same token, you could shoot it letterbox, and then blow it up in an anamorphic project to get rid of the black. See what I'm saying? They do basically the same thing, just in different ways. What I did when I was shooting a 16:9 project was to cut small pieces of gel (like for lights) to cover the flip out LCD where the letterbox borders would be. This allows you to shoot regular 4:3, but frame correctly for 16:9, but the benefit is that you have some vertical play room if you decide something isn't framed correctly. If you're confident with everything, just shoot squeeze to match the XL2's widescreen, drop 'em in an anamorphic timeline, and you should be good to go. I'm probably making this more complicated for you.

Got it. Thanks a whole lot for your help, Josh.

Jonathan

While the DVX does indeed crop and stretch, you get a big resolution boost in progressive mode for some reason. This was documented in DV Magazine a couple of years back. So, if you are shooting progressive and want 16:9, definitely do it in-camera with the DVX. It's nearly as good as the real thing.

Thanks for the input, Marco.

Looks like the shoot will now be with 2 DVX100's and an XL2, so progressive shouldn't be a prob. The only reason 60i was a possibility was because of the Betacam...but that's out now.

UPDATE: So get this. One of the DVX100's that were used in the show last night was a 100A, so it couldn't do Squeeze (at least that is what the owner of the camera said, I don't know much about them). I didn't have time to question him or mess with the camera myself...AND the guy with the Sony D35 Betacam ended up shooting as well. So: 4 cameras (XL2, D35, (2)DVX100), 4:3, 60i.

Yeesh.

Thanks all for your help.

Jonathan

He's full of doggy doo doo. I'm guessing one of these people who think since the camera isn't 16:9 native it's best to do the crop and stretch in post so you can change the frame line if you want.

Seriously? He's off my list. Will never work with him again. Yeah, he said since it was an older model it couldn't do it. I could have provided 16:9 to the client (and after all the info gathering on here) and the guy blitzed me. Crap.

Jonathan

So far as I know the DVX100 always had the digital 16:9 function, but maybe you want to double check with folks over in the DVX forum before writing anybody off. Personally, I don't find it helpful in this business to make proclamations like that. You never know when you will be in a jam down the line and that person can help you out.

DVX100 doesn’t have a squeeze function, DVX100A has and the DVX100B also has with proper framing in the LCD. I have used al three versions and sound like a stupid compandre you got there.

According the look between DVX and XL2 I think a XL2 with 16x manual gives you a great field of possibilities.

I shot a ballet dance with two XL2 cameras: one being in 60i AV 16:9 and the other one 30p TV 4:3. I've manage to put the two together without a problem. However, I must say most shot that I've taken for the DVD I've created came from the 30p TV 4:3.

This was unfortunate because I had tought that both of my cameras were at 16:9. It was then a big suprised to me when I saw both shots in FCP. I tough it was the end. I took a suggestion from someone in France where he proposed me to make some kind of 14:9. In FCP on the 4:3 shots I've added horizontal line on the top and the bottom and for the 16:9 I've added verticale line on the side. I've choosen to put the sequence in 4:3, I could have taken the anamorphic.

This was a LOT of work. However, I must says that I was very pleased with the final result.

The reason that I've taken most of the shot from the 30p TV 4:3 was because the image was much better. I've found that it was sharper, I was able to see the expression on the face of the dancers. Also, it adjusted better with the quick and often changing ligthing. I had nos issue in playing with the IRIS to eliminate the over-exposure then with the 60i AV. I was afraid this it would not be smooth in shooting in 30p and I was wrong.

I beleive it would had been different if I would have had to pan a lot. Not sure, someone could say better.

All right, this is my bad. The DVX100 did have letterboxing, but no digital squeeze. That would explain why I remember seeing widescreen footage from those older cameras.

From Adam Wilt's site: "The DVX100 is 4:3 only, although it has a built-in letterboxing mask leaving about 372 scanlines (NTSC) shown: a bit taller than the 360 lines of true letterboxed 16x9. Panasonic had a firm target of US$4000 or less, and built-in 16x9 would have broken the bank."

http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html

Oh wait, to add to the confusion, I just re-read your post and you say the guy had a DVX100a? That does have the digital squeeze. The original DVX (without an A or B, but sometimes referred to as P) is the one that only does the letterbox.

Another differance between DVX and a XL2 with 16x manual, is clearity and detail.

Thanks again for the info, all.

Jonathan