I have been saving my money up since I got a job (end of high school 03) and I finally have baout $3200. I am taking film classes at UNLV (I live in Las Vegas) and I really want to make some shorts and a feature length movie. I'm not sure which camera to buy. The XL1s or the DVX100. I know that the DVX100 shoots in 24p and the XL1s in 30p, and I really want a great look. I plan to submit my shorts to the triggerstreet film festival and some others when I get good. If you guys could help me decide which one to get, that would be great. I want whichever one is going to give me the best look.

i would go with the panasonic 24p. if lit correctly it does have a filmic look. i mean nothing is going to give you the true look of film except...film. so i would suggest buying the panasonic cam and then dropping a little money on a super 8 camera. also i might be shooting my next music video on the panasonic to cut costs. i also may suggest dropping a few $100 on a super 8 camera and some film. after all you are trying to get into the film industry.

One of the big advantages of the XL-1 are the interchangable lens system. If you think you will never use anything more than the stock lens, you may want to lean towards the DVX.

The DVX has the advantage of shooting 24p. Its not a big, show stopping advantage but it is nice to have. The Canon's frame mode is really not the same thing, but a number of people still use it without problems (search on frame mode on this site for a bunch of thread about it).

But lets say you really, really want 24 fps. You could go with a PAL version and accomplish this too.

Another facet to consider is size. If you are going to do more gun and run shooting the DVX fills the bill more nicely. The XL-1 cannot help but attract attention.

You should also think about what cams your colleagues are using. They may be with you on shoots and having cams with similar operating specs can be helpful indeed. Sometimes having other experienced camera operators will help you with the hidden nuances of your system that only comes with experience.

You may have noticed I have not told you which one is better...the truth is they both are. You really cannot not make a bad decision.

Finally the best advice is to try before you buy.

<<The DVX has the advantage of shooting 24p. Its not a big, show stopping advantage but it is nice to have. The Canon's frame mode is really not the same thing, but a number of people still use it without problems >>

This is kind of an odd statement to me. I would guess that a majority of people shooting beyond the "video look" with the XL series use Frame Mode. Why would there be a "problem"? A major international film...one of the top releasees of the summer was shot using the XL1s in Frame mode. That's pretty definitive to me.

Also, for just about everyone in the real world, I think we really are splitting hairs when we talk about 24p and Canon's 30 frames being psuedo progressive scan etc. In a recent thread with Charles Papert that very issue came up...the ability to actually distinguish between 24p, 25p, 30p. I agree completely that it takes a trained eye to see the difference, and for me that falls into the "who cares" file.

Depending on the subject matter and ligthing and camera movement, I regularly get comments referring to Super 16 or 35mm when looking at our footage shot in Frame Mode. Granted, I'm using the Mini35 setup. But some of the work we were doing in Frame with the stock Canon lenses originally looked very filmic (again composition, lighting, movement dependent).

That said, I just received a resume and reel with a senior short film produced on the DVX100, and it looked great...I was sure it was shot in film when I first saw it. You can't go wrong with either choice. The world is a very different place than it was five or six years ago when shooting video with an $80k Beta camera setup was as good as you could do in the field.

But it still always looked like good video...even shooting with Warm Pro mist filters and sending it out to post for Faux Film processing. You're getting into the business at a very exciting time. The lines are inexorably blurred with HD, the XL1s, DVX100 and soon, affordable (the term Prosumer is becoming meaningless at this point) MiniDV fromat HD cameras with progressive scan.

Get either camera, and put any future investment into lighting, sound and motion gear. You can do wonders with this gear, and enough energy, talent and study. Go get 'em.

Byran,
You really ought to go to a video store and actually hold and use the cameras and see which one you like. Both have great features but they both handle differently.

I've been using an XL-1 for two years now and I borrowed a friend's GL-1 and Sony VX-2000 and for me going back to those two cameras was frustrating. The main thing for me is the manual zoom and focus of the XL-1. I use the 16X lens that came with the camera and even that is great. The small focus rings and the zoom rocker on the smaller camera just don't cut it for me. Plus, I can hold the XL-1 a lot more steadier than those smaller cameras, I am so used to the size of the XL-1 that I don't notice the weight anymore. These are just my own personal opinions, other people might not like the bulk of the XL-1.

Once you get your hands on both cameras and try them out, the decision will come easily.

I too am in a simliar situation as Bryan except that I've been using my XL-1 professionally for over 5 years and it's been an excellant choice. I now face the need to purchase a new camera simply as a reliabilty issue for my aging XL-1.
I'm very interested in the DVX 100 but really have enjoyed the frame mode of the XL-1. I can't help but wonder if I choose to get a new XL1s that I would be doing myself an injustice by not buying into newer technology with the DVX100.
I do a lot of hand held work and the stabilizer on the DVX100 didn't seem as forgiving as the XL-1's as I'm not the steadiest shooter any longer.
I most likely will never going out to film with my work, but do like the film look for video. I edit with Final Cut.
I like the warm look the XL1 gives especially to people and need to be able to shoot on the fly and hand hold for long periods.
Any and all feedback would be great appreciated.
Thanks, Craig Hollenbacl

Jim,

The question about frame vs progressive is that there is one that seems to be a big one for new digital film makers. In any comparison between the DVX and XL-1 that fact simply needs to be pointed out.

However, I think your post has many more important tips that I hope Bryan follows up on:


The most important things in getting good film look video are composition, lighting, and motion.
Look up posts and articles by Charles Papert.
A well made film regardless of the equipment can still get to the top.


I still think prosumer is valid. There are a number of things that profe$$ional cams have that these pro$umer versions do not; but that doesn't mean you cannot turnout professional work!

Sorry to not be as diplomatic as you all here, but i honestly after owning and using extensively both cameras (both PAL mind you) would have to rec. the dvx100.

I have found far too much about it to be Superior to the xl1s (which i had) to really endorse the xl1s anymore.

Forget frame modes and all that, the dvx100 is far better package as a camera.

More compact, nice big lcd, great sound features (best in it's class i would have to say), far better balanced, great lens (resolves a lot more than the standard xl1s lens) far more freedom with setup, xlr phanton inputs standard, better viewfinder, hard stops on zooms, focus number indicator on viewfinder and lcd (this feature is better than all others in it's class), far far newer CCD technology.

There are far more reasons, like the less expensive job of tooling up the dvx100, far more easy to transport, since everything gets smaller.

In 50i the dvx100 is better with low light i have found. It is true progressive scan also capable of.

Geez so much more to go by. I just really enjoy the fact it is a really nicely rounded off complete package, the xl1s is almost twice as much in reality once tooled up compared to the dvx100.

And before anyone bits my head off, sorry, but in pure semantics of everything being equal the dvx100 does have a slightly higher rez output due to being able to use that thin mode.

Zac

You have to judge each camera on it's own merits and pick the one that best meets your present and expected future needs. Hopefully, you make the decision after at least handling both cameras, but preferably shooting with both.

I find the size of the DVX100 a problem, more than a solution. But I come from a bigger camera background and appreciate the spacing and ergonomics of a larger camera. Larger cameras suit my style of shooting, but may not suit your style.

I find the lack of lens interchangeability a major draw back. I've shot with both cameras also, and do not find the DVX100 lens sharper than the Canon stock 16X lens. In fact the very short telephoto range of the DVX requires me to use a telephoto convertor when using the DVX100 and that seriously effects optical quality.

I do find the DVX has the best audio of any camera in this price range. Phantom power is a big plus also. Low light is not an issue for me, I don't do events. But it does have better low light capability than the XL1.

Support gear will cost more for the XL1, but you have a choice of more pro gear with the XL1.

It really depends on whether you're looking for "stock, out of the box" or the core of a more advanced system in this regard For instance:

<<More compact,>>

Not enough mass for me.

<<nice big lcd,>>

In my opinion an LCD isn't really a pro feature unless it's a camera mounted 5' to 7" high NIT version like a Nebtek.

<<great sound features (best in it's class i would have to say)>>

Likewise, if you're going to get quality audio on either (or any system) you're going to effectively bypass the onboard audio preamps and feed your signal from a nice little field pre/mixer. Otherwise it's a big compromise with any camcorder.

<<great lens (resolves a lot more than the standard xl1s lens)>>

I don't think you can question the quality for price of Canon glass, but again, if you're looking to do serious work, a fixed lens really isn't enough for a lot of situations. The XLs interchangeable lens system makes it unique in this market.

<<better viewfinder>>

Once again, the fact that you can add a real pro B&W high res viewfinder to the XL1 puts it in another class.

<<far far newer CCD technology.>>

If this is a qualifier, I'd reccomend waiting a bit for the new HDV models, there will always be the next higher spec waiting in the wings. But really, the XL1 is uniquely designed to use a full manual lens (which is the real way to go) their wide angle, as well as optical adapters (the Mini35), and physical adapters that enable you to use real glass. This will always make a bigger differnece than any other issue.

It's also setup for a high end VF and mount a pro on-camera LCD.

They really are 2 differnet systems unless you're only talking the stock camera in which case the DVX may be a better choice.

The biggest negative DVX has is that it is not modular like the XL-1 is. The biggest negative the XL-1 has is that it does not have progressive scan or the audio that the DVX has.

If those are the biggest differences between the two cams, you can see that one is not going to have gargantuan differences from the other. Both can do things the other system mighty find a little difficult.

You might do a little better talking to other students and find out what the good, talented students are using.

Remember you can make money with either system. You can spend some weekends shooting weddings and make a bunch of money for some nice accessories too.

Still the best advice remains, "try before you buy."

Sorry guys, i was just trying to make a response perfectly relevant to this thread.

I felt that a summer job payoff for the camera did not really allow for a $1500 viewfinder or $800 screen and $2000 tripod to be purchased ontop of the $3200 they have.

I feel with a limited budget the dvx100 wins hands down. If you have a lot of money... get whatever floats your boat.

Zac

Given the probable limited budgetary constraints, the DVX100 is probably more in line with Bryan's financial situation. But making a short or some features with out any of the necessary support equipment is unlikely. Many film schools allow you to borrow tripods, lights, sound kits and all the other necessary support gear.

Bryan, you might want to check out what gear UNLV uses in their film/video department. If they use XL1's or DVX100 it might help to do likewise. The equipment will interchange much easier.

Zac, your points are well taken. Still, that is also one of the advantages of the XL-1 system is that you can add these things as you go and not purchase them up front. Further, these accessories are much more affordable than those on more expensive systems. One of the questions XL-1 owners ask (maybe worry) about is that Canon will not radically change the system.

The thing everyone must remember is Bryan is a beginner in film making. Certainly, getting a cam that UNLV supports and recommends will help his educational career. Whichever cam he gets it will work fine.

To me when Bryan says he wants to make feature length films, I think a cam with only lens attachments would be a problem. That isn't a dig at the DVX it just means yo have to shoot differently ( a good learning experience).

The fact that we are comparing a brand new camera to a 5 year old design and the old camera is still holding up somewhat is a testament to the excellent design of the XL1.

Unless there is a budget for a mini35 rental, I think the DVX100 is the #1 choice for any indie film maker.

However, the XL1 is a much more diverse package for people that can afford the extra lenses, VF, etc... and who aren't concerened with the "film look", like ENG or documentaries.

I personaly like the features and look of the DVX100 but hate the package. It's small, plastic, and feels delicate. It also does not look like a professional camera, something that is important to me.
If I could get a DVX100 in an XL1 body? (drool....) Then I'd ditch all my current XL1 gear in a heartbeat.

<<However, the XL1 is a much more diverse package for people that can afford the extra lenses, VF, etc... and who aren't concerened with the "film look", like ENG or documentaries.>>

This still doesn't make sense to me Dylan. I've compared the two cameras, and Frame mode certainly gives a similar film look to that of the 24p on the DVX. Again, 28 Days Later IS a film in the real world sense, and I doubt that any of the millions of "non-tech" viewers knew that it wasn't a traditionally produced film.

For what it's worth, Scott Billups, author of Digital Film Makng and prolific writer in this genre (like him or not <g>) still considers the XL1 with manual lens and matte box in with frame mode, the only mini DV camera that he considers a professional rig for digital film making...including the DVX100

Moderator from DVX100 forum here...

Irregardless of Scott Billups opinion (I sold my XL1 with manual and wide lenses to get a DVX100), side by side images of XL1 frame mode and DVX100 30p or 24p don't require a trained eye to spot the differences (my wife did right off the bat).

Especially on moving wide shots, the XL1 Frame Mode is uncomfortably softer (one of my biggest issues since I did like the 3X lens).

Furthermore, the range of image adjustments available on the DVX100 make it a far more useful and professional tool than the XL1.

Finally, it's not plastic, despite the impression people have. It's mag alloy - just the paint, finish and a couple of plastic covers have caused misreports of it being a plastic camera.

Finally, the elimination of deinterlacing in post (which I used on my XL1 as I lost less resolution than frame mode), is a big factor for lots of people as well, especially if you are going to film or DVD as 24p will always give you major advantages in post.

24p means no motion artifacts going to film or 24p HD. 24p means faster renders in NLE, DVD production, 3D and compositing effects etc.

It's hard to argue that there's a better $3000 indie production cam (especially since it shoot very nice 60i), unless you require certain specifics (very long focal lengths) or a 3D lens which will cost you a lot more than $3000.

I have not seen an A/B test, but from posted full-rez clips, the DVX100 24p also looks much better than the XL1s with the 35MM Tecknik adapter, unless you are a short DOF junkie.

It's not a perfect cam at all (the telephoto is too short, the audio pots need improving, I'd really like 16:9 CCDs, even at a premium) but until you get to the $20,000 price point, I'm not sure I would want another cam.

I'm sure it's reign (disputed as it is) won't last, but right now, it's more in tune with indie moviemakers needs than any other camera.

<<Irregardless>>

First...if we're splitting hairs, "regardless" is the more appropriate word <g>.

Second...I intentionally said FWIW in regard to Billups.

Third...I already reccomended the DVX as probably the best choice as an all in one indie package, but specifically not if you're looking to expand with better glass and view finder.

My comment was in regard to the XL1s being good for non-film use like dicumentary and ENG. I think they're both of use for film production, and the XL1s was in fact just used for a major release...not an indie release. I think that's fairly definitive...the rest is just subjective, although valuable opinion.


<<I have not seen an A/B test, but from posted full-rez clips, the DVX100 24p also looks much better than the XL1s with the 35MM Tecknik adapter, unless you are a short DOF junkie.>>


This being the most subjective of comments <g>. The XL1s with Mini35 is a totally different animal than the DVX or any DV cam out there, and it's not just about being a short DOF junkie. Putora tests with the P&S have shown resolution increases on the scale of 2 out of 9.

Medium and short DOF are regular tools of film making as are rack and follow focus. These aren't available, to my knowledge, using the DVX...they are real strengths with the Mini35. They're a hallmark of good film making, their absence kind of screams "video production".

There are also color saturation improvements that are regularly discussed as the "transcendent" quality of the mini35. I know one film professor who speculates that it is an issue of the spinning glass, the CCDs, and color pixels.

At any rate, this ain't a war. Some of the best images I've seen so far are from the DVX and the XL1s/Mini35. I wouldn't want to try and convince someone that one is "much better" than the other. I haven't yet seen DVX footage that I would consider more film like than well produced Mini35 work though.

Jim:

I'm sure the Mini35 is "transcendent" :) but there's one available for the DVX100 as well. Does your professor have an actual technical explanation for ground glass magic?

But by the time you've bought or rented a Mini35, lenses, and extra lighting etc. needed, it's not clear that Mini35 fits much more than a small niche.

Plus, the DVX100 without Mini35 shoot wonderful, filmlike images.

Short DOF of field is one of my rants - be warned. Short DOF of field has nothing to do with the inherent medium of film - it's about focal length and imager size. I used to shoot a ton of Super 8mm...

Short DOF is a visual tool/trend that is associated with "professional look" and IMHO way overused (especially the post version) on commercial/music videos.

Careful composition and use of lighting to emphasize parts of the frame is another tool that can be utilized to achieve similar effects.

Citizen Kane certainly does not look like video...and the irony is the anamorphic films struggle to get enough DOF, especially in low light...

DVX100 footage will emerge that will show the full potential of the cam. It's still a little new for major productions.

<<I'm sure the Mini35 is "transcendent" :) but there's one available for the DVX100 as well.>>

Yes, but the inherent issue there is that you have to add the high end glass "on top of" the fixed glass of the DVX. I can't really speak to those results, but I have been asked to do a test comparison and article of both systems. Don Berube an I have discussed doing the shoots together, which would be a gas. His and my schedules are pretty crazy, and I've got to get back to ZGC on it...stay tuned.

<<Does your professor have an actual technical explanation for ground glass magic?>>

Well, he's not "my professor" but I believe he's a CA film professor who's thoughts were expressed to me by Mizell at ZGC. Perhaps Barb could address the point.

<<But by the time you've bought or rented a Mini35, lenses, and extra lighting etc. needed, it's not clear that Mini35 fits much more than a small niche.>>

There's no question that it's a niche...so is 35mm.

<<Plus, the DVX100 without Mini35 shoot wonderful, filmlike images.>>

Which I've said all along, and so does the XL1s.

And while I respect your "rants" about DOF, I'll go with the countless examples of major film making, books, articles and my own studies and experience on that one. It's simply a fact that you can't get the "3 dimensional" feel to a scene without it, and that would be a great subject for a thread on it's own.

Please post any side by side result over in the DVX100 forum. We are also suspicious of the glass in front design.

<<Which I've said all along, and so does the XL1s.>>

You only get filmlike images from the XL1s in frame mode. Frame mode is very noticably poorer in quality than 24 or 30p in the DVX100. DVX100 wins this battle, hands down.

<<It's simply a fact that you can't get the "3 dimensional" feel to a scene without it, and that would be a great subject for a thread on it's own.>>

I will have to disagre pretty strongly on that. Many 2-D artforms (painting, drawing, photography and filmmaking) get 3 dimensional feel through lighting, composition, perspective, color and many other techiniques. I'm willing to bet $100 that very few art experts will agree with your assertion that it's the "only" or
"best" way to get 3 dimensional feel.

If fact Conrad Hall, SR, will probably be remembered as a master of lighting for depth in the frame, not a short DOF "master".

It's just harder to do with lighting, color, perspective and composition than with DOF, so perhaps that why you see less of it in low end productions.

<<You only get filmlike images from the XL1s in frame mode. Frame mode is very noticably poorer in quality than 24 or 30p in the DVX100. DVX100 wins this battle, hands down.>>

I don't know if you experienced the XL1 or XL1s, but I can tell you that the Mini35 with the XL1s gives beautiful and crisp images. Plain and simple, I'm shooting with better glass than you are, that's considered the most critical element by a good many film makers. Again, I'd say it's a subjective call and we should agree to disagree.



<<I will have to disagre pretty strongly on that. Many 2-D artforms (painting, drawing, photography and filmmaking) get 3 dimensional feel through lighting, composition, perspective, color and many other techiniques.>>

I'm talking about a specific 3D quality that comes from manipulating DOF... the other points you make are a given to me in film and photgraphy, painting and drawing are another world. But given the same lighting, composition, etc...add in the DOF of 35mm lenses and there is a 3D quality unavailable in the wolrd you're discussing. There just is, maybe you'd have to shoot 35 to understand it, but it's separate and different from those basic points of quality work.

<<No offense, but I'm not a painter I'm willing to bet $100 that very few art experts will agree with your assertion that it's the "only" or "best" way to get 3 dimensional feel.>>

No offense taken, I'm a creative director and run design, audio and film/video studios. I work in all the media we're discussing. The only thing I would take offense at is your putting "only" and "best" and indicating that I wrote that. I didn't and the debate would be cleaner without padding your argument.

As I said, I'm talking about a "specific 3D quality" that is inherent with 35 mm lenses in proper orientation to the film plane or in this case the CCD. That quality enhances the attributes you point out, but it exists on it's own and it can't be recreated by any of those points you made...not the specific quaility that comes from what photgrahers and cinematographers know as the "circle of confusion"

<<If fact Conrad Hall, SR, will probably be remembered as a master of lighting for depth in the frame, not a short DOF "master".>>

Which is great, but it's apples and oranges, but I'm beginning to get your "rant" on DOF. Hey, if you don't like it don't use it <g>. Seriously though, the DVX is a great instrument and so is the one I use.

<<It's just harder to do with lighting, color, perspective and composition than with DOF, so perhaps that why you see less of it in low end productions.>>

Again, all of these things are the hallmarks of great design, photography, videography, and cinematography. I've posted just that point to people asking about how to get a great film look...and you left out the all important "camera movement". I've specifically said that those things are the most important part of what people associate with the "film look".

That said, I've seen big production work by big $ DPs and directors shot in uncompressed 60i that looked like cheaseball, soap opera production.

IMHO, the look of 24p, 30p, or the dreaded frame mode combined with the angle of view and depth of field of 35mm glass is what takes it to another level...all other production techniques being equal.

I owned an XL1 (bought because of the orginal XL1 Watchdog site) with the 14X manual lens and 3X wide as well as the standard lens from mid 1999 to mid 2002. In the late 80's & 90's I shot a lot of Super 8mm and some 16mm and lifelong have shot tons of still 35mm.

I did not rent a mini35 for my XL1 before I sold it. I felt the limitations and resolution loss of frame mode or deinterlacing in post made differences in glass secondary.

Thus I bought a DVX100 without really considering an XL1s.

Putting Zeiss primes infront of the XL1 on ground glass I'm sure is much better than the standard or even the manual lens, but the while I agree when all other things are equal, glass is extremely important, but here they are not.

360 lines captured by frame mode is 33% loss in vertical resolution. It's gone, bye, bye. Plus, 30 fps is not that close to 24 fps.

The DVX100 in thin mode captures the full 480 lines in progressive mode with almost no artifacts (so good, that some NTSC display cannot even display it properly). Plus, the cinegamma setting and CCD give it greater latitute than the XL1.

I don't see any lens bringing the XL1 equal to the DVX100 image quality. XL2, maybe.

Per DOF etc. that's really another thread and I'm sorry if I misread your post:

<<It's simply a fact that you can't get the "3 dimensional" feel to a scene without it, and that would be a great subject for a thread on it's own.>>

Sound like only or necessary or best way to me. Plus, you might want to look at some DVX100 clips. People are getting some decent short DOF despite it's focal length imager limitations. And an enterprising Barry Green http://www.softscreen.us has developed a quick and cheap solution to fake it out for some shooting situations. It's about 1/20th of the price of the mini35.

I personally think the Leica lens on the DVX100 is superb. Certainly exceeds the capabilities of the DV format.

That's why if the only way an XL1s can get great images is with the mini35, I think it might be better spent on a higher end camera.

Howdy from Texas,

<< if the only way an XL1s can get great images is with the mini35 >>

Sorry, but this isn't true -- the XL1S can get great images with just about any glass combination, not just the mini35.

Getting great images is more about the camera operator than the camera itself. Both the XL1S and DVX100 can deliver stunning images, or absolute junk, depending entirely on the person using it.

I would caution the readers of this thread to avoid getting caught up in superlatives. To make a value judgement on the superlative term of "best camera" is a big mistake. It's like saying, can you do better work on your car with a set of Craftsman tools than a set of Snap-On tools, when ultimately the deciding factor is the knowledge and expertise of the mechanic.

If someone wants to argue that all other things being equal including operator skill, then which camera, one should examine the most obvious differences:

The DVX100 is a compact all-in-one camcorder with a 24p mode and cine-gamma controls plus scene file settings. The XL1S is a modular camera system that can be configured in a variety of different ways, including a filmmaking set-up. Both are excellent choices for low-budget independant digital filmmaking. To bestow a superlative on one seems to discount the other (or what's worse, tends to discount and therefore insult the person owning it), when the absolute rock-bottom *truth* of the matter is that either one will do, in fact, excellent work has already been done by both cameras. A choice should be based solidly on feature sets and ergonomics. After that, worry more about your business plan and the quality of your script, you know, *real* concerns. Because cameras are just tools, after all.

Ultimately, the right camera for you is the one which feels best in your hands and whose image most appeals to you on a pro video monitor (or, perhaps, transferred to 35mm motion picture film).

Everything has been said in this thread that can be said, by highly qualified proponents of both systems. Perhaps those casual readers who find threads of this kind so interesting should reconsider their priorities and concentrate more on the stories they're going to tell with these cameras. I'll watch compelling material with less vertical resolution any day, over boring material at 480 lines. Content is king, and I'm a card-carrying member of the content mafia.

What kind of work will you do with these tools, that's the real question.

Excellent points, Chris. Content is king - that's actually why I got a DVX100.

It saves my time and money over my old XL1 setup and gets a great image in a format (24p) and form factor (handycam with LCD) that I like. It does take a little time to learn the menu and settings, but that's a one-time process.

Chris always knows how to bring things back to reality :)

To quickly put my 2 cents to some of the basic points that need to be considered by Bryan.

In the end, both cameras are the same beast, each beating the other in various points.

Ergonomics, flexibility, and growth with the user are the biggest points that need to be considered by the potential customer. The DVX100 will give Bryan more out of the box, but will not grow with him as a filmmaker. The XL1s is older technology, but is unlimited in how it can adapt to ANY situation Bryan might try to shoot.

If you want to get the highest resolution image possible for film out, the XL1s is the only choice, period. It's been well documented that by taking off the XL1s lens and going directly to the CCD, either mechanically or optically (mini35), you achieve a doubling of the lines/mm resolution, going from roughly 42 lines/mm to 85-90 lines/mm. As Jim pointed out, the best example is "28 Days Later"

Resolution aside, the DVX has some nice electronic image tricks, but most of them can be achieved in post with XL1s footage.

For those who are not familiar with it, you can now get higher resolution progressive transfers, even for the DVX100, with DVFilmMaker from dvfilm.com.

Another thing to remember with the DVX100 is that it is NOT true 24p. The camera and print to tape are always running at 60fps and markers are placed on the tape to achieve 24fps. Either of the DVX100s (or the VariCams for that matter) 24fps modes can casuse problems in post, which is a big thing to consider.

The Mini35 with the DVX100 will be an interesting turn of events when it comes to the Mini35 world, and might even create more aesthetically pleasing images then the Mini35 with the XL1s, but again, if you want the resolution necessary for a good film out...

And finally, I think the best overall idea to come out of this thread, and something I've been pushing at all of my speaking engagments, is that filmmaking is a craft. Without a compelling story and proper craftsmanship, it doesn't matter what cinegamma did for ya. Buy more lights, get a tripod, and dismantle your zoom lever...ok maybe don't go that far...but bottom line is construct your films with the proper tools and techniques, don't hope that the given electronic features of your camera is going to make you the next Kubrik (hint: I mention Kubrik because he is considered the absolute epitome of the film craftsman!)

Soapbox off, Flame retardent on :)

Mizell

<<Excellent points, Chris. Content is king - that's actually why I got a DVX100.>>

Man, you do want to win...remind me not to play you in tennis <g>

The last point I wanted to make was this. I've made a good many friends at this place, some that have and are leading to real world collaboration. Some of the people who's work I respect, Justin Chin, Don Berube, Ken Tanaka, Charles Papert, to name a very few, shoot with the XL1, one with the XL1/Mini35. Their work speaks for itself. I've won a number of national awards using the XL1 and Xl1s with and without the Mini35.

Recently the director of a muti million dollar major feature that was blown up full screen throughout the world opted to use the XL1s in frame mode. Again that speaks for itself. The audience was wrapt in the story and imagery, they didn't give a diseased monkey's butt about what camera he used.

A while back in my very first studio, I used a 1/2" 16 track recorder from Fostex. Audiophiles, and musicians wrote and talked about how you couldn't produce "pro" work on it, that you needed 2" machines or the new digital technology. While everyone debated and talked and worried about what tommorow would bring, we continued to produce album after album and award winning commercial work.

That eight thousand dollar machine made me hundreds of thousands, because I was concerned with mastering the technique of recording, performance and production, not what the technophiles thought.

We're doing the same thing with the Xl1 series and I would expect to do the same thing with the DVX if that were my tool of choice. As I said at the start of this thread, when the film student that applied for an internship at my studios this summer showed me his senior short done on the DVX, I thought it was done on film.

Perhaps more importantly, he couldn't even remember the name of the camera...he called it the "Panasonic Something". That speaks volumes about what it takes to make great looking work.

I'm a writer that uses cameras and recorders and design computers to try and realize a vision. Hey... I'm the Content King here <g>

<<<-- If you want to get the highest resolution image possible for film out, the XL1s is the only choice, period. It's been well documented that by taking off the XL1s lens and going directly to the CCD, either mechanically or optically (mini35), you achieve a doubling of the lines/mm resolution, going from roughly 42 lines/mm to 85-90 lines/mm. -->>>

Where is this documented? Was the DVX100 compared at the same time?

Plus, with the XL1s you must either capture interlaced or frame mode. Either is going to involve resolution loss and do your numbers above reflect this?

<<<--Another thing to remember with the DVX100 is that it is NOT true 24p. The camera and print to tape are always running at 60fps and markers are placed on the tape to achieve 24fps. Either of the DVX100s (or the VariCams for that matter) 24fps modes can casuse problems in post, which is a big thing to consider.-->>>

DVX100 is true 24p. The CCDs do capture at 24 fps, otherwise I could not use 1/24th and 1/48th shutter without weird artifacts or stutters. The image is placed on tape with one of two pulldown methods. The 2:3 pulldown preserves the full-rez 24 frames with the DV interlaced signal. You can easily edit it with the right program (I used Vegas 4.0c) and see you 24 orginal capture frames, one by one. Visit the DVX100 forum here for much more detail on this.

Stephen Wrote:

<<Where is this documented? Was the DVX100 compared at the same time?>>


AC (American Cinematographer) 4/2002 p.119 and AC 4/2003 p.120

And yes, the numbers reflect whatever resolution loss you seem to be referring to. The bottom line is that the XL1s CCDs are much more powerful than the video glass allows it be, and using better lenses directly to the CCD corrects this. If we've now doubled the lines/mm resolution of the imaging sensor, who cares if we do lose, say, 10% of resolution becuase we're interlaced. Are the DVX100s CCDs much more powerful then the Leica lens allows them to be...we'll never know will we unless you're willing to dismantle your camera.

<<DVX100 is true 24p. The CCDs do capture at 24 fps, otherwise I could not use 1/24th and 1/48th shutter without weird artifacts or stutters. The image is placed on tape with one of two pulldown methods. The 2:3 pulldown preserves the full-rez 24 frames with the DV interlaced signal. You can easily edit it with the right program (I used Vegas 4.0c) and see you 24 orginal capture frames, one by one. Visit the DVX100 forum here for much more detail on this.>>

I'm not a DVX100 expert and don't plan to be. Ask Panasonic themselves. I have sat through at least 3 presentations from high level Panasonic engineers. The two cameras do not run 24p, they approximate it...very well, but approximated. Ask any of your friends who have tried to take VariCam 24p footage and edit it natively and see what they tell you. Feel free to drop Adam Brooks a line at adam@mysticriverfilms.com and he'll tell you the horror story of posting Panasonic footage. He didn't believe me when I told him it would be, and then he had to call me to say I told him so.

You mention using the right software...that's the point. Same thing with JVC HiDef...if you buy their special software it's simple to edit their footage. What if the customer wants to use the software they've already invested a couple of thousands of dollars in.

<<<-- If we've now doubled the lines/mm resolution of the imaging sensor, who cares if we do lose, say, 10% of resolution becuase we're interlaced.->>>

Interlaced loses a lot more than 10% (see Steve Mullens article in Video Systems on progressive image capture and resolution loss. Frame mode loses 33%, so those are big numbers.

<<<-- I have sat through at least 3 presentations from high level Panasonic engineers. The two cameras do not run 24p, they approximate it...very well, but approximated. -->>>

It's 23.976fps technically but it's made up 24 unique frames, just like film.

<<<-- if you buy their special software it's simple to edit their footage. What if the customer wants to use the software they've already invested a couple of thousands of dollars in.-->>>

It's not special software. Right now Final Cut Pro 4, Avid Xpress, Vegas 4 all support (I believe Premiere Pro as well, but have not seen an official statement) natively editing DVX100 footage at 24fps. There may be some high end apps that Varicam users are having issues with, but DVX100 can basically edit now with any standard package at true 24fps (23.976 :)

23.97 is 24 is 23.97. They are synonymous. It's a matter of drop vs. non-drop.

As far as poor Bryan, the student just trying to get some friendly advice goes, all of what you need is in the posts preceeding this one, you'll just have to put on some waders to get to it. Good luck with your purchase :)

Mizell

Poor Bryan indeed! I would be cowering under a tree, thinking I sparked a near-flame war over this simple question. Fortunately, all involved here are gentlemanly enough to keep the debate informational and steer it away from mud-slinging. Good job, gents. Come out from under the tree, Bryan! Come into the light!

My two pfennigs:

For his budget and application, I think the Panasonic would be the best choice. As was pointed out here earlier, the XL1 has significant flexibility because of its modular design, but you have to buy or rent quite a bit to take advantage of same. To equip an XL1 to equal the Panasonic in viewing, wide angle capability, manual lens control and audio input capability costs something like $3-4000 over and above the the cost of the camera. At that point, you arguably have a more flexible system, and then it comes down to a subjective comparison of the image quality.

Regarding the 24p vs frame mode resolution loss: from what I've read here, applying a good de-interlacer like the Magic Bullet suite to 60i footage will net good results. I use the frame mode and like it, but if I was shooting for film blowup I'd stick to the 60i and deal with the conversion in post. Is it easier to shoot 24p to begin with? Sure.

But then again...is it better to use a Mini-35 setup directly onto the chips rather than through a not-high end relay lens (as will be the case with the DVX100)? Absolutely. When you get to the high-end (possibility of filming-out) decision-making process, the compromises become more complicated.

At this point in time, I think we're all aware of HDV knocking on the door of both of these cameras. Within one or two years, eBay will be flooded with plenty of XL1s and DVX100 packages. Any camera purchase made now will become obsolete in a more serious way in the near future; not just in a "planned obsolescence" fashion by the next model of camera that provides incremental upgrades (24P! 16:9 chips!) but by a new format that represents a huge leap in resolution, with even greater implications than the current DV revolution (anyone remember making "movies" on Hi-8?)

as a lot have said here, and as i've heard so much from my friend "if you're not going to use the interchangable lenses, get the Panasonic"

I have the old XL1 and it's a fine camera.

I am in the market and will be purchasing the Canon XL1s (October) for many reasons, the biggest being "interchangeable lenses" and the customization allowed.

Someone ealier in this thread mentioned the film "28 days later" being shot w/ Xl's, (granted PAL) that sold it for me. I also support the adage "lighting, movement, composition" are the most imporatnt tools in looking "filmlike".

There is something nostalgic abuot the look and feel of the Canon as opposed to the camcorder feel of the DVX. I prefer something that reminds me of my old Bolex, ya know, it just feels like a camera you want to make films with.

I asked the my film proffessor which one he prefers, and he also told me to get the xl1s. He told me that 24p is pretty new, and the only cameras worth filming in 24p were over $100,000. He talked to me for a couple minutes about how the interchangable lenses are really necessary, and because of the lack of changable lenses, much of the film and photography industries still stay with film.

So, thanks for all of your opinions and responses. I have decided to go with the xl1, and I should have it within two weeks.

Excellent choice, it will not let you down.

Drop us a line when you're ready to step up to the Mini35 or are interested in our various mechanical adapters for Nikokn and PL lenses for mounting on the XL1s.

Will be in Vegas for the AVN show Jan 8 - 11th if you have any questions while I'm out.

Have a great weekend,

Mizell

Jeez. Here I am. scrimping and saving my pennies, er, dollars to get an XL1s w/ Man servo 16x lens and color viewfinder (if I'm lucky, the B + W) and I just watched the mini35 footage....

Oh my. In time, I keep telling myself. In time...

Keep saving, it's definitely worth it. And remember, you can always rent the Mini35 :)

Since it came up so many times in this post, anyone interested in receiving a copy of the Mini35 demo footage should contact me a mizell@zgc.com with your postal address.

Have a great weekend,

Mizell