Film Look... High end 60i video camera/software vs less expensive 24p camera/software?

I have been going through the last few weeks thinking about bringing our production company up to the next level. We have been using a HL-DV7AW Ikegami 16:9/4:3 2/3" chip camera, a couple of Panasonic DVC-200 4:3 1/2" chip and an XL1s. We do mostly TV commercials and music video and have had a lot of success with film type looks using magic bullet editor in Final cut and Nattress G-Film for a 24p motion look. What i am wondering is that if we shift our camera inventory around to XL2 cameras will we end up with a better product output. All of our work has a non-video look and I wonder if a true 24p with cini gamma from the camera look will outweigh the larger chip size and better lenses of our present cameras that then get software processed for a film motion and gamma look.

I realize that this is something that I'll ultimately have to decide but any experience in this area would be appreciated

Thanks,

Richard
2K-Plus
Atlanta

That's a difficult one to answer.

The only thing that can be definitively stated is that a true 24P capture process will give you more filmlike motion rendering than any 24P simulator from 60i material. However, how much better is the question -- is it 10 times better? or 10% better? That depends on the simulator and on the specific subject matter you're shooting.

If you're happy with the results you're getting, why switch?

For interlaced video, I'm sure the Ikegami is going to do a better job than the XL2. For filmlook video, I don't know that there's an easy answer -- the best thing for you to do is get ahold of one for a day (preferably with an experienced operator) and shoot some side-by-side's to know for a fact whether the output you seek will be delivered.

Hi Barry,

Thanks very much for the well thought out reply. We had a DVX100 (not A) when they first came out an it worked well under the right lighting but unfortunately some of the commercials and music performance videos we do are not conducive to studio or production type high budget lighting and it fell short in that area. Some of the stuff we do almost needs that ENG capability and for that the XL1s has been a great improvement over the XL1. Some of the XL2 footage I've seen (especially a 210mb DV clip posted on the XL2 forum) has actually looked quite good for both low light as well as pretty decent resolution when going wide. We have the 16X manual and 3X wide XL lenses and your suggestion to obtain an XL2 and try a side-by-side is a good idea. If I can find a production group here in Atlanta possibly I'll offer to bring out the Ike on a 16:9 shoot for a copy of the XL2 footage and play with the results in the Final Cut Pro with the plugins and compare.

Richard