Stupid comparison but.. XL2 vs DVX100?

[Jim Giberti]

<<is this based on any facts or is just what you feel, if this is based on fact please educate me on how xl2 "professional" control goes beyond the dvx or pd170 for that matter...
>>

It's very simple, aside from image quality, color reproduction etc, which aside from test charts are very subjective (for instance many people would prefer the look of either the DVX or the XL1 in frame mode over a 70k digibeta, BVM etc), the critical issues of film making and other quality work are the quality of the lens on the front, the ability to use various types of lenses for different circumastances and the ability to accurately monitor this important work.

Only the XL line offers both this range and variety of glass, as well as a pro quality B&W VF. I hope i've educated you now <g>.

But seriously, that is the professional difference and niche that Canon has gratefully provided as this level. That's not even considering the ability to use EF, Optex and P&S adaptors to add virtually any piece of high end glass imagineable to you project.

When they greatly improve their resolution (all reports to date) and add 24p and native 16:9 to this paradigm, it of course makes the XL2 yet better foundation for a wide range of professional work. And unique in the wolrd in this regard.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Jim:

I don't think it's a case of spend more money, get better image. With that logic, just buy a Viper or IMAX or other cam and get the best image possible.

My argument is price/performance. The price increase in the XL2 system, either in base form or with all the extra glass, viewfinders etc. does not appear to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in image qualilty. It's a issue of diminishing returns. When all is said and done, it's still a 720X480 DV image (NTSC).

I don't see the $5000+ DV market to be growing - HD is coming down, HDV is making a little noise and DVC Pro etc are close.

This camera two years ago would have been interesting. Now, it seems aimed primarily at XL systems users.

I also think there some concerns about the dense CCD block and 8-bit DSP on the XL2 that may produce some issues with quality though the reports I saw were very unscientific and reproducable.

With the information available today I don't see how the XL2 justifies the very high price except for small number of users outside of XL system users with a investment in lens etc.

Canon can probably make a good deal of money upgrading all those users and if I had a XL1/s - you bet I would be thinking XL2.

[Jim Giberti]

<<I don't think it's a case of spend more money, get better image. With that logic, just buy a Viper or IMAX or other cam and get the best image possible.>>

Do you have any idea what those cost? One way or the other Stephen, we're talking a few thousand dollars here. I'm talking apples to apples you jsut started talking apples to diamonds.

<<My argument is price/performance. The price increase in the XL2 system, either in base form or with all the extra glass, viewfinders etc. does not appear to be accompanied by a corresponding increase in image qualilty.>>

No offense but that is just a silly statement seeing as though neither of us has seen the quality. If you've read things here, and put any trust in some of the experienced videograhers and film makers that have tested it, their opinion is opposite of what you've stated with no experience.

<<It's a issue of diminishing returns. When all is said and done, it's still a 720X480 DV image (NTSC).>>

Which has been good enough for major releases and millions of dollars in work in recent years. What's your point?

<<I don't see the $5000+ DV market to be growing - HD is coming down, HDV is making a little noise and DVC Pro etc are close.>>

I don't know about you, but I've got a years worth of projects lined up and I'd hold them all back if I could add the native 16:9, 24p and high res to my conventional and Mini 35 shoots. HD is not a money maker at this level. IF you wwant to drop a few hundred grand into a real HD camera amd the glass it requires then that's one thing. The promise" of HDV is simply a discussion point. The viable, day to day production in HD is just not a reality...720x480 NTSC is how most of us make a living and will for a long while.

<<This camera two years ago would have been interesting. Now, it seems aimed primarily at XL systems users.>>

Well it's pretty darn interesting to a boat load of high end users I know. If you don't seee the attraction that's cool, but why denigrate something you haven't even held or seen?

<<I also think there some concerns about the dense CCD block and 8-bit DSP on the XL2 that may produce some issues with quality though the reports I saw were very unscientific and reproducable.>>

There are some concerns with everything in life. Canon makes really nice cameras at a very important pro price break. I'm betting they'll deliver again with the XL2

<<With the information available today I don't see how the XL2 justifies the very high price except for small number of users outside of XL system users with a investment in lens etc.>>

Again the term "very high price" is even more subjective than image quality. Personally I think it's ridiculous that I can grab a camera of this quality, with a gorgeous manual lens and a pro hi-res VF and produce work on the fly better than with systems that cost tens of thousands of dollars more for as long as I've been involved in this biz.

The investment of 5 to 10K for a full blown system of thei potential is cheap..if you're getting paid for your work. If not, sure the cheaper cameras are the way to go.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Jim:

Your points are accurate for you - I have no disagreement with your statements applying them to you or similar users. You have a large investment in a XL/mini35 macintosh system.

But take me. I'm a PC user inbetween cameras. I own neither any XL system parts nor a mini35. Are your sure that I would earn that much more money with a XL2 than a DVX100a? I'm not convinced. Price/performance is a issue even without final quality results from the XL2 - DVX100a pushes the limits of DV, even with it's 16:9 limitations.

I still see DV as format without huge growth expect in low cost cams - in a couple of years, we can see what happens, for now, we can agree to disagree.

To take the G5 analogy:

While a G5 is a nice machine, I would have rebuy every piece of software I own (I own nothing that is cross-platform) for two machines not to mention the cost of a high end PowerBook and Dual G5 - how would this be a good business decision? My existing Vegas, After Effects etc. system works wonderfully and very fast, very stable.

Regardless of platfom personal preferences, as a new buyer, DVX100a has the bang for the buck, nice glass, plenty of system options for much less money. For me, it's the smarter decision despite the fact that I was emotionally prepared to prefer the XL2 as I own a Canon 35mm and Handycam.

[Jim Giberti]

<< take me. I'm a PC user inbetween cameras. I own neither any XL system parts nor a mini35. Are your sure that I would earn that much more money with a XL2 than a DVX100a? I'm not convinced. Price/performance is a issue even without final quality results from the XL2 - DVX100a pushes the limits of DV, even with it's 16:9 limitations.>>

First Stephen let me say I'm enjoying a little down time after a looong weekend in the music and video editing suite, and enjoying this little discussion with you. Of course I can't say that you would make more money with any camera.

What I am saying is that categorically, by the nature of their design and market, the XL model and now specifically the XL2 offers a totally different spectrum of professional enhancements than the DVX. And for a grand or so more, it is certainly the choice I would make, even if I were not already invested in the XL line.

<<I still see DV as format without huge growth expect in low cost cams - in a couple of years, we can see what happens, for now, we can agree to disagree.>>

Well we really dopn't disagree, my point is that if you make your living today in this creative field...tomorrow will take care of itself.


<<While a G5 is a nice machine, I would have rebuy every piece of software I own (I own nothing that is cross-platform) for two machines not to mention the cost of a high end PowerBook and Dual G5 - how would this be a good business decision? My existing Vegas, After Effects etc. system works wonderfully and very fast, very stable.>>

Absolutely, but my point was and is, if you've never sat at a Dual G5 running Panther and the suite of programs I cited that you'll never see on your PC, then you can't extrapolate from your experience.

For a quick instance, I had to do a presentation very recently that, didn't require but, this setup allowd me to bring in, in 24 hours a completely interactive DVD with full motion menus, animated (I mean really nice) text and grahics, composite work..the whole shebang, plunk down the powerbook and let the clients sit and play it in the conference room (and leave copies behind for all the parties).

Now I've been doing this for a while and it would have taken three teams in two departments to pull that off a couple of years ago...and even then we'd need an outside source to integrate everything and author it onto interactive DVD.

I was able to do it because of this whole new paradigm of integrated OS, Hardware and software suite designed to optimize performance and move in real time between these amazing new programs. Trust me you couldn't do it on your PC no matter what you're running.

Here's my point...what's that worth to you...to me? Well, if that presentation was worth a hundred thousand dollar project, then I would be crazy to not spend the, say...$7500 for that setup. What if I do 20 presentations a year?

When you consider that no other salaries and overhead were involved, then it becomes even more compelling. When you get to a point where you could be turning out a higher end product in much less time, that's when a thousand or two stops being an issue and starts being insignificant by comparison to profit.

That's why I say focus on your talent and skills and get to a place where the better tools are not a luxury but a pragmatic choice...and remember I'm still talking thousands...not tens of thousands.

<<Regardless of platfom personal preferences, as a new buyer, DVX100a has the bang for the buck, nice glass, plenty of system options for much less money. For me>>

Which is why there are different camera companies and models, and why I love the DVX, but would never consider the XL2 any kind of disappointment

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I think this horse is limping badly now :)

but I hear your points. However, I will clarify that my "dissappointment" over the XL2 pricing is only for me, not a global judgment. I understand completely why Canon designed and priced it the way they did.

My comments were to illuminate my thinking and what's best for me - I enjoy reading the same from others.. Your arguments seem to be more about what you think is best for others. I'll stand by that each person has to make that decision for ourselves.

Personally, I earn income from computer consulting. As I am primarily an indie filmmaker, musician and artist, price/perfomance is important to me as my gear just has to pay for itself, not pay my bills. I need the rest of that time for purely artistic pursuits as well as running the local indie film group. I see the DVX100a as helping me reach my goals faster, cheaper and better.

I also direct and dp all my projects, so how I relate to my actors is very important. I like the DVX form factor to boot vs. XL2. Other shooter prefer the XL2.

Ulimately any camera, computer platform is personal preference. I've seen it from huge enterprise systems down to the most basic user.

Fortunately, there are still plenty of platforms available - personally I would like to see more camera and computer platforms available.

We are long way from truly easy to use, intuitive, powerful technology.

[Jim Giberti]

<<We are long way from truly easy to use, intuitive, powerful technology.>>

you need to visit my new studio.

[Michael Wisniewski]

Hey post a pic Jim!
------------------------
My 2 cents on the XL-2/DVX100 debate ...

I think the XL-2 doesn't really compete with the DVX100. It's just that there's a huge gap in Canon's line up where the DVX100 sits - a 16:9/24p/30p fixed lense camcorder - so everyone's looking for the next closest thing which is the XL-2.

Though similar, XL users have fundamentally different priorities from those in the DVX camp. Well ... and then there are those who go both ways :-p

Perhaps the GL-3 could fill that gap?

[Aaron Koolen]

The Gl3 might fil that gap but it's probably a wee way off yet - read about a year maybe? Even then, if it's like the other GL series, which is basically a cut down version of the XL, with fixed lens and sometimes an improved resolution CCD (In the case of the GL2 is was) and little else, then it might still.

But any talk of a Gl3 is even crazier conjecture than the talk about the Xl2.

Aaron

[Rob Onekea]

yeah, I have a client now that's going to be paying me pretty decent so for now I probably have to go with the DVX. I'm on waiting list for an XL2, only reason is I have several chargers, already balanced jibs (i know, lazy... :-) ) and we already have 2 XL1s.

Question though, what about the editors that shoot 4:3 and just place bars using a 16:9 template? I'm still relatively new to the "real" applications for it but just curious what some of your thoughts are.

[Charles Papert]

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren:

Price/performance is a issue even without final quality results from the XL2 - DVX100a pushes the limits of DV, even with it's 16:9 limitations. -->>>

A good 2/3" camera fed to a DV deck will produce a higher quality image than the DVX100a or the XL2, or any 1/3" for that matter; I certainly can't see the DVX100a being the pinnacle of DV technology. If there wasn't a movement towards HD on the horizon, we'd be likely to eventually see cameras at the same price point as the current crop that would continue to raise the bar.

[Jim Giberti]

<<Hey post a pic Jim!>>

I will Michael...we're shooting for a 1st of August move in date. All new audio, video, design suites and a small soundstage, all at the top of the mountain.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert :g
A good 2/3" camera fed to a DV deck will produce a higher quality image than the DVX100a or the XL2, or any 1/3" for that matter; I certainly can't see the DVX100a being the pinnacle of DV technology. If there wasn't a movement towards HD on the horizon, we'd be likely to eventually see cameras at the same price point as the current crop that would continue to raise the bar. -->>>

Charles:

I don't disagree, but the price/performance question is still valid. How much better picture will a 2/3" camera give you on a DV deck than a DVX100. A 2/3" camera is going to be several times the price of DVX100 and won't deliver several times better pictures.

True progressive scan was a big revolution in 3-chip minidv cameras. 16:9 using more pixels does improve as well, though not as revolutionary as progressive scan.

There just are not any revolutionary imaqge quality improvements available in the DV format. Any improvements will corrur in HD, HDV or home-built uncompressed cams like Juan P.s

That's what I mean by DVX has pushed the limits. The XL2 adds 16:9 to the table, but that's it. Anthing else, even hooking a Viper Cam upto a DV deck is incremental at a best and unnoticable to most viewers at worst.

After much thought, I still see the DVX100 as the price/performance leader in the 25 mbs DV space.

[Jim Giberti]

<<After much thought, I still see the DVX100 as the price/performance leader in the 25 mbs DV space.>>


And that conclusion having never even seen an XL2..there's sound empirical reasoning at work <g>.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Jim:

I've seen a reasonable number of frame grabs, clips and user reports to know that the quality of the XL2 is not revolutionary compared to the DVX100.