Calling all Xl2 owners....help! Is my camera defective? samples for you...

Marty Hudzik · September 8th, 2004, 04:44 PM

I am not knocking the price if it looks good! I feel there is some theory here that I am dogging this cam. I'm not. But with mine at least it isn't up to snuff. Yet. Do I think it is better than the DVX? Maybe. At the moment I can't get a sharp picture out of it if my life depended on it. I was expecting a higher res looking image. In my comparisons so far I don't see it. I see softness and no apparent resolution boost. And I never set out to compare it to the DVX. I expected to shoot some footage with and and be amazed! IF not amazed at least be impressed with the saem clean sharp technology that the DVX gave me. When I viewed it for the first time I was underwhelmed......It wasn;t anywhere near as crisp and the colors were drab! This is daylight! BUt look at those web videos of vienna! They look great.....surely I am doing something wrong. BUt through 3 days of playing it still produces a soft, uncolorful picture.

I am hoping that it is defective and a new one will make me happy. BUt in all honesty there are some drawbacks that I don;t like that much anyway but was willing to work around them for the supposed resolution gain and clear almost HD quality image.
The iris control I don't like, the viewfinder is nowhere near the quality of the DVX LCD, and the zoom and focus rings are that weak servo deal. I knew of these limitations coming in but expected to be rewarded with amzing imagery. Even in moderate light. It just isn't happening so far. And that makes these inconveniences seem even bigger.WHy give up the things I am comfortable with on the DVX if the XL2 doesn't bring a better image to the table? And for me....so far it hasn't.

But good gracious the images posted by others here and on the web look gorgeous and colorful.

Aaron Koolen · September 8th, 2004, 04:47 PM

I don't have an XL2 and if I get one it'll be a while before the PAL version is available here. But I must say that what I have seen of Johnnie's stuff over on DVXUser was absolutely amazing. I dunno if it was what you'd call "better" than the DVX as I don't have one of those either, but it was very nice.

Have you guys, who are having the trouble, tried playing with the camera some to see where it gets it's best results? Maybe out of the box it isn't that great?

I do however agree that is seems overpriced but that always has to be taken relative to your personal requirements. The Xl2 does have features that the DVX lacks, but the opposite can be said too. If you're in the indie filmmaking crowd, working on a lowbudget, you want a camera that fills most of the areas you want, all without having to spend a tonne more. This is where I think the DVX wins hands down

1) Good sized LCD for better focussing
2) Rings for Zoom, Iris and Focus.
3) Repeatable markings on barrel
4) Nice wide angle lens.

Now if you were an ENG/Event person, you're probably totally rapt with the XL2 and would prefer it over the DVX for it's own reasons

1) 20x zoom
2) Excellent OIS
3) Shoulder resting

Now if you're in the middle (like me :( ) , you're hosed with either cam without spending substantially more.

For me, I'd think the Xl2 was the Bees Knees from what I've seen if it'd only had an LCD and they'd not put that STUPID iris flick switch on it - Is there anyone out there who likes this thing? Seriously I feel like giving my Xm2 a nice punt into next year whenever I have to adjust the iris on it. ;)

Aaron

Lasse Bodoni · September 8th, 2004, 05:25 PM

I don't have the XL2 but have seen the test movie made by a guy in Austria.

He was talking abouth something you have to do again after you where choosing a setting. He made the same mistake and the først test he made was the same as yours.

Try on the www.dvxuser.com

Lasse Bodoni · September 8th, 2004, 05:34 PM

"Back from few more hours with the camera.
The more I use it.more I like it...
I think I found out why the footage I took 2 days ago is looking kind of "videoish".

1-Somehow the cine matrix on that demo camera is not really working.

2-The camera have a default status plus 3 adjustable.

After adjusting some parameters,when you go out of the menu you have to "call" the cine file you just adjusted other wise the camera will film on its default.Only today I got it...
The picture quality is amazing and almost totally noise free.
Still not enough filmic but I hope to get there...
I will send Jarred more material during the weekend and hopefully some will be posted. "

This is from the www.dvxuser.com , he made the first test with the Canon XL2.

http://www.24puser.com/XL2Video.wmv take a look at this.

Maya Taylor · September 8th, 2004, 05:48 PM

Barry,

I am not here to start a flame or anything but I will stand by the fact that the XL2 is an overpriced cam for being "old DVX technology". Of course I paid $3150 for the DVX and $5000 for the XL2.... so while your difference was only $600 my difference is $2000....so I am sure you can see where I am coming from at this point....

I guess it comes down to opinions and preferences....funny cause you knock the DVX100 motorized zoom and i find it much better than the XL2....different people, different preferences! :-)

This post wasn't even intended to offend you or anything, I guess from all the people who were raving and saying how unbelievable the picture quality was, I expected to be blown away....instead it pretty much look like a DVX100, and you know how easy we get spoiled.... the DVX looked awesome when we first used it but overtime you got used to it and eventually want a better picture (even though it's a good picture to begin with).....so i expected the XL2 to really outshine the DVX and find out that it really doesn't.... just my opinion that's it!
What i don't understand is why did it take Canon so long to come up with the XL2 when it's really a DVX100 inside a canon body?

Either way the whole point of my post was to tell Marty that what he's getting from his XL2 is what is expected from it. I will bet you anything you want that even if he exchanges it for another one he will get the same results. I don't believe there is anything wrong with his camera....

Barry Goyette · September 8th, 2004, 06:36 PM

Maya,

No offense taken...just having a spirited discussion. :)

One of the things that we all need to remember about these cameras, and it has been said often by people much wiser than myself...they all have more in common than they have differences. In the case of the DVX and XL2...one look at the menu choices lets us know that Canon is licensing the technology from panasonic...(no mystery here...every canon 3 chip has panasonic technology inside). On top of this, the overriding limiter of any DV camera is the format itself. There is only so much data that be stored in a frame that is 720x480 that is lossy compressed 5:1.

As Chris told me once, Canon's video division is a relatively small company compared to its still camera biz, and certainly it is much smaller than panasonic and sony, who both have well developed professional video divisions. Canon's strength is in its innovative design...whether you like it or not, the xl2 is a unique animal. I'm not being an apologist for canon, I'm just suggesting that for those who like the xl1 platform ---the way it works-- the addition of DVX-like technology is a huge thing. (the same could be said if canon licensed its industrial design to panasonic--a certain number of DVX users would shout---cool!!) Anyway, when you add a 16:9 function that surpasses anything the DVX can offer in terms of resolution...we're not really talking about "old" DVX technology. My experience viewing xl2 footage has been different than yours...Viewing on an HD monitor, I have never seen such delicate detail from a DV format camera, almost no noticeable aliasing.

But I keep wondering why we are seeing different things...is it our monitors..is it our settings...or just our eyes. Marty's shooting 24p, I'm shooting 30p....is there possibly a difference....only time will tell.

Barry

Scott Aston · September 8th, 2004, 06:42 PM

Take into consideration that to achieve "True" 16:9 from the DVX, you have to slap on a $700 - $800 anamorphic adapter. With that said, now the two camera's are only a $1,000 give or take apart in price. Couple that with the XL2's ability to change lenses and now ask yourself is the XL2 overpriced? If 16:9 is "important to you then it's (XL2) is very competitive at it's current price point. If 16:9 is not a feature you need, then you probably wouldn't have considered the XL2 anyway.

Aaron Koolen · September 8th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Who knows why it took Canon so long...

Maybe they were making enough from their Xl1s

Maybe Panasonic (Assuming they have their technology inside) wouldn't allow them to use it.

Maybe they see their market as ENG/Event and not Filmmakers so the other additions were better.

Maybe the prefer to make more $$ from the addons they sell rather than offer an all in one package.

Maybe they don't really care about this sort of market and are happy to be taggers on rather than ground breakers.

My feeling is the latter two, but that's not necessarily the truth and we'll probably never know.

Now if Panasonic could only add interchangeable lens technology then things might start to get interesting...

Aaron

Boyd Ostroff · September 8th, 2004, 07:05 PM

As a "fly on the wall" I would just point out that you're buying the XL-2 a few days after it's been released so it really isn't realistic to expect any "bargains." Didn't the DVX sell for something like $3,700 at release? If so, at $3,150 that's about a 15% discount. If cost is a big factor then wait a couple months for inventories to build up and demand to level off. As competition heats up then Canon may start pricing the XL-2 a little more aggressively...

Joel Guy · September 8th, 2004, 07:07 PM

Aaron,

With 16:9 and the interchangable lens system, which allows for manual lenses with barrel markings, with without servo if you go to the 14x, I think the XL2 is a lot more filmmaker friendly than the DVX. Just buy a body kit and add on from there. Really the XL2 is for anyone, that's one of the things that makes Canon so great. It's fully customizable. The DVX feels really limited in that way.

Greg Boston · September 8th, 2004, 07:31 PM

The one factor that no one has mentioned which could be crucial. The footage of Vienna was shot with a PAL version of the XL2. I know the PAL unit has different CCD's.

Could this possibly explain the difference? I really hope not because my XL-2 is due to arrive in 2 days. I am going to give it a good workout in progressive 16x9 and see how it plays on my 65" widescreen tv. Would love to get the kind of 'wow' factor that Barry mentions. I will keep my fingers crossed.

Aaron Koolen · September 8th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Joel, I totally agree with you. Sure the Xl2 is expandable and VERY filmmaker friendly, but I guess the clinching factor that me and lots of others are talking about is the price factor and expectations. That's what I think have been shattered.

I think a lot of people think that the things that the DVX offers should be considered standard fair now - I mean the camera has been out for years - if you're an indie filmmaker on a low budget. So they expect an LCD of decent size (Cause they can't afford a pro monitor for the set). They expect a good wide angle cause that's popular and very useful indoors (And not have to buy an adapter). They expect good manual control of the lens built in (So they can pull focus etc) without having to buy another lens - and in the DVX case you can't so if that had none of those things they'd be screwed.

Sure to do all those properly on the Xl2 you buy a proper monitor, proper manual lens for the XL2, wide angle lens etc, but that's a lot more $$. Canon could have absolutely made a lens that was wide and manual as standard. I just feel that that would have killed a lot of their income on the other lenses and so they, of course wouldn't do it.

I applauded Panasonic for coming out with something revolutionary - for breaking the mold. Canon just used it - the remind me of the Commodore of the video camera industry. Good potential, just wasted.

I bitch about this a lot and I think it really does no good, so I'll stop. I just have to be happy with being dissapointed.

Aaron

David Lach · September 8th, 2004, 09:04 PM

<<<-- Canon could have absolutely made a lens that was wide and manual as standard. I just feel that that would have killed a lot of their income on the other lenses and so they, of course wouldn't do it. -->>>

Hey Aaron, you never know, maybe that lens is coming. We've had the 16X AF IS, the 14x manual, the 16x AF IS II, the 3x AF wide, the 16x manual, the 20x AF IS, now why not a nice wide angle, short zoom, high resolution full manual lens? It wouldn't kill any of their other lenses, since only the 3x AF wide angle would offer a similar focal range, but no AF on this one, so not really the same market. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for that lens to be released soon.

Gary McClurg · September 8th, 2004, 09:20 PM

To me you guys are worrying about nothing. Just like the guy with the moire problem. A whole thread on it and then you find out it was operator error.

Marty Hudzik · September 8th, 2004, 11:16 PM

Oh wow! A whole thread about it! Big Deal. I'm discussing ways to make the image look better and if nobody can suggest something that I haven't tried to fix it I have to assume that it is defective or overhyped. Side by side in good lighting or bad lighting in does not look one bit better to me than the DVX other than the 16x9. But I don;t want 16x9 with poor color reproduction and soft images. My DVX (no longer have it) consistently gave sharp clear pictures regardless of the light.

Yes it looked incredible on a set with pro lighting but it didn't look bad shooting in a non scripted non professionally lit scene either.

So far only the outside shots even compare with the DVX res and sharpness. Inside it looks grey and washed out. I have tried changing settings, tweaking colors and even using gain. IT helps but there is not mistaking that something is off. At least on this camera. And I find it hard to beleive that something that is this obvious to me on the videos I've shot could be deemed acceptable to everyone else.

My only thought is that the frame grabs do not properly show the issue at hand. There is a real lack of contrast in most of the footage.

September 8th, 2004, 04:47 PM	#17
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	I don't have an XL2 and if I get one it'll be a while before the PAL version is available here. But I must say that what I have seen of Johnnie's stuff over on DVXUser was absolutely amazing. I dunno if it was what you'd call "better" than the DVX as I don't have one of those either, but it was very nice. Have you guys, who are having the trouble, tried playing with the camera some to see where it gets it's best results? Maybe out of the box it isn't that great? I do however agree that is seems overpriced but that always has to be taken relative to your personal requirements. The Xl2 does have features that the DVX lacks, but the opposite can be said too. If you're in the indie filmmaking crowd, working on a lowbudget, you want a camera that fills most of the areas you want, all without having to spend a tonne more. This is where I think the DVX wins hands down 1) Good sized LCD for better focussing 2) Rings for Zoom, Iris and Focus. 3) Repeatable markings on barrel 4) Nice wide angle lens. Now if you were an ENG/Event person, you're probably totally rapt with the XL2 and would prefer it over the DVX for it's own reasons 1) 20x zoom 2) Excellent OIS 3) Shoulder resting Now if you're in the middle (like me :( ) , you're hosed with either cam without spending substantially more. For me, I'd think the Xl2 was the Bees Knees from what I've seen if it'd only had an LCD and they'd not put that STUPID iris flick switch on it - Is there anyone out there who likes this thing? Seriously I feel like giving my Xm2 a nice punt into next year whenever I have to adjust the iris on it. ;) Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

September 8th, 2004, 06:42 PM	#22
Scott Aston Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 75	Take into consideration that to achieve "True" 16:9 from the DVX, you have to slap on a $700 - $800 anamorphic adapter. With that said, now the two camera's are only a $1,000 give or take apart in price. Couple that with the XL2's ability to change lenses and now ask yourself is the XL2 overpriced? If 16:9 is "important to you then it's (XL2) is very competitive at it's current price point. If 16:9 is not a feature you need, then you probably wouldn't have considered the XL2 anyway. __________________ Scott Aston Eyecon Pictures, Inc.

September 8th, 2004, 06:43 PM	#23
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Who knows why it took Canon so long... Maybe they were making enough from their Xl1s Maybe Panasonic (Assuming they have their technology inside) wouldn't allow them to use it. Maybe they see their market as ENG/Event and not Filmmakers so the other additions were better. Maybe the prefer to make more $$ from the addons they sell rather than offer an all in one package. Maybe they don't really care about this sort of market and are happy to be taggers on rather than ground breakers. My feeling is the latter two, but that's not necessarily the truth and we'll probably never know. Now if Panasonic could only add interchangeable lens technology then things might start to get interesting... Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

September 8th, 2004, 07:39 PM	#27
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Joel, I totally agree with you. Sure the Xl2 is expandable and VERY filmmaker friendly, but I guess the clinching factor that me and lots of others are talking about is the price factor and expectations. That's what I think have been shattered. I think a lot of people think that the things that the DVX offers should be considered standard fair now - I mean the camera has been out for years - if you're an indie filmmaker on a low budget. So they expect an LCD of decent size (Cause they can't afford a pro monitor for the set). They expect a good wide angle cause that's popular and very useful indoors (And not have to buy an adapter). They expect good manual control of the lens built in (So they can pull focus etc) without having to buy another lens - and in the DVX case you can't so if that had none of those things they'd be screwed. Sure to do all those properly on the Xl2 you buy a proper monitor, proper manual lens for the XL2, wide angle lens etc, but that's a lot more $$. Canon could have absolutely made a lens that was wide and manual as standard. I just feel that that would have killed a lot of their income on the other lenses and so they, of course wouldn't do it. I applauded Panasonic for coming out with something revolutionary - for breaking the mold. Canon just used it - the remind me of the Commodore of the video camera industry. Good potential, just wasted. I bitch about this a lot and I think it really does no good, so I'll stop. I just have to be happy with being dissapointed. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

September 8th, 2004, 04:44 PM	#16
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	I am not knocking the price if it looks good! I feel there is some theory here that I am dogging this cam. I'm not. But with mine at least it isn't up to snuff. Yet. Do I think it is better than the DVX? Maybe. At the moment I can't get a sharp picture out of it if my life depended on it. I was expecting a higher res looking image. In my comparisons so far I don't see it. I see softness and no apparent resolution boost. And I never set out to compare it to the DVX. I expected to shoot some footage with and and be amazed! IF not amazed at least be impressed with the saem clean sharp technology that the DVX gave me. When I viewed it for the first time I was underwhelmed......It wasn;t anywhere near as crisp and the colors were drab! This is daylight! BUt look at those web videos of vienna! They look great.....surely I am doing something wrong. BUt through 3 days of playing it still produces a soft, uncolorful picture. I am hoping that it is defective and a new one will make me happy. BUt in all honesty there are some drawbacks that I don;t like that much anyway but was willing to work around them for the supposed resolution gain and clear almost HD quality image. The iris control I don't like, the viewfinder is nowhere near the quality of the DVX LCD, and the zoom and focus rings are that weak servo deal. I knew of these limitations coming in but expected to be rewarded with amzing imagery. Even in moderate light. It just isn't happening so far. And that makes these inconveniences seem even bigger.WHy give up the things I am comfortable with on the DVX if the XL2 doesn't bring a better image to the table? And for me....so far it hasn't. But good gracious the images posted by others here and on the web look gorgeous and colorful.

September 8th, 2004, 05:25 PM	#18
Lasse Bodoni Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 39	I don't have the XL2 but have seen the test movie made by a guy in Austria. He was talking abouth something you have to do again after you where choosing a setting. He made the same mistake and the først test he made was the same as yours. Try on the www.dvxuser.com

September 8th, 2004, 05:34 PM	#19
Lasse Bodoni Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 39	"Back from few more hours with the camera. The more I use it.more I like it... I think I found out why the footage I took 2 days ago is looking kind of "videoish". 1-Somehow the cine matrix on that demo camera is not really working. 2-The camera have a default status plus 3 adjustable. After adjusting some parameters,when you go out of the menu you have to "call" the cine file you just adjusted other wise the camera will film on its default.Only today I got it... The picture quality is amazing and almost totally noise free. Still not enough filmic but I hope to get there... I will send Jarred more material during the weekend and hopefully some will be posted. " This is from the www.dvxuser.com , he made the first test with the Canon XL2. http://www.24puser.com/XL2Video.wmv take a look at this.

September 8th, 2004, 05:48 PM	#20
Maya Taylor New Boot Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 21	Barry, I am not here to start a flame or anything but I will stand by the fact that the XL2 is an overpriced cam for being "old DVX technology". Of course I paid $3150 for the DVX and $5000 for the XL2.... so while your difference was only $600 my difference is $2000....so I am sure you can see where I am coming from at this point.... I guess it comes down to opinions and preferences....funny cause you knock the DVX100 motorized zoom and i find it much better than the XL2....different people, different preferences! :-) This post wasn't even intended to offend you or anything, I guess from all the people who were raving and saying how unbelievable the picture quality was, I expected to be blown away....instead it pretty much look like a DVX100, and you know how easy we get spoiled.... the DVX looked awesome when we first used it but overtime you got used to it and eventually want a better picture (even though it's a good picture to begin with).....so i expected the XL2 to really outshine the DVX and find out that it really doesn't.... just my opinion that's it! What i don't understand is why did it take Canon so long to come up with the XL2 when it's really a DVX100 inside a canon body? Either way the whole point of my post was to tell Marty that what he's getting from his XL2 is what is expected from it. I will bet you anything you want that even if he exchanges it for another one he will get the same results. I don't believe there is anything wrong with his camera....

September 8th, 2004, 06:36 PM	#21
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Maya, No offense taken...just having a spirited discussion. :) One of the things that we all need to remember about these cameras, and it has been said often by people much wiser than myself...they all have more in common than they have differences. In the case of the DVX and XL2...one look at the menu choices lets us know that Canon is licensing the technology from panasonic...(no mystery here...every canon 3 chip has panasonic technology inside). On top of this, the overriding limiter of any DV camera is the format itself. There is only so much data that be stored in a frame that is 720x480 that is lossy compressed 5:1. As Chris told me once, Canon's video division is a relatively small company compared to its still camera biz, and certainly it is much smaller than panasonic and sony, who both have well developed professional video divisions. Canon's strength is in its innovative design...whether you like it or not, the xl2 is a unique animal. I'm not being an apologist for canon, I'm just suggesting that for those who like the xl1 platform ---the way it works-- the addition of DVX-like technology is a huge thing. (the same could be said if canon licensed its industrial design to panasonic--a certain number of DVX users would shout---cool!!) Anyway, when you add a 16:9 function that surpasses anything the DVX can offer in terms of resolution...we're not really talking about "old" DVX technology. My experience viewing xl2 footage has been different than yours...Viewing on an HD monitor, I have never seen such delicate detail from a DV format camera, almost no noticeable aliasing. But I keep wondering why we are seeing different things...is it our monitors..is it our settings...or just our eyes. Marty's shooting 24p, I'm shooting 30p....is there possibly a difference....only time will tell. Barry

September 8th, 2004, 07:05 PM	#24
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	As a "fly on the wall" I would just point out that you're buying the XL-2 a few days after it's been released so it really isn't realistic to expect any "bargains." Didn't the DVX sell for something like $3,700 at release? If so, at $3,150 that's about a 15% discount. If cost is a big factor then wait a couple months for inventories to build up and demand to level off. As competition heats up then Canon may start pricing the XL-2 a little more aggressively...

September 8th, 2004, 07:07 PM	#25
Joel Guy Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: NYC, NY Posts: 151	Aaron, With 16:9 and the interchangable lens system, which allows for manual lenses with barrel markings, with without servo if you go to the 14x, I think the XL2 is a lot more filmmaker friendly than the DVX. Just buy a body kit and add on from there. Really the XL2 is for anyone, that's one of the things that makes Canon so great. It's fully customizable. The DVX feels really limited in that way.

September 8th, 2004, 07:31 PM	#26
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	The one factor that no one has mentioned which could be crucial. The footage of Vienna was shot with a PAL version of the XL2. I know the PAL unit has different CCD's. Could this possibly explain the difference? I really hope not because my XL-2 is due to arrive in 2 days. I am going to give it a good workout in progressive 16x9 and see how it plays on my 65" widescreen tv. Would love to get the kind of 'wow' factor that Barry mentions. I will keep my fingers crossed.

September 8th, 2004, 09:04 PM	#28
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	<<<-- Canon could have absolutely made a lens that was wide and manual as standard. I just feel that that would have killed a lot of their income on the other lenses and so they, of course wouldn't do it. -->>> Hey Aaron, you never know, maybe that lens is coming. We've had the 16X AF IS, the 14x manual, the 16x AF IS II, the 3x AF wide, the 16x manual, the 20x AF IS, now why not a nice wide angle, short zoom, high resolution full manual lens? It wouldn't kill any of their other lenses, since only the 3x AF wide angle would offer a similar focal range, but no AF on this one, so not really the same market. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for that lens to be released soon.

September 8th, 2004, 09:20 PM	#29
Gary McClurg Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Springfield, MO, USA Posts: 389	To me you guys are worrying about nothing. Just like the guy with the moire problem. A whole thread on it and then you find out it was operator error.

September 8th, 2004, 11:16 PM	#30
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Oh wow! A whole thread about it! Big Deal. I'm discussing ways to make the image look better and if nobody can suggest something that I haven't tried to fix it I have to assume that it is defective or overhyped. Side by side in good lighting or bad lighting in does not look one bit better to me than the DVX other than the 16x9. But I don;t want 16x9 with poor color reproduction and soft images. My DVX (no longer have it) consistently gave sharp clear pictures regardless of the light. Yes it looked incredible on a set with pro lighting but it didn't look bad shooting in a non scripted non professionally lit scene either. So far only the outside shots even compare with the DVX res and sharpness. Inside it looks grey and washed out. I have tried changing settings, tweaking colors and even using gain. IT helps but there is not mistaking that something is off. At least on this camera. And I find it hard to beleive that something that is this obvious to me on the videos I've shot could be deemed acceptable to everyone else. My only thought is that the frame grabs do not properly show the issue at hand. There is a real lack of contrast in most of the footage.