|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 27th, 2005, 01:45 PM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Conway, NH
Posts: 574
|
Has anyone posted XL2 comparison pix vs. PD170, etc?
Has anyone done any comprehensive side-by-side comparison tests of the XL2 versus other cameras in its class like the PD170, Panasonic VX100a, etc? You know, in different lighting situations and so forth, and then posted the uncompressed images on the web?
|
|
|
|
February 27th, 2005, 04:06 PM
|
#2 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Still images posted on the web and viewed on a computer display are not going to show you what a DV camcorder is truly capable of -- only original DV viewed on a television, or better yet, a broadcast video monitor, is going to do justice to a particular camcorder. All of these are DV-format camcorders, and as far as the image is concerned, they're going to have much more in common with each other than any real differences. The *biggest* difference, and in my opinion the most important, is the form factor of the camera. Is it comfortable to hold, are they controls laid out in a manner that makes sense to you, are you already invested in other gear by the same manufacturer. The camcorder that *feels best in your hands* is the right one for you. Hope this helps,
|
|
|
|
|
February 27th, 2005, 04:10 PM
|
#3 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Conway, NH
Posts: 574
|
Yes, but for *comparison* purposes, stills posted on the web will give some idea of differences between various cameras. If one image is noticable brighter and cleaner than another, you will at least be able to make some judgement as a starting point.
|
|
|
|
|
September 17th, 2006, 10:03 PM
|
#4 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 19
|
I am/have researched the top cameras. I went to a DVX website and looked at their comarison stills (the DVX100 vs XL2). I think they were trying to make the DVX100 look better or something...but I actually thought the XL2 looked better. I though the DVX was a bit too yellowish.
It's a matter of opinion really...and you can always change what something looks like in post or on camera in many cases. So I'd probably go with the form factor suggestion, and also the functions. It doesn't matter what a cameras specs or functions are though, it's the film maker that makes the film not the camera. Anyway to answer your question... http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...ight=xl2+pd170 Not side by side though...I did find some here: http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/ But be prepared to take the article with a big heaping of salt (bias warning). This is the article I was referring to above. In my opinion, even on their site the XL2 looks better. Oh and I can't be totally certain, but the Macbeth charts look a bit doctored to me. Looks like they purposely upped the gamma on the XL2...but then what would I know?! :P |
|
|
|
|
September 17th, 2006, 11:35 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,689
|
Quote:
Not at all true any more. Cameras now have the ability to be adjusted for aperature, shutter, gain, gamma, blacks, color matrix, saturation, etc. etc. etc. etc. I could post 50 stills from an XL2 of the same exact setup and give you 50 distinct looks. DVX is EASY to use, with great colors but is noisy and not good in low light, no true 16:9. PD170 is sharp but cool colors, no true 16:9, great low light performance. XL2, superb image controls, true 16:9 with very clean sharp images, lens can be VERY tough for newbies, no help from the factory on set-ups, colors more kodachrome. If it matters to you, both the DVX and XL2 are progressive in both 24 and 30 frame modes. ash =o) |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
