Frame - good enough or bad imitation to the REAL THING 25p at DVinfo.net

Sebastian Scherrer · April 20th, 2004, 05:08 AM

Allright, Canon didn't come out with the next new "most bang for the buck" camcorder at NAB, and the DVX100A is too expensive for me. Canon may proove interesting later this year, but I can't postpone any projects just waiting for the big thing to happen.
I'd love to skip Canon altogether and go for the DVX, but it's one third more expensive then the Canon.

So - I'd like to check on what's already available in terms of a solid camera system, and would like to hear opinions on how it may perform in the future.

HDV is no concern for me, I'll stick to SD.
I will think about HDV and rent it out when I got the budget for blowups and the likes.

What DOES concern to me however is progressive mode... as I live in PAL country, I could get 25p for about 1000$ less - the XL1s. AFAIK there is no other progressive mode for about EUR 3000 other then with the XM2? (which has only 1/4" chips)

So - how does FRAME compare to the true thing? In my opinion, judging from the old XL1, "FRAME" mode looks great.
I don't know about true 24p other then from frame grabs, and I can't really tell the difference other it's a little sharper.
Is there someone who's seen both and would comment on this? I'd check it out myself, but the DVX is not very widely available for purchase in Germany, so I'd like to hear some opinions.

Cinegamma could be cool, but couldn't be done that easily in post?

Other points are less pixels, and I won't be able to build my own Aldu/Agus35 without a master's degree in engineering and optics :-)

Considering what can be done in post, would be purchasing the XL1s allright, or is there some extra edge the DVX has, that'd justify shelling out 1000$ extra?

As I understand now, it's progressive mode and cinegamma, and which can be done much cheaper with a little effort.

I've already informed myself throughougly on this board, but I'd like to hear some present date estimates from you people!

Peter Moore · April 20th, 2004, 11:18 AM

25p frame from the XL1 (slowed down to 24) and 24p progressive from a DVX100 should look pretty much the same. The hard part with PAL->24p is the audio. It's got to be done very well or else it can sound terrible. It's got to be resampled and pitch-shifted with a very good audio program. Before the DVX100 people were making 24p movies with PAL cams all the time though.

I only used the DVX100 once, and I was very happy with it. I would definitely buy it if I wasn't holding out for the HD canon (Canon is also starting to piss me off with these delays).

Nick Hiltgen · April 20th, 2004, 12:51 PM

unfortunately I don't think that the new canon will be HD and I think it'll come out in late summer/early fall and just be a little better then the dvx100 because it'll have something like 16x9 chips, so I say stick with your pal xl1 (or buy mine) if you want to do something in HD rent a camera. the dvx100 is a nice camera (I guess) but it comes down to how much you think you'll be shooting and what your final output will be.

Rob Lohman · April 21st, 2004, 05:11 AM

Why are you worrying about 24(p), Sebastian? We here in Europe
only use PAL which is 25 frames per second progressive or
interlaced. From my understanding even the movie in theatres
are displayed at 25p.

24p and 25p look the same. You cannot tell a 1 frame a second
difference apart. Keep in mind that Canon's frame mode also
lowers the resolution a bit resulting in a softer image. Most
people seem to like it for it tends to have a more filmic feel to it.

Sebastian Scherrer · April 21st, 2004, 05:27 AM

Yeah Rob, meant 25p, or with Canon, 25f(rame).
As much as I'd love to go for a DVX100A, it's much more expensive then the now cheaply available XL1s - and other then a little loss of resolution, I find it hard to shell out way more money for or the same thing - so I wanted to check back if the difference is really worth another 1000 EUR cash.

I love gadgets, I love features - but I'm on a budget as well and look for the most bang for the buck.

So, if one's for progressive mode and does not look into the direction of the DVX, the XL1s is still very much the leader of the pack, isn't it?

As much as I love the "cutting edge" - I was waiting some time for a sucessor for the XL1s, but now I need a camera and I doubt the "XL2" will do much more then what it already does - shooting extremely pleasing images.

Maybe they add something so it'll be able to wash dishes and do house chores ;-)

Rob Lohman · April 21st, 2004, 05:36 AM

That is correct, the XL1S is the leader of the pack for non-true
progressive scan camera's.

April 20th, 2004, 05:08 AM	#1
Sebastian Scherrer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Mainz, Germany Posts: 26	Frame - good enough or bad imitation to the REAL THING 25p Allright, Canon didn't come out with the next new "most bang for the buck" camcorder at NAB, and the DVX100A is too expensive for me. Canon may proove interesting later this year, but I can't postpone any projects just waiting for the big thing to happen. I'd love to skip Canon altogether and go for the DVX, but it's one third more expensive then the Canon. So - I'd like to check on what's already available in terms of a solid camera system, and would like to hear opinions on how it may perform in the future. HDV is no concern for me, I'll stick to SD. I will think about HDV and rent it out when I got the budget for blowups and the likes. What DOES concern to me however is progressive mode... as I live in PAL country, I could get 25p for about 1000$ less - the XL1s. AFAIK there is no other progressive mode for about EUR 3000 other then with the XM2? (which has only 1/4" chips) So - how does FRAME compare to the true thing? In my opinion, judging from the old XL1, "FRAME" mode looks great. I don't know about true 24p other then from frame grabs, and I can't really tell the difference other it's a little sharper. Is there someone who's seen both and would comment on this? I'd check it out myself, but the DVX is not very widely available for purchase in Germany, so I'd like to hear some opinions. Cinegamma could be cool, but couldn't be done that easily in post? Other points are less pixels, and I won't be able to build my own Aldu/Agus35 without a master's degree in engineering and optics :-) Considering what can be done in post, would be purchasing the XL1s allright, or is there some extra edge the DVX has, that'd justify shelling out 1000$ extra? As I understand now, it's progressive mode and cinegamma, and which can be done much cheaper with a little effort. I've already informed myself throughougly on this board, but I'd like to hear some present date estimates from you people!

April 21st, 2004, 05:11 AM	#4
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Why are you worrying about 24(p), Sebastian? We here in Europe only use PAL which is 25 frames per second progressive or interlaced. From my understanding even the movie in theatres are displayed at 25p. 24p and 25p look the same. You cannot tell a 1 frame a second difference apart. Keep in mind that Canon's frame mode also lowers the resolution a bit resulting in a softer image. Most people seem to like it for it tends to have a more filmic feel to it. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 21st, 2004, 05:36 AM	#6
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	That is correct, the XL1S is the leader of the pack for non-true progressive scan camera's. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 20th, 2004, 11:18 AM	#2
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	25p frame from the XL1 (slowed down to 24) and 24p progressive from a DVX100 should look pretty much the same. The hard part with PAL->24p is the audio. It's got to be done very well or else it can sound terrible. It's got to be resampled and pitch-shifted with a very good audio program. Before the DVX100 people were making 24p movies with PAL cams all the time though. I only used the DVX100 once, and I was very happy with it. I would definitely buy it if I wasn't holding out for the HD canon (Canon is also starting to piss me off with these delays).

April 20th, 2004, 12:51 PM	#3
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	unfortunately I don't think that the new canon will be HD and I think it'll come out in late summer/early fall and just be a little better then the dvx100 because it'll have something like 16x9 chips, so I say stick with your pal xl1 (or buy mine) if you want to do something in HD rent a camera. the dvx100 is a nice camera (I guess) but it comes down to how much you think you'll be shooting and what your final output will be.

April 21st, 2004, 05:27 AM	#5
Sebastian Scherrer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Mainz, Germany Posts: 26	Yeah Rob, meant 25p, or with Canon, 25f(rame). As much as I'd love to go for a DVX100A, it's much more expensive then the now cheaply available XL1s - and other then a little loss of resolution, I find it hard to shell out way more money for or the same thing - so I wanted to check back if the difference is really worth another 1000 EUR cash. I love gadgets, I love features - but I'm on a budget as well and look for the most bang for the buck. So, if one's for progressive mode and does not look into the direction of the DVX, the XL1s is still very much the leader of the pack, isn't it? As much as I love the "cutting edge" - I was waiting some time for a sucessor for the XL1s, but now I need a camera and I doubt the "XL2" will do much more then what it already does - shooting extremely pleasing images. Maybe they add something so it'll be able to wash dishes and do house chores ;-)