Xl2 Or Dvx100a

Bill Ravens · February 24th, 2005, 11:13 AM

Barry...

woohooo...!! that new panny sounds awesome.

Aaron Koolen · February 24th, 2005, 01:25 PM

It does sound good, but seeing as these are rumours it's really hard to know. The thing that interests me is are panasonic going for the same price market as the Xl2 etc. i.e ~USD$5k cameras? It seems like adding DVCPRo in that price range would be out of the question. Maybe it's a "just under" $10K camera.

Aaron

Barry Green · February 26th, 2005, 03:30 AM

Price is an unknown. We've heard that it will be "priced competitive with the Sony" (which would mean an MSRP in the $6,000 neighborhood) and also we've heard that it will be "under $10,000" (which could mean $9999, or it could mean $6,000, or ... well, it could mean just about anything.)

But it will be DVCPRO-HD, that's already been confirmed.

Young Lee · February 26th, 2005, 01:13 PM

I'm really looking forward to the cam. It would be great if it could shoot 24P because I'm interested in making low-budget (or non-budget) movies.

Barry Green · February 26th, 2005, 02:27 PM

It's already been confirmed that it *will* shoot 24p.

Dave Ferdinand · February 26th, 2005, 03:20 PM

So the topic drifted off into HDV vs DV discussion, instead of helping the poor guy make his mind up.

IMO:

XL2 Pros: Cool look (earns you respect from peopl you work with), native 16:9, 24p
Cons: Price, tiny lcd/viewfinder

DVX100A Pros: Immediate film look (point & shoot), Great sound, 24p
Cons: Needs anamorphic adapter

FX1 Pros: Great resolution, 16:9
Cons: Extreme video look, freeze ups, no XLR, no 24p

Maybe we should include the PD170 in this too?

Ignacio Rodriguez · February 26th, 2005, 04:41 PM

> What is the buzz I hear regarding the problem with
> dropouts in the new format? Basically, since the format
> is averaging across frames, a dropout in one frame will
> be "averaged" across a number of them? How is that
> seen as an "increase" in sharpness?

Nonononono. It all boils down to this: more than a decade ago, engineers discovered that video could be far better compressed if it was organized not as single frames (like DV) but as groups of pictures (MPEG2). This is what makes the JVC PD1 and the Sony FX1/Z1 (as well as their IMX) offer excelent video at higher than NTSC or PAL resolution at small bandwidths. The problem with this arrangement is that frames within a GOP depend on the information contained within other frames in the GOP. So with a GOP of 15 frames, if you lose a few bytes on tape --what on DV would end up as an averaged frame barely noticable-- with HDV can result in the image freezing for half a second. This is HDV's dirty little secret and major shortoming, and is the reason why Sony is introducing an exotic new tape formulation together with it's HDV cameras.

I have not yet used the HDV cameras myself in a professional scenario, so I don't know exactly how often this problem shows up. But, I have played around with an FX1 while watching a full-resolution HDTV and I can tell you the results are awesome. If you con't like the "videoish" look of it's 60i motion, just shoot CF25 mode and/or spend some extra time in post. I think there is no way the XL2 or DVX100 can beat HDV when seen at full resolution. In capable hands, all these cameras can produce SD broadcast-quality results, but the hiegher resolution of HDV can give you more options and better future-proof your footage.

It is rumored that by april Panasonic will unveil the HDX100 and HDX400, with 720p and 1080i capability respectively, direct to memory recording (no tape drops) and no GOPs, just good ol' DVCPROHD at 100 Mbps, for "less than US$10k". So Panasonic is also betting we will prefer HD over SD and their offering will probably be very attractive and competetive.

Peter Jefferson · February 28th, 2005, 07:15 AM

In capable hands, all these cameras can produce SD broadcast-quality results

yup... which is why i replaced a DSR570 with 3 of these babies..

John Hudson · March 3rd, 2005, 04:56 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand :

DVX100A Pros: Immediate film look (point & shoot), Great sound,
-->>>

Point and Shoot? No.

Great Sound? No.

Not a POINT & SHOOT Camera and the Sound is passing at best unless using an EXTERNAL MIC.

Ignacio Rodriguez · March 3rd, 2005, 07:15 PM

> and the Sound is passing at best unless
> using an EXTERNAL MIC

Well of course. The camera is usually not the best place to put the microphone anyway, even a good one. In this sense, both cams are more or less the same. Although in more general sound terms the XL2 has some options that the DVX100a does not.

Dave Ferdinand · March 3rd, 2005, 07:23 PM

John, would you care to at least explain your points. Just 'no' doesn't really add much to the discussion.

Yes, the sound is great when compared to other cameras of this prices range. I didn't mean great as in 'professional, the best you can have' great. Let's be realistic here, shall we?

As to point and shoot, yes it is. Can't you just click on a cine mode, point it at something and shoot it? Sure you can, it gives you an immediate 'film look', again within reason. With most other cameras you have to tweak and play around with settings until it you get the same non-video look. It doesn't do everything for you, but it helps.

Ignacio Rodriguez · March 3rd, 2005, 07:27 PM

> With most other cameras you have to tweak and
> play around with settings until it you get the same
> non-video look.

Not to mention deinterlacing and other stuff in post, with the added recompression and thus loss of quality, and of course the loss of time.

John Hudson · March 4th, 2005, 10:21 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : John, would you care to at least explain your points. Just 'no' doesn't really add much to the discussion...Yes, the sound is great when compared to other cameras of this prices range. I didn't mean great as in 'professional, the best you can have' great. Let's be realistic here, shall we?...As to point and shoot, yes it is. Can't you just click on a cine mode, point it at something and shoot it? Sure you can, it gives you an immediate 'film look', again within reason. With most other cameras you have to tweak and play around with settings until it you get the same non-video look. It doesn't do everything for you, but it helps. -->>>

Specifically what I meant is;

It is recommended an external mic be used if you want 'great' sound and a very professional sound can be had from the DVX100 using the right set-up. The onboard? I wish they made that as a removable option as it just seems to be in the way most of the time.

Point and Click? Yes, one can turn it on and point and 'click' the record button; one can also turn on the car and push it over a hill; but the results would most definately be undesirable at best. The DVX100 requires attention to the basics

Yes, inherently, the DVX100 has a wonderful 'out of the box' filmic quality; but less we not mislead people into thinking its a magic 'point and click' cam; the basics of photography still apply. The DVX is one of the few cameras that can require such an attention to detail.

Daniel Runyon · March 4th, 2005, 10:54 PM

Agreed John,

You can indeed often get very good point and shoot results if the conditions are just right, and again, if conditions are right it is an awesome run and gun, and it will indeed look...if not "filmic"...at least far more asthetically pleasing than a comprable interlaced cam, but it does require more attention to get what one would think of as a cinematic movie look.

To get into symantics for just a moment, I think the distinction between "film" look and "movie" look are somewhat important, and more than anything, it seems to my eye that the DVX delivers a very movie like, cinematic look. And, I'll include this info for no particular reason other than it coming to me at this moment. On the Barry Green DVD, it shows a comparison scene (an Eastwood looking western) between the FX1 and DVX.....man o man did the DVX smoke the FX1 as far as delivering a movie look. The difference was astounding.

Barry Green · March 5th, 2005, 01:35 AM

Clarification: that was DVX vs. HD1, not FX1...

February 24th, 2005, 01:25 PM	#32
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	It does sound good, but seeing as these are rumours it's really hard to know. The thing that interests me is are panasonic going for the same price market as the Xl2 etc. i.e ~USD$5k cameras? It seems like adding DVCPRo in that price range would be out of the question. Maybe it's a "just under" $10K camera. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

February 26th, 2005, 04:41 PM	#37
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> What is the buzz I hear regarding the problem with > dropouts in the new format? Basically, since the format > is averaging across frames, a dropout in one frame will > be "averaged" across a number of them? How is that > seen as an "increase" in sharpness? Nonononono. It all boils down to this: more than a decade ago, engineers discovered that video could be far better compressed if it was organized not as single frames (like DV) but as groups of pictures (MPEG2). This is what makes the JVC PD1 and the Sony FX1/Z1 (as well as their IMX) offer excelent video at higher than NTSC or PAL resolution at small bandwidths. The problem with this arrangement is that frames within a GOP depend on the information contained within other frames in the GOP. So with a GOP of 15 frames, if you lose a few bytes on tape --what on DV would end up as an averaged frame barely noticable-- with HDV can result in the image freezing for half a second. This is HDV's dirty little secret and major shortoming, and is the reason why Sony is introducing an exotic new tape formulation together with it's HDV cameras. I have not yet used the HDV cameras myself in a professional scenario, so I don't know exactly how often this problem shows up. But, I have played around with an FX1 while watching a full-resolution HDTV and I can tell you the results are awesome. If you con't like the "videoish" look of it's 60i motion, just shoot CF25 mode and/or spend some extra time in post. I think there is no way the XL2 or DVX100 can beat HDV when seen at full resolution. In capable hands, all these cameras can produce SD broadcast-quality results, but the hiegher resolution of HDV can give you more options and better future-proof your footage. It is rumored that by april Panasonic will unveil the HDX100 and HDX400, with 720p and 1080i capability respectively, direct to memory recording (no tape drops) and no GOPs, just good ol' DVCPROHD at 100 Mbps, for "less than US$10k". So Panasonic is also betting we will prefer HD over SD and their offering will probably be very attractive and competetive. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

March 3rd, 2005, 07:15 PM	#40
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> and the Sound is passing at best unless > using an EXTERNAL MIC Well of course. The camera is usually not the best place to put the microphone anyway, even a good one. In this sense, both cams are more or less the same. Although in more general sound terms the XL2 has some options that the DVX100a does not. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

March 3rd, 2005, 07:27 PM	#42
Ignacio Rodriguez Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 932	> With most other cameras you have to tweak and > play around with settings until it you get the same > non-video look. Not to mention deinterlacing and other stuff in post, with the added recompression and thus loss of quality, and of course the loss of time. __________________ Ignacio Rodríguez in the third world. @micronauta on Twitter. Main hardware: brain, eyes, hands.

February 24th, 2005, 11:13 AM	#31
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Barry... woohooo...!! that new panny sounds awesome.

February 26th, 2005, 03:30 AM	#33
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Price is an unknown. We've heard that it will be "priced competitive with the Sony" (which would mean an MSRP in the $6,000 neighborhood) and also we've heard that it will be "under $10,000" (which could mean $9999, or it could mean $6,000, or ... well, it could mean just about anything.) But it will be DVCPRO-HD, that's already been confirmed.

February 26th, 2005, 01:13 PM	#34
Young Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 268	I'm really looking forward to the cam. It would be great if it could shoot 24P because I'm interested in making low-budget (or non-budget) movies.

February 26th, 2005, 02:27 PM	#35
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	It's already been confirmed that it will shoot 24p.

February 26th, 2005, 03:20 PM	#36
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	So the topic drifted off into HDV vs DV discussion, instead of helping the poor guy make his mind up. IMO: XL2 Pros: Cool look (earns you respect from peopl you work with), native 16:9, 24p Cons: Price, tiny lcd/viewfinder DVX100A Pros: Immediate film look (point & shoot), Great sound, 24p Cons: Needs anamorphic adapter FX1 Pros: Great resolution, 16:9 Cons: Extreme video look, freeze ups, no XLR, no 24p Maybe we should include the PD170 in this too?

February 28th, 2005, 07:15 AM	#38
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	In capable hands, all these cameras can produce SD broadcast-quality results yup... which is why i replaced a DSR570 with 3 of these babies..

March 3rd, 2005, 04:56 PM	#39
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : DVX100A Pros: Immediate film look (point & shoot), Great sound, -->>> Point and Shoot? No. Great Sound? No. Not a POINT & SHOOT Camera and the Sound is passing at best unless using an EXTERNAL MIC.

March 3rd, 2005, 07:23 PM	#41
Dave Ferdinand Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 359	John, would you care to at least explain your points. Just 'no' doesn't really add much to the discussion. Yes, the sound is great when compared to other cameras of this prices range. I didn't mean great as in 'professional, the best you can have' great. Let's be realistic here, shall we? As to point and shoot, yes it is. Can't you just click on a cine mode, point it at something and shoot it? Sure you can, it gives you an immediate 'film look', again within reason. With most other cameras you have to tweak and play around with settings until it you get the same non-video look. It doesn't do everything for you, but it helps.

March 4th, 2005, 10:21 PM	#43
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Ferdinand : John, would you care to at least explain your points. Just 'no' doesn't really add much to the discussion...Yes, the sound is great when compared to other cameras of this prices range. I didn't mean great as in 'professional, the best you can have' great. Let's be realistic here, shall we?...As to point and shoot, yes it is. Can't you just click on a cine mode, point it at something and shoot it? Sure you can, it gives you an immediate 'film look', again within reason. With most other cameras you have to tweak and play around with settings until it you get the same non-video look. It doesn't do everything for you, but it helps. -->>> Specifically what I meant is; It is recommended an external mic be used if you want 'great' sound and a very professional sound can be had from the DVX100 using the right set-up. The onboard? I wish they made that as a removable option as it just seems to be in the way most of the time. Point and Click? Yes, one can turn it on and point and 'click' the record button; one can also turn on the car and push it over a hill; but the results would most definately be undesirable at best. The DVX100 requires attention to the basics Yes, inherently, the DVX100 has a wonderful 'out of the box' filmic quality; but less we not mislead people into thinking its a magic 'point and click' cam; the basics of photography still apply. The DVX is one of the few cameras that can require such an attention to detail.

March 4th, 2005, 10:54 PM	#44
Daniel Runyon Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: The Deep South Posts: 168	Agreed John, You can indeed often get very good point and shoot results if the conditions are just right, and again, if conditions are right it is an awesome run and gun, and it will indeed look...if not "filmic"...at least far more asthetically pleasing than a comprable interlaced cam, but it does require more attention to get what one would think of as a cinematic movie look. To get into symantics for just a moment, I think the distinction between "film" look and "movie" look are somewhat important, and more than anything, it seems to my eye that the DVX delivers a very movie like, cinematic look. And, I'll include this info for no particular reason other than it coming to me at this moment. On the Barry Green DVD, it shows a comparison scene (an Eastwood looking western) between the FX1 and DVX.....man o man did the DVX smoke the FX1 as far as delivering a movie look. The difference was astounding.

March 5th, 2005, 01:35 AM	#45
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Clarification: that was DVX vs. HD1, not FX1...