The ultimate film look I've seen?

[Bob Andren]

How does the DV100 compare to an XL1 in PAL format? better? worse?

[Jeff Donald]

You may want to search that topic. Several PAL XL1S users and perspective DVX100 users have reported comparing the two images. The conclusion was the PAL XL1S was sharper and better color. NTSC converted to PAL looses a lot. When the PAL version of the DVX100 comes out it may be a different story. It's not really a fair comparison (apples to oranges), any camera will lose in a conversion attempt.

Jeff

It is not necessary to convert NTSC to PAL to do any comparison - virtually all modern TV's and monitors in PAL land will play an NTSC signal without difficulty, so in that sense the comparisons were probably fair.

However what may not be fair is to compare NTSC to PAL, if my American cousins will forgive me, a 100 lines more resolution and a noticably more stable colour system (in analogue reception at least) tends to win hands down.

I for my part think that the PAL version of the AG-DVX100 will probably have better resolution, particularly in progressive scan (25p) mode - but not much better - the limitations of the chip size will always hamper this. If you really want top resolution in the DV25 format, and you can afford it, you really need something like a DSR550 or a GYDV700 with native 16:9 chips and 2/3rd" chips and then deinterlace the footage properly - then you WILL notice a difference! Otherwise it's hardly worth worrying about and I would stay with what you have - an excellent camera with a GOOD image designed with a trifle more imagination than the competition - the image quality differences really are minimal in this price bracket!

Regards.

[Rene Legaspi]

isn't the xl1 resolution 270,000 pixels (250,000 effective pixels)

http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/s.html

as compared to dvx100 410,000 pixels? (380,000 effective pixels)

btw... hey look at some test screens I shot on dvx100

http://www.geocities.com/a_releg

Sony's entry level DigiBeta with 2/3rd" chips is only just over 400,000 pixels and I bet it produces a much better image than your AG-DVX100!

Pixel count is not everything with regards to resolution and anyway Canon claim that with pixel shift the effective resolution is close to 'normal 1/3" chip cameras.

With respect I know you are enamoured with your new camera but I repeat difference in this price bracket are minimal.

I had a look at your pictures but I am sorry they don't look any sharper than stills from my XL1s or any other 1/3" chip camera for that matter!

Regards.

[Robert Knecht Schmidt]

Nice low noise in those low-light stills though. I wonder if noise is any more evident in motion footage.

[Rene Legaspi]

I made a decision between dvx100, xl1, vx2000 and I went with dvx because of the look it provides. It is different from the movie mode in xl1 (that's why I didn't buy my friend's xl1). The difference in resolution is minimal, but overall look was what I was looking for. Doesn't look excatly like film but to me it is clearly different from video. True progressive at 24fps.
True it will not compare to 2/3" CCD cams but I never compared them for obvious reasons. It won't compare to cinealta or film either.

Robert, here's a link I saw at 2-pop to some motion footage:

http://www.phocinema.com/preview/boat.mp4

http://www.phocinema.com/preview/rice.mp4

Should use quicktime to see it.
It has less of a video look than xl1 that's all I'm saying. Xl1 is still a good cam... especially PAL ver. xl1 can change lenses and dvx cannot, but Leica is pretty good glass for its price.

[Joe Carney]

some were concerned about the PAL version being 25P only. I may be wrong, but I believe European theaters will project at 25p, and have been doing so for a long time. I also heard most theaters can adjust their projectors to either 24 or 25 fps.

Anyone here know for sure? If that is true, then the PAL dvx100, will be the one to get for either side of the pond.

Joe C.

i just went to DuArt Labs in NYC and saw 35mm transfers of nearly every dv camera out there. I saw the dvx100, shot in 24pa in 4:3, then cropped in post and blown up to 35mm and it looked better than anything else they showed me. I saw footage from "Tadpole" and "Personal Velocity" and "Chelsea Walls" and many others ( the latter 2 shot with pd150 pal) and it looked better than both of them. I suggest that anyone who is going to film should make this trip to DuArt. I met the technician Lloyd and Ulla Zwicker(DuArt Marketing #212.757.4580, x712) and they were the nicest people. They hold screenings every friday. check them out! I've been reading forums for months, but gained more info about my camera and how to end up with an awesome 35mm transfer by spending 1 hour with them!

[Skip Hunt]

<<<-- Originally posted by Tom Taddeo : i just went to DuArt Labs in NYC and saw 35mm transfers of nearly every dv camera out there. I saw the dvx100, shot in 24pa in 4:3, then cropped in post and blown up to 35mm and it looked better than anything else they showed me. I saw footage from "Tadpole" and "Personal Velocity" and "Chelsea Walls" and many others ( the latter 2 shot with pd150 pal) and it looked better than both of them. I suggest that anyone who is going to film should make this trip to DuArt. I met the technician Lloyd and Ulla Zwicker(DuArt Marketing #212.757.4580, x712) and they were the nicest people. They hold screenings every friday. check them out! I've been reading forums for months, but gained more info about my camera and how to end up with an awesome 35mm transfer by spending 1 hour with them! -->>>

I don't live in NYC. Have you got any setup tips or recommendations to share from your meeting? I've used DuArt for 16mm in the past and have always been pleased. Any setup tips from your meeting would be appreciated.

thx,

Skip

Lloyd proved to me that it was a waste of time and money trying to use a anamorphic adaptor (plus the limiting ability of it all) and just crop the top and bottom in post before blow-up (which allows for some choices with the framing!). He said to always shoot "thin"... always use the cine-gamma mode... use the image stablizer and a tripod or steadi-cam (we watched handheld and once it's blown up to 16x9 35mm, well it will make you dizzy, the camera is small and needs to be stablized. the handheld looked very amatur-ish).... SAVE/PROTECT your "whites" at ALL cost! He really emphesised that!!! Frame rate is unimportant in a good transfer... go for the look and feel you want. Edit in 24frame if possible, but NOT necessary. They can pull the frames for you. Don't use any filters other than UV to protect the lens. Don't use wide angle lens. All they do is limit a good clean image. Don't waste time going for filter effects. Get the best "clean" footage possible. This gives them the most room to add colors (warmth) , pull colors, over saturate, over exposed-look, etc etc. He showed me footage from Ethan Hawk's film "Chelsea Walls" where they added "cool blues"and "warm reds" to scenes and it looked great! If you can't go up there, call them! We went to NYC to cast our leads and called DuArt for a private screening. I don't know where you live, but we flew on JetBlue for $44 each way! It''s really worth going!

[Skip Hunt]

I live in Austin, Texas but have some friends in NYC. Might be time for a visit. EVERYTHING you said, especially the value of wides and anamorphics for DV.... I KNEW IT! I've been experimenting with different settings etc. Then view via a Pana LCD XGA projector. I project about a 20ft diag screen so when my cam isn't as stable as I thought, or my movement wasn't as stable, I can REALLY tell when it's large. Many of these motion snafus often can look quite acceptable on an average sized display but not large. My projector has been invaluable for checking myself. Also, when there's mpeg2 compression artifact, as well as other digital flaws, it's hard to catch on a smaller/average screen. When projected they stick out like a sore thumb.

Anyway, my recent testing has involved comparing footage (wide and closeup) shot on "THIN" with the detail set at "0" and cinegamma, then cropping to 16:9 and stretching for widescreen displays.... then I compare the source image that hasn't been interpolated and view large. There really isn't much image degradation at all. If you're looking very close, you can tell the "THIN" footage before interpolation looks slightly sharper, but that footage would have to be vertically blurred before NTSC output anyway. The interpolated 16:9 footage shot on "THIN" has basically already been slightly vertically blurred in the process of interpolation so there's really no loss. I scaled some DVX footage up to HD resolution as well. Although the DVX held up much better than I expected, you do start to see some degradation going up that far. However, I was only using AE5.5 so I'm betting hardware designed specifically for this kind of uprezzing could yet very acceptable results.

Did the DuArt people say anything regarding which matrix setting? You said they recommend cinegamma, but what about matrix? Also, what detail setting? I'm guessing "0" that I've been using for my primitive uprezzing tests is probably the best, but did they offer any suggestions in that area?

Also, you implied they really didn't have a preference regarding framerate. This seems odd? I've read 30p can be quite troublesome. Perhaps I should just give them a call.

thx,

Skip Hunt

i didn't ask him about matrix or detail ,but i will! I read a lot of these forums at different sites, but there's nothing like going to the lab and seeing it! that was the bottom line for me!

As a matter of interest just how big was the screen projection - 5, 10 or 50 foot.

I suggest you go and take that DVX100 print and project it on a 50 foot screen and compare it againtst 16mm, 35mm and HD print as well as for good measure other pro DV cameras with 16:9 chips like a DSR-570. Then you may notice more critically limitations of 720 x 480 from small chips cropped and blown up to 35mm.

Comparing a few prints of similar 1/3" chip cameras may not be terribly conclusive.

Regards.

it was about 20'. I suggest everyone see for themselves! In my 7 years in Hollywood working in film, I've spent many hours in screening rooms looking at little details... Seeing is believing for me!