DVX100 vs XL1S for movie shoots ?

[Jeff Donald]

Music and imaging are different. By your analogy only 8 X 10 view cameras can make great pictures. After all Ansel Adams used an 8 X 10 view camera, so what else could there be. By your analogy a Polaroid could never make great images. Yet Ansel Adams used Polaroids, even did a book on it.

Can everyone make a great picture with a Polaroid? No. Can everyone make a great picture with a DVX100? No. Or a XL1S or PD150? No. A camera is just a tool to reach an ends. Just like a hammer is to a carpenter. If your a good carpenter, the hammer really doesn't matter. The DVX100, PD150 and XL1S are just cameras and in 5 years they will just be footnotes in history. It's what you make with it that has permanence and can last for generations.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

By your own argument, why did Ansel Adams not take pictures with a cheap camera?

Poloraids have been around for awhile.

[Jeff Donald]

Ansel Adams did some work with a Diana camera. Cost was probably under $5 and it had a plastic lens. Ansel Adams once said "People have sharp lenses, but fuzzy concepts."

Cameras are just tools.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

"Some work" - which photographs?

I'm not saying you need expensive tools to be a great artist, but you need to be in total harmony with your medium of choice to be a great artist.

If you medium is large lanscape photography printed at large sizes of American National Parks, it's unlikely you will shoot with a 320X240 $10 digital camera.

If your medium is narrative storytelling, it's unlikely you will shoot interlaced video (unless transferring to film).

If your medium is Via Lobos played in a concert hall, it's unlikely you will play with fisher price guitar.

I'm not saying that me playing a hand crafted guitar is better than LA Guitar Quartet playing fisher price guitars. They could play the spoon better than anything I can play.

But, for some strange reason, they play expensive handmade guitars.

And I don't shoot with a $200 VHS cam, I shoot with a DVX100. Strange that it does matter.

For the purposes of this thread and other which camera should I buy, it boils down to.

(1) Choose the right tool to enable yourself to express yourself as well as possible.

For this thread specifically, for movies, DVX100 is the cam, end of story.

[Glenn Gipson]

Frame Movie Mode is a bad mistake for DV movie makers because DV-to-Film transfer houses will tell you that Frame Movie Mode and 35mm blow ups just don’t go together. Now I understand that the majority of DV movies will never see a 35mm print, but why would you want to adopt this defeteatest attitude and lock yourself out of any possibility of going to 35mm?

The second thing is that post processing for interlace footage does not create flawless progressive footage, only shooting on an original progressive camera can do that. Slapping together interlace images to make 24p is not only problematic because the original medium was fields, but also because the more one processes 4:1:1 25mbps footage, the more one introduces artifacts to the footage itself.

As for the argument that the camera is merely a tool…I can only say that everyone should know this. BUT, if I am looking to buy a DV prosumer camera, why would I buy an old out dated one that only does interlace when I can buy one that does both interlace and progressive? The low budget movie maker will already have numerous odds against him or her, so why should he or she create more “hog-ties” for themselves?

No Prosumer camera is going to be perfect, but I think it’s time we all admitted that the DVX100 is better then the PD150 and XL1s. Even if you don’t like Panasonic, you could at least admit to this to force Sony and Panasonic to come out with something better then the DVX100. Why encourage Sony and Canon to just stay right where they are (especially when they don’t deserve it?)

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Glenn Gipson : Frame Movie Mode is a bad mistake for DV movie makers because DV-to-Film transfer houses will tell you that Frame Movie Mode and 35mm blow ups just don’t go together. -->>>

That's what I thought until I saw the movie 28 Days Later.
Check out this thread Shot in Frame mode.


If you guys think the DVX100 is the best miniDV camera, you probably haven't got to use an XL1 with a mini35 adapter and a set of REAL lenses. It makes the rest of the miniDV cameras look like a big joke and puts an end to this discussion. It's time we all admitted that the 4 year old XL1 is still the best miniDV camera for film because of the mini35 adapter. ;)

Anyway, regardless of features, I'll say it once more.... It's just a paintbrush, the picture is up to you.

Give a newbie a DVX100 and give an experienced cinematographer a 10 year old VHS camera, and see who makes a more watchable film.

I'm not saying the 24p is a bad feature, because it's an awsome feature. I'm just saying it doesn't matter in the least whether you have a camera that can do it or not.

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

<< Frame Movie Mode is a bad mistake for DV movie makers because DV-to-Film transfer houses will tell you that Frame Movie Mode and 35mm blow ups just don’t go together. >>

Incorrect. There are different processes for tape-to-film and some transfer houses prefer Frame Movie mode shot on a PAL camera (see this three-part article for more details).

<< why would I buy an old out dated one that only does interlace when I can buy one that does both interlace and progressive? >>

Important to understand the Frame Movie mode on the XL1S *is identical* to progressive scan... the same results, but by different means. It's a 30P mode; always has been. It doesn't matter that the camera does not have progressive scan CCD's; what matters is the output, and it is indeed 30P. That's the appeal of Frame Movie mode.

<< I think it’s time we all admitted that the DVX100 is better then the PD150 and XL1s >>

It's safe to say it's newer than the PD150 or XL1S; but not neccessarily "better," which is a word that is highly relative and superfluous. It may be better for you; but not for everyone else. There are some serious limitations with Panasonic's 24P implementation including poor low-light sensitivity and lack of auto-focus. Granted it is the first prosumer 24P, but at a cost of certain feature sets.

In some ways, each specific camera is "better" than its counterparts and at the same time "worse" than its counterparts. The question becomes one of which trade-offs are appropriate for your own shooting requirements.

<< Why encourage Sony and Canon to just stay right where they are (especially when they don’t deserve it?) >>

New product always has been, always will be in development. None of the major manufacturers ever rests on their laurels. Some take longer to rev their products than others, but none ever "stay right where they are." To me it's amazing how fast all of this development occurs. Hope this helps,

[Stephen van Vuuren]

What's always interesting to me is how a thread called (DVX100 vs XL1s for movie shoots) ends rarely answers the camera.

I don't the generic and politically correct answer "every camera has it's pro and cons, what really matters is story, acting, etc. etc." If I had a nickel for every time I saw that in a camera thread...I'd be shooting 24p on HD with A,B and C cameras.

For a movie shoot, which cam:

a) DVX100
b) XL1s? A or B?

(C is not allowed as an answer). That's the real choice a camera buyer now faces who plans/dream of making their own movie.

(Full disclosure - I sold a XL1 with all three lenses to get a DVX100)

[Glenn Gipson]

>>If you guys think the DVX100 is the best miniDV camera, you probably haven't got to use an XL1 with a mini35 adapter and a set of REAL lenses. It makes the rest of the miniDV cameras look like a big joke and puts an end to this discussion. It's time we all admitted that the 4 year old XL1 is still the best miniDV camera for film because of the mini35 adapter. ;)<<

yeah, but how much is that adapter? Like 8,000, or something like that? Plus a high quality lense, another 10,000? This package puts the XL1s out of the prosumer league. The rental price for all of this is comparable to a Sony MPEG IMX camera. And if a shallow depth of field is the best way to make DV look like film, then what about Citizen Kane? Does this movie look like video because it has a WIDE DOF?

>>Important to understand the Frame Movie mode on the XL1S *is identical* to progressive scan... the same results, but by different means. It's a 30P mode; always has been. It doesn't matter that the camera does not have progressive scan CCD's; what matters is the output, and it is indeed 30P. That's the appeal of Frame Movie mode.<<

We have to agree to disagree on this one. Frame Movie Mode is not progressive video. And although there may very well be transfer houses that handle Frame Movie Mode, you still would be limiting the amount of transfer houses that would prefer it over interlace video.

As for the XL1s being better then the DVX100, I’m not even going to argue that because the specs and the reviews speak for themselves. ;-) One can only take the subjectivity argument but so far, especially when one camera has nearly twice the pixels of another. And as for Auto Focus issue, what professional movie shoot uses Auto Focus? I mean, I know that professional shoots don’t use prosumer cams in the first place, but Auto Focus is pretty amateurish by all standards. I believe the Auto Focus issue doesn’t apply to 60I mode anyway, but I could be wrong…

As for me, obviously I’m a DVX100 fan. DV Movie making is my goal and I’ve seen all three cams blown up to 35mm (PD150, XL1s, and DVX100) and the DVX100 is nearly in a class by itself. If you don’t believe me, go to DuArt and ask to see their demo reel.

[Glenn Gipson]

Sorry, that's Citizen Cane with a C, and not a K

[Jeff Donald]

If your medium is narrative storytelling, it's unlikely you will shoot interlaced video (unless transferring to film).

It's too bad that all the narrative storytelling done on video, up to now, is crap. There are a lot of great stories I just won't be able to watch until they are redone by some amateur with a DVX100. That will make it the perfect story, I'm sure.

Like I said, it will be interesting to see what happens at the next Sundance Film Festival. Are the independent film makers adopting the DVX100? Or is it the gear heads and wannabe's?

And although there may very well be transfer houses that handle Frame Movie Mode, you still would be limiting the amount of transfer houses that would prefer it over interlace video.

So the most transfer houses that prefers one format wins? Well, PC's are better than Mac's, more software. GM makes the best cars, they make and sell more. All it takes is one transfer facility to do quality work. Some may prefer frame, others progressive, it really matters none.

[Ken Tanaka]

Glenn,
I really don't want to dog-pile but I do feel compelled to remark on one of your quotes:

And as for Auto Focus issue, what professional movie shoot uses Auto Focus? I mean, I know that professional shoots don?t use prosumer cams in the first place, but Auto Focus is pretty amateurish by all standards.

I couldn't agree more. But, at this time, the XL1s' suite of lenses, especially the manuals, offer me the best focus control. If I had to pick focus control -vs- 24p and the other innovative features of the DVX100 I would (and, in fact, do) choose focus.

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

<< I don't the generic and politically correct answer "every camera has it's pro and cons, what really matters is story, acting, etc. etc." If I had a nickel for every time I saw that in a camera thread...I'd be shooting 24p on HD with A,B and C cameras. >>

Like it or not, but that's the reality of the situation. The single most commonly mis-phrased question in this market is "what's the best camera." It should be asked as, "what's the best camera for my purposes." The truth of the matter is that camera selection is a very personal issue, just like choosing a new car, or as Randy Turner put it in another thread, a new guitar. Because each one *does* have its pro's and con's, and all of that must be evaluated. Whether that answer is generic or politically correct is irrelevant... what matters is that it's *true.* The reverse of this is splitting such fine hairs which in my opinion is an even bigger crime than being generic or politically correct. These cameras have far more things in common with each other than any real differences.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Glenn:

I still wonder why few miniDV folks take advantage of the big depth of field available in miniDV.

The shallow depth of field thing is such a silly thing. It's has about as much do with filmlook as does having Mel Gibson in your shot :)

Jeff:

Progressive or frame makes no difference. I shot a lot of frame mode on my XL1 and stopped shooting it do to resolution loss on wide shots. Primary reason I traded cameras.

Also, why do you think all video narrative storytelling has been crap so far?

Ken:

I can rack focus better on my DVX100 with the LCD focus scale than I could with my Canon manual focus lens on my XL1. I think the focus on DVX100 is superior to the XL1. I was worried when I switched, but don't think about it now.

Chris:

"More in common" - that phrase is open to debate. Depends how you feel about progressive scan vs. interlaced. I would argue there's the DVX100 and all other 3-chip miniDV cams. Plus, as an ex-XL1 owner, the lens options do set it apart as well.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

My point is I want to spend more time creating and less time fussing.

The DVX100 lets me live in a 24fps world without lots of pre and post production fussing. More time for the fun, creative stuff, less time trying to make stuff 24fps progressive.