DVX100 vs XL1S for movie shoots ?

Chris Hurd · April 18th, 2003, 03:38 PM

<< 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. >>

Well, I would have to call that the bottom line right there, and an excellent way to sum up your decision to choose the DVX100.

As for myself, someone who doesn't need 24p, I've been giving serious thought to the DVC80. But that's for another thread.

Dylan Couper · April 18th, 2003, 05:03 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by 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.
-->>>

That's an easy one to answer. If you are shooting with the intention of transfering to film, and you can afford to transfer to film, then you can also afford to rent a mini35.
If you aren't planning on transfering to film, or can't afford it, then the DVX100's 24p function is irrelevant.

So to answer Stephen's question:
a) DVX100
b) Canon XL1

I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. They are both pretty good.

PS, stuff that can be duplicated in post shouldn't really count as a feature, since it can be done with any camera.

Dylan Couper · April 18th, 2003, 05:06 PM

On the other hand, if it came right down to the picture itself (from an out of the box camera), I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. IMHO anyway.

Chris Hurd · April 18th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Howdy from Texas,

<< I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. >>

This has a lot to do with the camera's digital signal processor. Each manufacturer has a certain "flavor" of video (the "sony" look, the "Canon" look etc.). A significant advantage of the DVX100 is the six internal scene-store files over the two in the XL1S.

However I would have to agree with Dylan that if you have the budget or the backing for a transfer to 35mm, then the cost of renting the P+S adapter and cine lenses should be a non-issue.

Stephen van Vuuren · April 18th, 2003, 05:13 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. -->>>

Many indie people shoot on the hope of getting money to transfer to film, most don't have film transfer or many either items in the budget.

Plus the mini35 adaptor only marginally improves the sharpness on the XL1, it's only useful for shallow DOF which some of us think is overated.

Chris Hurd · April 18th, 2003, 05:34 PM

Howdy from Texas,

<< it's only useful for shallow DOF which some of us think is overated. >>

There's much more to it than that... a large portion of the "film look" is in the high-end motion picture glass, such as very fast Arri or Cooke prime lenses. It's not just a shallow depth of field... in fact you can have deep focus if you want it. The main thing is the quality of the optics, the cinema-style glass. It makes a huge difference which is not neccessarily related to DOF. There's a 2/3rd-inch version of the P+S adapter which allows PL-mount lenses on HD cameras; in my opinion this is where the real DV revolution lies, not so much with the standard-definition stuff we're talking about here.

Teo Coxman · April 18th, 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally this thread was about shooting National Commercials and Music videos, and shorts for television...No one is going to shoot a big budget video or commercial on mini dv...Unless it's some kind of "Reality" concept MTV is going to laugh at a video shot with an XL1, I don't care if you're Allen Davieu, the camera has too many limitations, period...I purchased the DVX because of the way the 24p looks right out of the box...It gives me a good platform to work with...A little advice for anyone worried about chip size and bla bla, use your eyes and look at the raw, unfiltered image, and realize how much further some shaping and filtering can take it...Someone earlier brought up Ansel Adams...To make a living while doing his landscapes he used to shoot weddings...I'm sure he didn't use the same large format camera for that. My point is, the right tool for the right job. Using skills and the DVX, I can fool people, maybe not DP's, but the public (And some executives at Sony) into thinking it's film...I just did it. I wouldn't attempt it with a PD150 or XL1, and I wouldn't bring a pea shooter to a gun fight. Also very shortly, there will be a mini 35 adaptor for the dvx...Then you'll have a cannon.

Jaime Valles · April 18th, 2003, 06:43 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : <<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p.
If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. -->>>

Many indie people shoot on the hope of getting money to transfer to film, most don't have film transfer or many either items in the budget.-->>>

I have to agree with Stephen on this. I am in exactly this situation; shooting an indie hoping to later raise the dough to transfer to 35mm. If your camera budget is under $4000, and you're planning on going to film afterwards, the DVX100 wins. It looks A LOT better than the XL1s when transfered to 35 (by the folks at DuArt labs). Now, the footage I saw of the XL1s was not using the mini35, but by default the DVX100 has better specs than the XL1s, and if a mini35 comes out for the DVX100, the result should be amazing.

So, Stephen, my answer is a)DVX100 if you're hoping for 35mm in the future. If you already have an XL1s, it will also produce good enough images for the big screen, but with slightly fuzzier results.

Dylan Couper · April 18th, 2003, 06:55 PM

I guess if you don't have the budget for the extra Canon lenses and add ons, the DVX100 is a better value for the dollar, and if you want the filmy look, it's probably a better choice for the lowe budget Indie-only types.

A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something...

Chris Hurd · April 18th, 2003, 07:45 PM

<< A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something... >>

Actually I think this is a distinct possibility. P+S has a version for the Sony PD150; shouldn't be too much trouble for them to do a DVX100 version as well. I would love to see the results from that!

Teo Coxman · April 19th, 2003, 01:01 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : << A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something... >>

Actually I think this is a distinct possibility. P+S has a version for the Sony PD150; shouldn't be too much trouble for them to do a DVX100 version as well. I would love to see the results from that! -->>>

I know for a fact it will be available soon...I'm sure the boys at ZGC will make some dough off that....That was one of the deciding factors for purchasing the DVX for me....I can't wait to see what it will look like through my Ultra Primes...

April 18th, 2003, 03:38 PM	#46
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	<< 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. >> Well, I would have to call that the bottom line right there, and an excellent way to sum up your decision to choose the DVX100. As for myself, someone who doesn't need 24p, I've been giving serious thought to the DVC80. But that's for another thread. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 18th, 2003, 05:03 PM	#47
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	<<<-- Originally posted by 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. -->>> That's an easy one to answer. If you are shooting with the intention of transfering to film, and you can afford to transfer to film, then you can also afford to rent a mini35. If you aren't planning on transfering to film, or can't afford it, then the DVX100's 24p function is irrelevant. So to answer Stephen's question: a) DVX100 b) Canon XL1 I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p. If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. They are both pretty good. PS, stuff that can be duplicated in post shouldn't really count as a feature, since it can be done with any camera. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 18th, 2003, 05:06 PM	#48
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	On the other hand, if it came right down to the picture itself (from an out of the box camera), I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. IMHO anyway. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 18th, 2003, 05:12 PM	#49
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Howdy from Texas, << I think the DVX100 has a significantly nicer and more "filmy" looking picture than the XL1. >> This has a lot to do with the camera's digital signal processor. Each manufacturer has a certain "flavor" of video (the "sony" look, the "Canon" look etc.). A significant advantage of the DVX100 is the six internal scene-store files over the two in the XL1S. However I would have to agree with Dylan that if you have the budget or the backing for a transfer to 35mm, then the cost of renting the P+S adapter and cine lenses should be a non-issue. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 18th, 2003, 05:13 PM	#50
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	<<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p. If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. -->>> Many indie people shoot on the hope of getting money to transfer to film, most don't have film transfer or many either items in the budget. Plus the mini35 adaptor only marginally improves the sharpness on the XL1, it's only useful for shallow DOF which some of us think is overated. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

April 18th, 2003, 05:34 PM	#51
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Howdy from Texas, << it's only useful for shallow DOF which some of us think is overated. >> There's much more to it than that... a large portion of the "film look" is in the high-end motion picture glass, such as very fast Arri or Cooke prime lenses. It's not just a shallow depth of field... in fact you can have deep focus if you want it. The main thing is the quality of the optics, the cinema-style glass. It makes a huge difference which is not neccessarily related to DOF. There's a 2/3rd-inch version of the P+S adapter which allows PL-mount lenses on HD cameras; in my opinion this is where the real DV revolution lies, not so much with the standard-definition stuff we're talking about here. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 18th, 2003, 06:29 PM	#52
Teo Coxman New Boot Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 13	Originally this thread was about shooting National Commercials and Music videos, and shorts for television...No one is going to shoot a big budget video or commercial on mini dv...Unless it's some kind of "Reality" concept MTV is going to laugh at a video shot with an XL1, I don't care if you're Allen Davieu, the camera has too many limitations, period...I purchased the DVX because of the way the 24p looks right out of the box...It gives me a good platform to work with...A little advice for anyone worried about chip size and bla bla, use your eyes and look at the raw, unfiltered image, and realize how much further some shaping and filtering can take it...Someone earlier brought up Ansel Adams...To make a living while doing his landscapes he used to shoot weddings...I'm sure he didn't use the same large format camera for that. My point is, the right tool for the right job. Using skills and the DVX, I can fool people, maybe not DP's, but the public (And some executives at Sony) into thinking it's film...I just did it. I wouldn't attempt it with a PD150 or XL1, and I wouldn't bring a pea shooter to a gun fight. Also very shortly, there will be a mini 35 adaptor for the dvx...Then you'll have a cannon.

April 18th, 2003, 06:43 PM	#53
Jaime Valles Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York City, NY Posts: 316	<<<-- Originally posted by Stephen van Vuuren : <<<-- Originally posted by Dylan Couper I pick b) because of the mini35. Way more useful than 24p. If a mini35 is not in the budget then neither is a film transfer negating the 24p, so I'd say the pros and cons of each camera balance out evenly. -->>> Many indie people shoot on the hope of getting money to transfer to film, most don't have film transfer or many either items in the budget.-->>> I have to agree with Stephen on this. I am in exactly this situation; shooting an indie hoping to later raise the dough to transfer to 35mm. If your camera budget is under $4000, and you're planning on going to film afterwards, the DVX100 wins. It looks A LOT better than the XL1s when transfered to 35 (by the folks at DuArt labs). Now, the footage I saw of the XL1s was not using the mini35, but by default the DVX100 has better specs than the XL1s, and if a mini35 comes out for the DVX100, the result should be amazing. So, Stephen, my answer is a)DVX100 if you're hoping for 35mm in the future. If you already have an XL1s, it will also produce good enough images for the big screen, but with slightly fuzzier results.

April 18th, 2003, 06:55 PM	#54
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	I guess if you don't have the budget for the extra Canon lenses and add ons, the DVX100 is a better value for the dollar, and if you want the filmy look, it's probably a better choice for the lowe budget Indie-only types. A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something... __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 18th, 2003, 07:45 PM	#55
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	<< A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something... >> Actually I think this is a distinct possibility. P+S has a version for the Sony PD150; shouldn't be too much trouble for them to do a DVX100 version as well. I would love to see the results from that! __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

April 19th, 2003, 01:01 AM	#56
Teo Coxman New Boot Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 13	<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : << A DVX100 with a mini35, now that would be something... >> Actually I think this is a distinct possibility. P+S has a version for the Sony PD150; shouldn't be too much trouble for them to do a DVX100 version as well. I would love to see the results from that! -->>> I know for a fact it will be available soon...I'm sure the boys at ZGC will make some dough off that....That was one of the deciding factors for purchasing the DVX for me....I can't wait to see what it will look like through my Ultra Primes...