which is more cinematic: XL1s PAL (with Nikon lens) or DVX100a

Josh Brusin · March 6th, 2004, 12:37 PM

aside from 60i and posting it to a film-look

Michael Struthers · March 16th, 2004, 12:00 PM

Rent a super16mm camera. Then it will be "cinematic".

Josh Brusin · March 18th, 2004, 12:46 PM

super16? why not 35mm? (endz are cheaper and more plentiful, post is available everywhere and it looks better)

Josh Brusin · March 18th, 2004, 01:05 PM

Barry- you're the man...

http://videosystems.com/ar/video_progressive_need_know/

helped me (I'm a big dummy) figure it out...

Josh Brusin · May 29th, 2004, 01:56 PM

Hey Barry...
what about frame mode in PAL? same resolution loss?

Charles Papert · May 29th, 2004, 02:35 PM

Gents:

Resolution loss inherent in frame mode is not as disasterous as the specs appear. If one is to put the camera up on a good monitor and switch between modes, the resolution loss is apparent but may even be preferable as a smoother, more "filmic" image. The bottom line is that it comes down to one's response to the image; do you like it or not?

For large screen projection, resolution is certainly a factor. But for monitors and web viewing, it may not be as much of an issue as it appear.

Certainly the use of improved glass will improve the image. Just because the chips are delivering a certain numerical resolution, the higher grade image going onto them, the better the results. The Mini35 does make a substantative difference in image sharpness over the standard Canon lenses. I recently was involved in a set of tests of different cine and still lenses on a Mini35, and we found that the top-end Nikon still zoom was not nearly as sharp as the better cine lenses we looked at (Zeiss and Panavision Primos), but then again considering the price difference it shouldn't be!

I am very interested to do a comparison of the Mini35 setup on an XL1s and a DVX100 to see if the increased resolution of that camera is outweighed by having to go through the built-in lens. If anyone is able to do so, please post images.

Josh Brusin · May 29th, 2004, 03:42 PM

My main concern is progressive output from dvd to hd/ed monitors... for the web I'd shoot frame no doubt. I'm more interested in PAL 25p converted to NTSC compared to 30p frame...

have any preference between NTSC/PAL for origination?

Thanks!

Barry Green · May 29th, 2004, 10:04 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Gents:

I am very interested to do a comparison of the Mini35 setup on an XL1s and a DVX100 to see if the increased resolution of that camera is outweighed by having to go through the built-in lens. If anyone is able to do so, please post images. -->>>

I wanted to see that comparison very much. When we got the mini35, we also got a PD150 connection kit and tried to get an XL1 adapter -- but they didn't have one available. So, alas, I was not able to do the direct comparison.

So I haven't seen a test side-by-side.

However, I did do a film-out of DVX100 footage shot with the anamorphic adapter, which is now available on the DVFILM.COM demo reel. And I've seen XL1 footage blown up in the theater, in the form of "28 Days Later", so I can make a little bit of a comparison.

In my most objective opinion, I think it looked drastically better than "28 Days Later" did in the theater. 28DL used premium HD lenses, with no mini35 ground-glass image deterioration, and the DVX used the stock lens + anamorphic adapter, and between the two, I'd say the DVX looked about twice as sharp. I can't argue that the glass on the DVX was better, but the higher-resolution chipset, the true progressive scan, and the avoidance of any interlace->progressive conversion or PAL->24P conversion really made the DVX look a lot better.

On that reel I also had DVX mini35 footage transferred, and it held up very well, at least competitive with, if not quite a bit better than, 28DL. And that's with the DVX suffering the resolution loss inherent in the mini35. So, without empirical direct comparison available to me, but extrapolating from what I've seen, I would expect DVX/mini35 to look substantially sharper than XL1/mini35. From what I've seen, the better chips do provide enough of a difference to make up for the glass in between them and the image.

Charles Papert · May 30th, 2004, 01:20 AM

One meager bone in favor of Canon--"28L" was shot on the XL1, not XL1s...like I said, meager. And I suppose this whole issue will gain new life when the XL2 makes an appearance.

Michael Struthers · May 30th, 2004, 09:06 PM

I just find the xl1 just too cumbersome to shoot with after using a dvx100a.

For the price of either of these two cameras, you could rent an Aaton a-minima for the length of your shoot. How much more cinematic do you need?

I still think mini-dv just doesn't cut it. A sony dsr570 would be my cut off if I absolutely knew I was transferring to film.

For dvd projects, the dvx100 is fine.

Marcus van Bavel · May 31st, 2004, 12:16 AM

If you shoot 50i with the PAL Canon XL-1, and convert to 25P using DVFilm Maker (dvfilm.com/maker) instead of shooting frame mode, that will get you about 431 lines as opposed to only 384 for PAL frame mode. The reason for that is because on static areas of the screen, Maker passes the interlaced frame through unchanged and you get the full vertical resolution of interlaced mode, even though the motion is 25P.

Another way to do that is shoot 50i and convert to film-motion NTSC with DVFilm Atlantis (dvfilm.com/atlantis). That will yield very similar motion as shooting NTSC DVX100 in 24P and about the same resolution.

Charles Papert · May 31st, 2004, 12:54 AM

Michael:

As I'm sure you know, the cost of shooting film has little to do with the camera rental, and a lot to do with the stock/processing/telecine costs which have no counterpart to speak of in the DV world.

And to be honest, I find the A-minima to be a pretty cumbersome animal itself, despite its bantam weight. The fixed eyepiece can be an annoyance, and it is not the easiest to thread (I've experienced a few jams, but I'll allow that practice makes perfect as with any camera). It's a clever camera and is useful for certain applications but I stop short of considering it a primary production camera.

Obviously film is going to provide a more cinematic image than any digital format. However, even the minimal cost of shooting Super 8 will quickly eclipse the cost of renting an HD setup once shooting begins. It's just not a consideration for most readers of this forum.

Michael Struthers · June 2nd, 2004, 02:29 PM

Charles,

You are right about post production costs. However film telecine transfers are under pricing pressure and I think HD and super16mm are pretty close in price one it's all said and done.

That being said, lets suppose we are shooting only dv. I've shot and seen dvx100a footage, it's nice. It doesn't look like film though. You still have to process it with an add on filter in your NLE to make it "filmish". I think one could shoot with a 16x9 60i camera and de-interlace and process in post and that would be as "cinematic" as you could get.

I have to say, that frame mode on some Canon cams looks much better than the 320 lines or whatever it is. You couldn't dare to blow it up, but if you went straight to dvd and only saw it on a TV, it's got some props.

Charles Papert · June 2nd, 2004, 04:39 PM

Agreed that the cost of a film-out brings the margin of cost in--but I didn't realize we were talking about theatrical release.

I would say that the single most contested issue in this forum is "how do you make video look like film?" We've been around and around it, and of course it's all in the eye of the beholder. I've seen some folk's work on the DVX that was posted here that was really convincing in a web delivery (and I wouldn't be surprised if I felt the same watching it on a monitor). We've had a lot of positive feedback on the Seinfeld Amex shorts, which had no post-filtering done to contribute to the film look.

As always, it comes down to good lighting, composition and camera movement to sell the cinematic look, along with a 24-30p frame rate and for the piece de resistance, a Mini35 with good lenses can't hurt. Of all of those, only the frame rate can be achieved by flipping a switch on a stock camera.

Doug Turner · June 2nd, 2004, 09:31 PM

Re: 28 Days Later...

I read that the 2nd unit was shooting with a Canon XL1... but I haven't heard what the 1st unit used (maybe cos it's the horrible truth none of us want to hear...)

Some lovely shots at the stately home look very 35mm whereas the scenes in the taxi, abandoned London and the hospital look very Canon XL1. I'm undecided... would love to believe it was all shot on digital, but I'm cynical!

People won't bother getting off their arses to go see a movie that cost $5mill to make - tell them it cost $50,000 or $150mill and they'll be queueing around the block. Odd that, eh?!

28 Days Later cost about $8mill... suggesting the use of the XL1 was a creative decision/marketing ploy rather than a financial choice.

When Variety referred to 28 Days Later as a faux-low-budget film, I think they knocked the nail on the head!

Anyone got Danny Boyle's email address so we can ask him straight up?!

March 16th, 2004, 12:00 PM	#17
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Rent a super16mm camera. Then it will be "cinematic". __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

May 29th, 2004, 02:35 PM	#21
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Gents: Resolution loss inherent in frame mode is not as disasterous as the specs appear. If one is to put the camera up on a good monitor and switch between modes, the resolution loss is apparent but may even be preferable as a smoother, more "filmic" image. The bottom line is that it comes down to one's response to the image; do you like it or not? For large screen projection, resolution is certainly a factor. But for monitors and web viewing, it may not be as much of an issue as it appear. Certainly the use of improved glass will improve the image. Just because the chips are delivering a certain numerical resolution, the higher grade image going onto them, the better the results. The Mini35 does make a substantative difference in image sharpness over the standard Canon lenses. I recently was involved in a set of tests of different cine and still lenses on a Mini35, and we found that the top-end Nikon still zoom was not nearly as sharp as the better cine lenses we looked at (Zeiss and Panavision Primos), but then again considering the price difference it shouldn't be! I am very interested to do a comparison of the Mini35 setup on an XL1s and a DVX100 to see if the increased resolution of that camera is outweighed by having to go through the built-in lens. If anyone is able to do so, please post images. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

May 30th, 2004, 01:20 AM	#24
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	One meager bone in favor of Canon--"28L" was shot on the XL1, not XL1s...like I said, meager. And I suppose this whole issue will gain new life when the XL2 makes an appearance. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

May 30th, 2004, 09:06 PM	#25
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	I just find the xl1 just too cumbersome to shoot with after using a dvx100a. For the price of either of these two cameras, you could rent an Aaton a-minima for the length of your shoot. How much more cinematic do you need? I still think mini-dv just doesn't cut it. A sony dsr570 would be my cut off if I absolutely knew I was transferring to film. For dvd projects, the dvx100 is fine. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

May 31st, 2004, 12:54 AM	#27
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Michael: As I'm sure you know, the cost of shooting film has little to do with the camera rental, and a lot to do with the stock/processing/telecine costs which have no counterpart to speak of in the DV world. And to be honest, I find the A-minima to be a pretty cumbersome animal itself, despite its bantam weight. The fixed eyepiece can be an annoyance, and it is not the easiest to thread (I've experienced a few jams, but I'll allow that practice makes perfect as with any camera). It's a clever camera and is useful for certain applications but I stop short of considering it a primary production camera. Obviously film is going to provide a more cinematic image than any digital format. However, even the minimal cost of shooting Super 8 will quickly eclipse the cost of renting an HD setup once shooting begins. It's just not a consideration for most readers of this forum. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

March 6th, 2004, 12:37 PM	#16
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	aside from 60i and posting it to a film-look

March 18th, 2004, 12:46 PM	#18
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	super16? why not 35mm? (endz are cheaper and more plentiful, post is available everywhere and it looks better)

March 18th, 2004, 01:05 PM	#19
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	Barry- you're the man... http://videosystems.com/ar/video_progressive_need_know/ helped me (I'm a big dummy) figure it out...

May 29th, 2004, 01:56 PM	#20
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	Hey Barry... what about frame mode in PAL? same resolution loss?

May 29th, 2004, 03:42 PM	#22
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	My main concern is progressive output from dvd to hd/ed monitors... for the web I'd shoot frame no doubt. I'm more interested in PAL 25p converted to NTSC compared to 30p frame... have any preference between NTSC/PAL for origination? Thanks!

May 29th, 2004, 10:04 PM	#23
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Gents: I am very interested to do a comparison of the Mini35 setup on an XL1s and a DVX100 to see if the increased resolution of that camera is outweighed by having to go through the built-in lens. If anyone is able to do so, please post images. -->>> I wanted to see that comparison very much. When we got the mini35, we also got a PD150 connection kit and tried to get an XL1 adapter -- but they didn't have one available. So, alas, I was not able to do the direct comparison. So I haven't seen a test side-by-side. However, I did do a film-out of DVX100 footage shot with the anamorphic adapter, which is now available on the DVFILM.COM demo reel. And I've seen XL1 footage blown up in the theater, in the form of "28 Days Later", so I can make a little bit of a comparison. In my most objective opinion, I think it looked drastically better than "28 Days Later" did in the theater. 28DL used premium HD lenses, with no mini35 ground-glass image deterioration, and the DVX used the stock lens + anamorphic adapter, and between the two, I'd say the DVX looked about twice as sharp. I can't argue that the glass on the DVX was better, but the higher-resolution chipset, the true progressive scan, and the avoidance of any interlace->progressive conversion or PAL->24P conversion really made the DVX look a lot better. On that reel I also had DVX mini35 footage transferred, and it held up very well, at least competitive with, if not quite a bit better than, 28DL. And that's with the DVX suffering the resolution loss inherent in the mini35. So, without empirical direct comparison available to me, but extrapolating from what I've seen, I would expect DVX/mini35 to look substantially sharper than XL1/mini35. From what I've seen, the better chips do provide enough of a difference to make up for the glass in between them and the image.

May 31st, 2004, 12:16 AM	#26
Marcus van Bavel Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Austin TX Posts: 176	If you shoot 50i with the PAL Canon XL-1, and convert to 25P using DVFilm Maker (dvfilm.com/maker) instead of shooting frame mode, that will get you about 431 lines as opposed to only 384 for PAL frame mode. The reason for that is because on static areas of the screen, Maker passes the interlaced frame through unchanged and you get the full vertical resolution of interlaced mode, even though the motion is 25P. Another way to do that is shoot 50i and convert to film-motion NTSC with DVFilm Atlantis (dvfilm.com/atlantis). That will yield very similar motion as shooting NTSC DVX100 in 24P and about the same resolution.

June 2nd, 2004, 02:29 PM	#28
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Charles, You are right about post production costs. However film telecine transfers are under pricing pressure and I think HD and super16mm are pretty close in price one it's all said and done. That being said, lets suppose we are shooting only dv. I've shot and seen dvx100a footage, it's nice. It doesn't look like film though. You still have to process it with an add on filter in your NLE to make it "filmish". I think one could shoot with a 16x9 60i camera and de-interlace and process in post and that would be as "cinematic" as you could get. I have to say, that frame mode on some Canon cams looks much better than the 320 lines or whatever it is. You couldn't dare to blow it up, but if you went straight to dvd and only saw it on a TV, it's got some props. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

June 2nd, 2004, 04:39 PM	#29
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Agreed that the cost of a film-out brings the margin of cost in--but I didn't realize we were talking about theatrical release. I would say that the single most contested issue in this forum is "how do you make video look like film?" We've been around and around it, and of course it's all in the eye of the beholder. I've seen some folk's work on the DVX that was posted here that was really convincing in a web delivery (and I wouldn't be surprised if I felt the same watching it on a monitor). We've had a lot of positive feedback on the Seinfeld Amex shorts, which had no post-filtering done to contribute to the film look. As always, it comes down to good lighting, composition and camera movement to sell the cinematic look, along with a 24-30p frame rate and for the piece de resistance, a Mini35 with good lenses can't hurt. Of all of those, only the frame rate can be achieved by flipping a switch on a stock camera. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

June 2nd, 2004, 09:31 PM	#30
Doug Turner Regular Crew Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sydney, Australia. Posts: 43	Re: 28 Days Later... I read that the 2nd unit was shooting with a Canon XL1... but I haven't heard what the 1st unit used (maybe cos it's the horrible truth none of us want to hear...) Some lovely shots at the stately home look very 35mm whereas the scenes in the taxi, abandoned London and the hospital look very Canon XL1. I'm undecided... would love to believe it was all shot on digital, but I'm cynical! People won't bother getting off their arses to go see a movie that cost $5mill to make - tell them it cost $50,000 or $150mill and they'll be queueing around the block. Odd that, eh?! 28 Days Later cost about $8mill... suggesting the use of the XL1 was a creative decision/marketing ploy rather than a financial choice. When Variety referred to 28 Days Later as a faux-low-budget film, I think they knocked the nail on the head! Anyone got Danny Boyle's email address so we can ask him straight up?!