Panasonic DVX100a or XL1S better in achieving film look?

[Gabrielle Talley]

Yet another which camcorder to buy question, but I haven't seen a comparison between the two. The Panasonic DVX100A or the Canon XL1S? Is the Panny better out of the box than the Canon XL1S with some different lenses? Like the 16:9 or any other that you may recommend? Is it all that important to have 24P and does the XL1S offer that in some other kind of way, through software, etc.?

Thanks,

Gabrielle

[Charles Papert]

I love the smooth tones and color rendition of the XL1s, but the DVX100 delivers a much sharper image, and offers more image control. It's a personal preference as to which looks "better".

[Jack Barker]

<<<-- Originally posted by Gabrielle Talley : Yet another which camcorder to buy question, but I haven't seen a comparison between the two. The Panasonic DVX100A or the Canon XL1S? Is the Panny better out of the box than the Canon XL1S with some different lenses? Like the 16:9 or any other that you may recommend? Is it all that important to have 24P and does the XL1S offer that in some other kind of way, through software, etc.? -->>>

Hi Gabrielle,
I see that this is your first post, so welcome to our little community.

Charles is perfectly correct when he said, " I love the smooth tones and color rendition of the XL1s, but the DVX100 delivers a much sharper image, and offers more image control." I would add that the sound recording on the DVX is noticeably richer and that, out of the box, the DVX's Lieca Dicomar lens is kickin'. If on the other hand, you can afford $1,700 or so for a Canon 16x Manual/Servo zoom lens, well....

24P? It does make video look more like film, but it's not essential. 30P is close and the results are smoother. The only time you NEED 24P is if you are going for a film transfer and yes, there is software out there (Magic Bullet, DVFilm, others) that can deinterlace DV footage and give you 24 progressive frames per second. I've heard that the results are not as good as those done in-camera, but I don't know that for sure.

The comparisons between these two cameras are of the Mercedes-Benz/BMW variety. They're both fine cameras and once you learn to tweek them, you can do just about anything - narrative film, interviews, documentaries, etc. It's really important that you know that good lighting, judicious use of filters and good camerawork are more important than which of these cameras you choose to buy.

[John Hudson]

The comparisons between these two cameras are of the Mercedes-Benz/BMW variety............................................


I'd say its more a BENZ to HONDA.

[Jaime Valles]

I have to say that, when it comes to the "film look", a 24p camera is definitely the only way to go. Either the DVX, or the new XL2. 30p is close, but not quite the same. If you have a chance to see a DVX, an XL2, and an XL1s in person, by all means do it. Nothing I can say will make you understand the difference between video and film looks better than seeing a DVX or an XL2 next to the XL1s, or any other non-24p camera.

Many other cameras can deliver superb images, with rich colors and great sound. But if you're after the film look (as in: something that seems like it was shot on film), you MUST start with a camera that does 24p. That means the DVX100, DVX100a, or XL2. The XL1s has "Frame Mode", which gives it a non-videoish look, but it doesn't look like film, either.

Many other things go into the film look other than frame rate. Lighting, composition, camera movement, etc. All true. But, as someone posted a while back, you can give Steven Spielberg an XL1s and its footage will look like video, and you can give a 4 year old a super 8 camera, and its footage will look like film.

Yes, there are software solutions out there for turning 60i (regular video) into 24 frames per second. From what I've seen, the resolution of the footage takes a hit, and simply isn't as smooth as a 24p camera. Plus, it requires lots of rendering on the computer afterwards. But don't take my word for it. Go see the cameras at a store that has them on display. The difference is night and day. Truly.

EDIT: ps- John, nice signature! I love that movie.

[Scott Ellifritt]

Hi everyone,

I am in the process of upgrading from the Sony vx2100 and have spent many o' moon researching between the xl2 and the dvx100a. And I concur that the dvx has a slightly better filmic quality. So I guess this means that I'll have to go out and buy one!












QUOTE of the Day: Yes, I'm a great editor but I don't have a magic wand, so fix it on the god #### set!

[Lloyd Choi]

I totally agree with Jaime.

I've used the DVX100A and the XL2 and I prefer the DVX by far. It has a more filmic look. Obviously, a lot of that film look is achieved in post, where you alter the saturation and colour.

[Jose di Cani]

check this shot made with the dvx. :)

http://www.macgregorcorp.com/dvinfo/x5.mov

[Ashton Robinson]

I love the definition and the sharpness of the picure. Also th 24p just makes it look dramatically sophisticated. Its all balanced and in my opinion looks better than the fuzzy coloring of the Canon XL's.

[Juan Parra]

<<<-- Originally posted by Jaime Valles : I have to say that, when it comes to the "film look", a 24p camera is definitely the only way to go. Either the DVX, or the new XL2. 30p is close, but not quite the same. If you have a chance to see a DVX, an XL2, and an XL1s in person, by all means do it. Nothing I can say will make you understand the difference between video and film looks better than seeing a DVX or an XL2 next to the XL1s, or any other non-24p camera.>>>

I would choose DVX100 over XL1S, not because of 24p but for its color rendition.

Frame rate is one of the least important factors for filmlook when it comes to use it for video/broadcast tv/dvd. However, if you're transfering to film, then yes shoot 24p.

IMO, these factors, in that order, will make your video look "more" like film:

Excellent lighting
Film gamma (s-curve)
Softening (less sharpness)
Camera motion (dolly, crane)
Narrower depth of field
3:2 pulldown/telecine (24fps)
Grain

Here is an article that will explain in more
detail what I'm trying to say:

http://www.dv.com/news/news_item.jht...02/jackman1202

Juan

[Charles Papert]

A good list, but I'd put 24 fps (or at very least, 30) at the very top. The best lit and composed 60i video will, to me, never look film-like due to the motion characteristic. It's not to say that in years to come, the standard frame rate may change; but to replicate the look currently associated with film, that's the way I'd order it.

[Scott Ellifritt]

Besides motion, it is also the sharpness of 60i. No matter how you light 60i it will still look like 60i.

[Arthur To]

hi i have an opinion to throw in here.

we were watching this "movie" in class of the macbeth play. i didnt understand why but there was something about it that made me wnat to throw up. i couldnt stand watching it, i had to look away. it was SICK (aside from HORENDOUS ACTORS), i couldnt understand.

until in this one shot, someone stood there htinking (not moving, then he looked up and walked away, and right there i found out...... it was the movement.

i still didnt get it though, whats the difference?

i looked it up and some people thought the sme of it- and it was because it was shot in 29.97 fps. now i clearly see it- when my xl is on 29.97 VS 30- i am not too big a fan of that though.

i worked on a set a while back using the dvx, only recently did the video finish in post.


id say..... documentaries, demonstrations, performances..... the dvx is perfect- splendid!

but for a picture that has a mood (seems to have this filmic tone), film look, dramatic shots, action shots, very...... something you would see in theatures.... and shallow focus potential..... i would totally root for the xl1s. ive used both for a very long time.

-arthur

[Aaron Shaw]

Arthur I'm not sure I understand what you are saying...

[Arthur To]

to summarize it in a short phrase- i simply am expressing my encounter with 29.97 fps- and then i express my vote for the xl1s

-arthur