Marshall 70DP (HDA) vs. Xenarc at DVinfo.net

Paul Dhadialla · June 5th, 2006, 06:28 AM

Hi guys - for those who have had experience with generic 800x480 monitors like the Xenarc - how would it compare to the composite picture on a Marshall 70DP ?

I have the earlier version - the 70P (480x240 I believe) and the picture from a Z1 in 16:9 is pretty soft. It is however better color wise than other 480x240 monitors i have.

I assume the 800x480 would make a significant difference - but the question is - is the Marshall going to be worth the price diff. $350 vs. $850

Also - how much more of a difference is the HDA (with component input going to make) - that is a approx. $1300 I believe.

I am not going to be focusing manually too often - but I'd still prefer to have something decent. Would the Xenarc be sufficient ?

Thanks in advance folks.
Paul

Paul Dhadialla · June 5th, 2006, 12:29 PM

Hi guys - i think i found a great explanation in Steev Dinkins test/explanation here.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&highlight=hda

Looks like the HDA will be the winner

Any insight into the Xenarc would still be greatly appreciated.

Thanks
Paul

Ben Winter · June 5th, 2006, 08:58 PM

The Xenarc is quite nice. Not as sharp as the Marshall, but if you have a 35mm adapter, it's perfect--it's even got a built-in flip fuction, both upside-down and mirror, so you don't need to mount it funky. If you want really good sharpness, put out the $1k+ for a Marshall. The price difference is there for a reason.

BTW I speak of the Xenarc 800YV, mounted on an FX1. It's bulky, so be wary.

Paul Dhadialla · June 6th, 2006, 01:17 AM

Hi Ben, thanks !

I took the plunge and went for the Marshall HDA - should be here in a day or two from B&H.

Thanks again for the insight in the Xenarc - I will definatly look into it
Cheers
Paul

Paul Dhadialla · June 7th, 2006, 02:30 PM

Update:

Hi guys - just wanted to provide some feedback.

I received my Marshall 70DP-HDA today from B&H All i can say - is WOW.
Very nice ! Thanks to all those that recommended it.

Most of this is likely obvious but i'll just share anyways

Compared to the Marshall 70P (which is discontinued btw - I bought that last month too) - a 480x240 - the output on the HDA is MUCH MUCH better. I'm using component in from the Z1U and the picture looks wicked. Sharp and the colors are practically matched with the camera LCD (which is also very clean btw) at the default settings.

With 0 DB gain in a room with a bounced 20 Watt lamp - objects are just faintly visible to the camera -the camera is still focusing perfectly - and you can see that with the HDA. Not on the Marhsall 70P though - the screen appears uniform - like everything is a soft focus. But its the same soft focus no matter where you turn the ring :(

In that dim light - with the HDA - You can manually focus very well. Camera F-stop is wide open. Again on the 70P it is mushy.
Even with S-Video and Composite the HDA is still much better than the 70P.

I zoomed in on my LCD computer screen with the 70P and can hardly make out the text on the screen. You can maybe make out a character here and there. With the HDA - you can see the text clear and sharp with punctuation - and even pick out dust on the screen :) Ofcourse i'm comparing component with composite - but the composite on the HDA is also much better (natually twice as good due to the resolution - but perceptually probably even better)

I have a few other LCD montiors like the varizoom (4:3) and another marshall (4:3) that i have tested with the cropped composite out - even two 9 inch Sony CRT'S with composite. Don't even bother comparing those with this unit. This is much much nicer.

For the price i think its a awesome value.
I will probably try and go for a battery solution like Steev as well using the 4 pin out.

In a nutshell - Awesome 7" LCD for color and clarity - better than anything i've seen from a LCD. Feels a lot like my apple cinema display when looking at the display

Cheers
Paul

Amos Kim · June 27th, 2006, 04:20 PM

the xerarcs are car monitors ... can they be mounted on cam?

Ben Winter · June 29th, 2006, 10:46 AM

I made a camera mount for mine using a shoemount and the existing 1/4" screwmount that came with the monitor. They all have 1/4" screwmounts at the bottom, so you can buy something like this to use with basically any "car" monitor you buy.

Amos Kim · June 29th, 2006, 12:17 PM

hmmm... I wish the 7" xenarcs had image flip.. it seems only the 7lbs 8" monitors have this feature.

Jeff McCutcheon · June 30th, 2006, 02:17 PM

Actually that's the shipping weight for the 8". The monitor weight is 2.75 lbs.

I have the Canon XLH1 with Redrock M2 and have tried multiple monitors.

The Xenarc 700v was nice for framing but I could only focus 85% of the time and it was difficult to see in bright sunlight.

I saw the Marshall (for $1350) at cinegear... it was brighter with more contrast, and looked usable.

My favorite is actually the Xenarc 1020 (10.2 inch) It's nice and bright, very big (less squinting) and has image flip. (My only complaint is that it appears to be 16x10 instead of 16x9... (it still shows the full image... just a bit squished when I compare it to my 24" dell monitor... If I don't have the dell next to it, I can't really tell)

Amos Kim · July 2nd, 2006, 12:36 AM

But with an m2 and 35mm lens, don't you focus by measuring tape and distance markings on the manual lens? You wouldn't need a monitor to focus... maybe just for framing

Jeff McCutcheon · July 2nd, 2006, 01:03 AM

Well, in a perfect world, yes. But I often shoot run-and-gun. And even when there's time to set up, an 85mm at 1.4 gives you a depth of field of an inch or two at some distances... It's difficult (and constraining) for actors to hit marks that accurately and beyond the ability of most AC's to eyeball the differences without a monitor. Furthermore, the 35mm still lenses are not marked as precisely as cine lenses. I can't imagine relying on the tape measure when I'm wide open.

I feel the best solution is a properly sized field monitor (true HD). If I don't have one, i think it's worth it to lug out a battery with an inverter and take a consumer HDTV out there just to check focus.

Amos Kim · July 2nd, 2006, 11:59 AM

oh, that sucks that 35mm still lenses are not that accurate! I was hoping to get an m2 and set up my shots with tape measure, the film way. I"m sure it's not the lenses itself that are not accurate but probably because it's going through m2 and the camera's own lens.

Jeff McCutcheon · July 2nd, 2006, 01:22 PM

Yeah.. I don't want to discourage you though. It is possible. The majority of the problem is that still lenses are not marked for pulling focus on the fly. For instance, on my 50mm, there is only centimeter's difference on the barrel between 3 meters and 10 meters, so it's difficult to guess where 7 meters might fall... let alone 7.35 meters.

Cine lenses use the entire barrel and include more gradations of distance. So if you get your redrock fitted for cine lenses it should work. (they just cost ALOT more)

June 5th, 2006, 06:28 AM	#1
Paul Dhadialla Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 143	Marshall 70DP (HDA) vs. Xenarc Hi guys - for those who have had experience with generic 800x480 monitors like the Xenarc - how would it compare to the composite picture on a Marshall 70DP ? I have the earlier version - the 70P (480x240 I believe) and the picture from a Z1 in 16:9 is pretty soft. It is however better color wise than other 480x240 monitors i have. I assume the 800x480 would make a significant difference - but the question is - is the Marshall going to be worth the price diff. $350 vs. $850 Also - how much more of a difference is the HDA (with component input going to make) - that is a approx. $1300 I believe. I am not going to be focusing manually too often - but I'd still prefer to have something decent. Would the Xenarc be sufficient ? Thanks in advance folks. Paul

June 5th, 2006, 08:58 PM	#3
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	The Xenarc is quite nice. Not as sharp as the Marshall, but if you have a 35mm adapter, it's perfect--it's even got a built-in flip fuction, both upside-down and mirror, so you don't need to mount it funky. If you want really good sharpness, put out the $1k+ for a Marshall. The price difference is there for a reason. BTW I speak of the Xenarc 800YV, mounted on an FX1. It's bulky, so be wary. __________________ BenWinter.com

June 29th, 2006, 10:46 AM	#7
Ben Winter Trustee Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 1,675 Images: 1	I made a camera mount for mine using a shoemount and the existing 1/4" screwmount that came with the monitor. They all have 1/4" screwmounts at the bottom, so you can buy something like this to use with basically any "car" monitor you buy. __________________ BenWinter.com

June 5th, 2006, 12:29 PM	#2
Paul Dhadialla Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 143	Hi guys - i think i found a great explanation in Steev Dinkins test/explanation here. http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...&highlight=hda Looks like the HDA will be the winner Any insight into the Xenarc would still be greatly appreciated. Thanks Paul

June 6th, 2006, 01:17 AM	#4
Paul Dhadialla Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 143	Hi Ben, thanks ! I took the plunge and went for the Marshall HDA - should be here in a day or two from B&H. Thanks again for the insight in the Xenarc - I will definatly look into it Cheers Paul

June 7th, 2006, 02:30 PM	#5
Paul Dhadialla Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 143	Update: Hi guys - just wanted to provide some feedback. I received my Marshall 70DP-HDA today from B&H All i can say - is WOW. Very nice ! Thanks to all those that recommended it. Most of this is likely obvious but i'll just share anyways Compared to the Marshall 70P (which is discontinued btw - I bought that last month too) - a 480x240 - the output on the HDA is MUCH MUCH better. I'm using component in from the Z1U and the picture looks wicked. Sharp and the colors are practically matched with the camera LCD (which is also very clean btw) at the default settings. With 0 DB gain in a room with a bounced 20 Watt lamp - objects are just faintly visible to the camera -the camera is still focusing perfectly - and you can see that with the HDA. Not on the Marhsall 70P though - the screen appears uniform - like everything is a soft focus. But its the same soft focus no matter where you turn the ring :( In that dim light - with the HDA - You can manually focus very well. Camera F-stop is wide open. Again on the 70P it is mushy. Even with S-Video and Composite the HDA is still much better than the 70P. I zoomed in on my LCD computer screen with the 70P and can hardly make out the text on the screen. You can maybe make out a character here and there. With the HDA - you can see the text clear and sharp with punctuation - and even pick out dust on the screen :) Ofcourse i'm comparing component with composite - but the composite on the HDA is also much better (natually twice as good due to the resolution - but perceptually probably even better) I have a few other LCD montiors like the varizoom (4:3) and another marshall (4:3) that i have tested with the cropped composite out - even two 9 inch Sony CRT'S with composite. Don't even bother comparing those with this unit. This is much much nicer. For the price i think its a awesome value. I will probably try and go for a battery solution like Steev as well using the 4 pin out. In a nutshell - Awesome 7" LCD for color and clarity - better than anything i've seen from a LCD. Feels a lot like my apple cinema display when looking at the display Cheers Paul

June 27th, 2006, 04:20 PM	#6
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	the xerarcs are car monitors ... can they be mounted on cam?

June 29th, 2006, 12:17 PM	#8
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	hmmm... I wish the 7" xenarcs had image flip.. it seems only the 7lbs 8" monitors have this feature.

June 30th, 2006, 02:17 PM	#9
Jeff McCutcheon Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 41	Actually that's the shipping weight for the 8". The monitor weight is 2.75 lbs. I have the Canon XLH1 with Redrock M2 and have tried multiple monitors. The Xenarc 700v was nice for framing but I could only focus 85% of the time and it was difficult to see in bright sunlight. I saw the Marshall (for $1350) at cinegear... it was brighter with more contrast, and looked usable. My favorite is actually the Xenarc 1020 (10.2 inch) It's nice and bright, very big (less squinting) and has image flip. (My only complaint is that it appears to be 16x10 instead of 16x9... (it still shows the full image... just a bit squished when I compare it to my 24" dell monitor... If I don't have the dell next to it, I can't really tell)

July 2nd, 2006, 12:36 AM	#10
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	But with an m2 and 35mm lens, don't you focus by measuring tape and distance markings on the manual lens? You wouldn't need a monitor to focus... maybe just for framing

July 2nd, 2006, 01:03 AM	#11
Jeff McCutcheon Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 41	Well, in a perfect world, yes. But I often shoot run-and-gun. And even when there's time to set up, an 85mm at 1.4 gives you a depth of field of an inch or two at some distances... It's difficult (and constraining) for actors to hit marks that accurately and beyond the ability of most AC's to eyeball the differences without a monitor. Furthermore, the 35mm still lenses are not marked as precisely as cine lenses. I can't imagine relying on the tape measure when I'm wide open. I feel the best solution is a properly sized field monitor (true HD). If I don't have one, i think it's worth it to lug out a battery with an inverter and take a consumer HDTV out there just to check focus.

July 2nd, 2006, 11:59 AM	#12
Amos Kim Major Player Join Date: May 2006 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 335	oh, that sucks that 35mm still lenses are not that accurate! I was hoping to get an m2 and set up my shots with tape measure, the film way. I"m sure it's not the lenses itself that are not accurate but probably because it's going through m2 and the camera's own lens.

July 2nd, 2006, 01:22 PM	#13
Jeff McCutcheon Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 41	Yeah.. I don't want to discourage you though. It is possible. The majority of the problem is that still lenses are not marked for pulling focus on the fly. For instance, on my 50mm, there is only centimeter's difference on the barrel between 3 meters and 10 meters, so it's difficult to guess where 7 meters might fall... let alone 7.35 meters. Cine lenses use the entire barrel and include more gradations of distance. So if you get your redrock fitted for cine lenses it should work. (they just cost ALOT more)