Jay Gladwell

Actually, the XL2 is too big for the Glidecam 2000 Pro. You should have gotten the 4000. At any rate, unless you are some massive muscle-bound bloke, you're going to experience, sooner or later, problems with your wrist, elbow, and shoulder. Having used the 4000 Pro on a shoot, I was messed up for several months. Finally, the pain and discomfort went away. So did the Glidecam 4000 Pro! Regardless of what they show, these items are for the smaller "palmcorder" type cameras. Jay

What I said was: "Any software that I'm aware of..." One piece of software that was mentioned and that was for Macs. Not being a Macite, I'm not familiar with it. Jay

The only way to capture true time lapse is using something like the FireStore FS-4. It has the ability to record single frames for true time lapse. Connect it to the camera and you're good to go! Any software that I'm aware of simply captures everyth Nth frame from normally recorded footage. The most you can shoot that way is an hour. Yes, a still camera could work, but then you would have to convert all those still images into a frame sequence. It just time consuming. Yes, there are many way to skin a cat--simulate time lapse--but if you want true time lapse and your taping some event that's longer than an hour, the FS-4 is the way to go. Jay

It depends what all you're going to demand from the tripod and head. If most of what you're doing is studio work, shot with a medium to wide angle, it should suit your needs. However... My experience has shown that using the XL2 and its full zoom capability I had to go up to the DV12 to get truly steady shot with the 20x lens. Yes, that's an expensive system, but so was the XL2! Hope this helps. Jay

To get the best of what this camera does out of it, you'd have to use this in a studio. The uncompressed option requires ship-loads of storage. If you're simply going to record to mini-DV, then buy a less expensive camera. Or get the XL2. The real drawback to all HDV at this time is there is no way to deliver HD, unless you're going to a network broadcast or the web, and that's an oxymoron, in my opinion. Jay

The truth is you won't find "a decent DV camera... to shoot in animorphic 16x9, able to shoot in 24p, have a mic input, [with] an LCD screen" for $200 to $500. It ain't gonna happen. Try putting another zero on the end and you'll have a better chance of getting what you want. Jay

An excellent piece of software for green screen work for the money is Ultra2. See http://www.seriousmagic.com/products/ultra/ Most of the NLEs have very good color correction tools. Which one will you be using? Jay

Agreed. Go the new XL2 route. You won't be disappointed. Jay

How true! I couldn't agree more. Everyone is so hung up on trying to make video look like film, they forget the most important elements and their films are still lacking. Jay

I've owned every model in the XL series and never had any " 'mosaic artifacts popup on playback' " problem. Granted, if it does happen it's more a problem with the user not properly maintaining the camera, not an problem with the "XL series" itself. Too, there is nothing wrong with the lens on the XLs, either. It simply a matter of learning how to use them. Jay

I have to disagree. The auto lens serves me very well. It's like any other instrument. It takes practice to learn how to "play" it well. Many simply don't have the patience to learn how, so it then becomes the object's fault, not the user. Jay

Sounds like the heads may be dirty. Try cleaning them with a cleaning tape--no more than 10 seconds, I think is the recommendation. Jay

You can't download it, sorry! Jay

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?showtopic=8721 Jay

Duncan, I posted a link here to the video back on August 12th. Great video! Jay

Chris, I have to disagree. I think the XL1 and XL1s are still viable cameras have have many uses left. It depends on the operator and his limitations! Have you checked out http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?f=44? Jay

What a great visual homage to Kubrick! Do you have any more stills from that shoot? Any clips available? Jay

Frankly, I prefer the first image. It has more snap to it. The second looks somewhat flat and drab. Just one man's opinion. Jay

Thomas, went to your site--nice work. The two-shot CU of the guys in blue light looks like something from "A Clockwork Orange." Jay

Mike, it depends on you, the camera operator, as much or more than it does the camera. It depends on what your needs are and what you're willing to do or not do. If you want good basic (point-and-shoot-out-of-the-box) camera, then DVX is for you. If you want a more versatile camera with an open architecture, if you want to learn how to control camera/image variables, etc., then the XL2 is for you.

Sony or Panasonic would be your best bet.

Jeremy, excuse me for being so blunt, but you don't know what you're talking about. Making such brash statements without any knowledge or information to back it up is completely absurd. It's statements like this that ruin your credibility. As does most professional equipment. It didn't seem weird to me and I've been in this business for over 35 years. As are most point and shot cameras. See above statement. Yes, the XL2 has a flexibility like few other cameras, especially the DVX. This flexibility does require some thought and practice to master, as does any real tool. So in this regard, you're correct. If one is too lazy and/or uninterested in learning how to use a fine tool like the XL2, then by all means, get something else, like the DVX. You're saving grace was that you did, finally, state that your opinion was biased. Jay

Here's something you may be interested in watching. It's the link that says "Watch the XL2 Feature Tour Video" near the top of this page: www.dvcreators.net

Take a look at this. It's the link that says "Watch the XL2 Feature Tour Video" near the top of this page: www.dvcreators.net Jay

Yes. It's an interesting concept. Not too practical, though, as it must create extraordinarily large files! Still, I'm sure it has some worthwhile applications. Jay