nchopp

The camera is compressing the signal before it even hits the tape. Everything you get from a compressed format camera is compressed; tape, analog outs, digital outs. There's no free lunch. ;-)

Yeah, I guess I'm not expressing myself very well here. If you're just screening something DV (that, say, went straight to DVD), you get the overly sharp look of, well, video. I don't really know how to define it. Since we're talking about 24 here it's not the frame rate, it's just the way video... looks.

The P&S Technik is an adapter for several prosumer DV cameras that gives you much less depth of field; i.e. more similar to 35mm.

The P&S Technik, you mean?

The newest F900 (3, I believe) is holding a good two and a half to three stops more highlight detail than the first F900. In terms of dynamic range, it's definitely the best option in the video realm. (Short of a Viper or something equally ridiculous) :D

Well, if you're blowing up to film, you're obviously going to need all the sharpness you can get. I was referring to DV itself. And low dynamic range - well, yeah. :)

I disagree. While a soft-filter might be a bit much, some VERY moderate diffusion can do wonders with DV. That's one of the killers about DV - it's too sharp. The edges are too hard. (If you're trying to compare to film, at least)

It wouldn't be 4:4:4, because the information represented by the second and third numbers just isn't there. :) It's just... well, 4. :blink:

Agreed. The cost to blow up to 35mm is anywhere from $40,000 to $120,000... Comparatively, you BUY a Varicam for a good $60,000 used... Or shoot 35mm on an Arri for... well, it depends on a lot. But shooting DV with plans to blow up to 35mm is not a wise financial choice.

I got a sneak peek at the DVExpoWest this summer. VERY sweet looking rig. No experience with it, though.

Alvin, I'm a still photographer as well (mostly digital, Canon10D, and a bit of 35mm B&W), and I'm the same way about image quality. I've shot extensively with the GL2 and DVX-100 (and 100A). I agree, knock the GL2 off the list. The XL2 is closer in line price-wise with the Sony and 100, and actually features 24p. If you're thinking of using this for videography of nature subjects, the XL2 may be an excellent option for you, if you're already bought into the Canon line of glass. You can get an adapter for the XL2 (and XL1, previous model, no 24p) that allows you to mount any Canon EOS line of lenses on it, even up to the 1200mm. (Put that together with the mag factor of the smaller sensor and it's something like a 1700mm, I think). The Sony doesn't shoot true 24p - it has a "fake" 24 frame progressive "look" option. That won't help you with the transfer to film - but the enhanced resolution will. The XL2 and DVX-100 both feature true 24p progressive scan. They can handle blowing up to 16mm fairly well, and if things are well-lit, CAN be blown up to 35mm - just doesn't usually turn out amazingly well. If you've seen the documentary Supersize Me, that was shot on the Sony PD-150 PAL (25 frames per second, non-progressive). A lot depends on how much you spend in the transfer process from DV to film. Lastly, contrary to popular belief, shotguns aren't as directional as people think. Even for nature documentary a decent shotgun will have quite a large pick-up pattern. Unless you put a dish on it, of course. Feel free to drop me a line if you need more help.

Take the DVX100 either way, even if you're going to shoot 60i. Like someone else said - 24 tell a story, 60i to impart knowledge. We're trained from birth to see 60i as reality - news, etc. 24 is fanciful, storytelling. The 100 is a vastly superior tool. I've shot extensively with both, and the only advantage I've found to the GL1 is it's cheaper. It's not a bad machine, it's good in it's own right, but it's outclasses the 100. Just the XLR inputs alone is enough to swing it in my favor...