Eric Brown

My only concern is the HDV format. From what I've heard it is not as reliable in terms of generating a quality image (i.e.. artifacts, etc.. ) as the HD format. My knowledge on these things is limited at best but if this is indeed the case I would be more excited to see if Canon has developed their own HD and implemented it into the new camera, whatever it may be. From what I have further come to understand, These formats are proprietary? In other words Canon could not use or license Panasonic's HD codec. This aside, my enthusiasm to see what the new camera will look like, what it will do, is very high. I've read the announcement will be made on the 15th at the New York show. If I need straightening out on any of this people, straighten me out. I'm here to learn. :blink:

Hey, Mitch. In response to your post it was definitely the XL1, a PAL version. They used Canon primes with an Optex adapter. For more info check out American Cinematographer July 2003. And Open Water was shot on Sony miniDV, although I forget what model. They (28 days later) probably would have loved to have had the XL2, though for its native 16:9 capabilities. :)

Yeah, it's always great to have the latest and greatest equipment to help us realize out dreams of producing the best product, but the older XL's will get the job done in the hands of talent. "28 Days Later" proved that. But if it is the more "film" like aesthetic you seek, a micro35 adapter http://www.redrockmicro.com/ will help. Just be ready to lose at least a stop and a half of light. Also, the option of shooting 60i and converting to 24p later is always available. http://www.dvfilm.com/maker/. Check through both of these options and weigh the pros and cons of each. Along with composition, lighting, production design and a great script. You'll be on your way.

Tomas, just checked out the demo reel. You have a great eye. I think this well demonstrates the capabilities of the XL2 in the hands of a talented artist. Cheers.

As suggested earlier in the thread, use some ND filters (neutral density) on camera (local video supply shop) or hang some type of scrim, diffusion material in front of the halogens to soften the harshnes of the light (always keep diffusion material at a distance as it will possibly catch fire if too close to hot work lights). You should never have to adjust the makeup on a person that radically to get the best shot. Get your lighting in order and they will look great. You also might want to check this out. http://www.dvcreators.com/lighting/ For someone starting out, their is a lot of practical information on the DVD. Hope this helps and good luck with your project. p.s. be sure to scroll down that particular dvcreator page as there are helpful links on lighting as well.

Tomas, I like the stills. Do you have a demo reel by any chance I can look at? I wrote and plan on directing a short in the next few months here using my XL2. I'm thinking of DP'ing it myself but...only so much you can do on set. We're low to no budget but if you're interested I can send a script your way. And, I suppose, location is always a consideration as we are in LA. Thanks.

We are shooting a short within the next month or so and are in desparate need of an office type space or similar to shoot in. Something very minimalist. modern and ultra-contemporary. A concrete box (Brutalism type architecture) with windows would be perfect. We can pay $600.00 for the day. An empty room (with power) is okay. Please submit to: robinsonroad@post.com

I'm paraphrasing/summarizing Blain Brown's explanation of these types of light sources. More or less. Sodium vapor, Mercury Vapor and fluourescents are discharge sources and have discontinuous spectra, meaning they do not have a continuous spectrum source and therefore are not assigned a true color temperature. For more info you might want to check out his book "Cinematography: theory and practice." A must read for anyone serious about understanding lighting for film and video.

Jay, couldn't have said it better myself. Many people buy the XL2 because, like myself, they want to be able to switch out lenses. And with the EF adapter the choices become even greater. This isn't to bash the Panasonic as I think it is a very good camera, but I prefer my XL2 over it.

Jan Right you are. Thanks for the correction. I think my train of thought was going someplace else entirely due to an earlier Varizoom/DVX issue I had some time ago(gotta proof read these posts). But I must add, those movies were good because talented filmakers were behind them. Cameras don't make great films. People do. Anyone one of those directors, if given a Sony, JVC, Canon, ARRI etc...would have made just as nice a film. The Panasonic is chosen because, above all the others, it does come closer to emulating a film asthetic then any other current pro-sumer offering. I like both cameras (DVX/XL2) because of the great footage they produce but don't particularly place any special value on the Panasonic because it looks less like video than the Canon. I just happen to like the wide-arrangement of lens choices I can get with my adapter and the XL2, but some people may place no special value on that. Once again, what really matters most is "thetonys" skills as a filmmaker and how he will use them utilizing whatever tools he chooses to employ.

Hello, all Anyone savvy on those tiny little white dots that can appear on a lens' optical coating? I bought a used manual 16x lens off of Ebay from a private party. The dots are small, real small, barely larger than the tip of a pin and there are two of them. My question is does it mean that there is something faulty with the coating and this trend will continue? Will the existing dots grow larger? I e-mailed the seller just a few minute ago but wanted to see what anyone here might have to say. :huh:

Hello. Have to admit that the 3-way comparison at DVXuser is a bit biased. Not to say that they are being dishonest about the Canon. It's just that different people have different expectations of what they think their "ideal" camera should be. When peole say the Panasonic delivers a better image they say so in regards to the "filmic" look of the footage. Canon delivers higher resolution footage. It depends on what your definition of quality is. Most of what the DVX offers them is geared towards their needs. It doesn't make it a better camera than the XL2 by any stretch. The strong points of each camera, summing them up quickly, are: DVX100A: 1)Looks a little less "videoy" than the XL2 out of the box. Though, with careful tweaking, the XL2 is right on its heels. 2) Actual numeric assignments to controls instead of the XL2's "sliders" 3)Lighter, and therefore easier to manage in the field. 4) better low light capabilities by a few stops (I think) XL2: 1) Better zoom. This has advantages for both the Videographer (which are obvious) and the filmmaker. The 20x allows for greater shallow DOF than the Panasonic. 2) True 16:9. (DVX 16:9 is a "squeeze" that compromises resolution) If you're doing a film out, the XL2 delivers much higher resolution in this mode. (the DVX has higher res by a slight bit in 4:3 mode) A comparison to the DVX was written about in American Cinematographer about this and they rated the XL2 higher in image quality than the DVX on a film-out. 3) Interchangeable lenses. 4) LANC capable. The DVX will not accept Varizoom type controls. Also, keep in my mind that I think the XL2 suits my needs better. So I am as biased as the DVX users are about their camera. But I have laid out the facts. And the facts are they are both great cameras. Hope this helps.