You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

...going to get lynched for saying this

Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 3:39am

Post 1 of 47

dirtygeeza

Force: 80 | Joined: 24th Feb 2002 | Posts: 84

Member

I know I am going to get lynched for saying this but I'm gonna say it anyway so here goes:...

I borrowed my mates canon yesterday (monday 21st) for a 2 weeks coz im about to start filming a short documentary. Nothing major but it may end up on cable tv hence the reason for loaning the XL1 in the first place, a big camera with an equally big reputation. Ok now, I got home in the evening doubly excited especially after England sent Croatia packing, connected it all up and filmed a couple of minutes of video in my bedroom under low light conditions (70w halo bulb to be exact). and played back the footage using an svideo cable. Unsuprisingly the quality was absolute shite. (dark scenes with alot of noise). I scratched me balls in disbelief but then quickly realised that it was perhaps because i filmed with auto settings activated. So i switched to manual and fine tuned accordingly and repeated the process again under the exact same conditions. Result, the exact same image quality. As a final act, i got out my MX300 just for the heck of it and filmed the same scenes simultaneously. To my amasement, the mx300 had noticably better image quality than the XL1 which honestly suprised me because on paper in regards to technical specs the mx300 is not in the same league as the xL1 even though they are both 3CCD cameras.

Now now, before anyone goes for my throat by stating the obvious like "oh to get the best possible image quality from the xl1 you have to light your scenes like a pro" or something to that effect, it goes without saying. Near broadcast image quality can be achieved with good lighting using almost any dv camera worth £399+ Ok. Furthermore to light like a pro will take the gritty edge off the type of stuff i film.

In my opinion what seperates a good cam from a bad one is the ability to perform well under any condition indoors and out, with and without lighting.

Perhaps by outburts may be a little premature at this stage but im truely dissapointed especially with the mass hysteria associated with the xl1. I will repost an update after two weeks if i see different.

Oh and for those who think im being baised, this aint so. I am not that happy with my mx300 because its a very fragile camera with longevity issues (poorly built). A pixel went missing after only 18 months of use which is quite dispicable, and last week the ac power charger finally conked out. I am not that concerned anymore because I will be buying a new cam early next year and rest assured it aint gonna be a panasonic brand. I dont sheet money. I work hard and sweat for the £££ so i refuse to be taken for a mug by some manufacturers out there to make a fast buck. Still firmly stand by the fact that the mx300 produces the best video image quality there is in the so called prosumer class.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 3:45am

Post 2 of 47

TheRenegade

Force: 190 | Joined: 2nd Mar 2004 | Posts: 345

MacOS User

Member

Get a VX2100. It has a very good lux.









The Renegade
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 3:55am

Post 3 of 47

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Alright, let's lynch him!

Basically, all you're saying here is that the MX300 (who makes that?) has better low light capacity than the XL1. Which is believable. I've been disappointed by the low light capacity on mine, but that's why I choose to light scenes instead of filming in the dark. Anyway, since you already said:

Now now, before anyone goes for my throat by stating the obvious like "oh to get the best possible image quality from the xl1 you have to light your scenes like a pro" or something to that effect, it goes without saying.
Nothing I say will sound like anything but an excuse as to why "it's such a fantastic camera", so I'm just going to ask what settings you had it on. All you've told us is that you switched to manual mode. What were your exact settings? Did you fiddle with the gain at all?

Can you post shots from these tests you did so we can see?

I don't want to sound like an ass, but it kinda sounds like you don't know how to use the camera. If you're not familiar with the settings and how to use everything, there's a very high risk of grainy images, especially in low light. If I'm wrong, oh well. Don't shoot in the dark.

And if you're so pleased with the MX300, why did you need to borrow the Canon? Because people know it?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:32am

Post 4 of 47

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

dirtygeeza wrote:

Furthermore to light like a pro will take the gritty edge off the type of stuff i film.
Not really. You've seen movies and tv shows with a gritty look and feel to them, and that actually comes from the lighting. True, it takes more work than throwing a 500W lamp directly on your subject, but it can be done. I would recommend experimenting with the lighting, as well as the camera settings. Because, as Aculag said, if you know how to use an XL1 effectively, it will give you a far superior picture over the MX-whatever.

Oh, and you can always grade in post as well. smile
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:47am

Post 5 of 47

dirtygeeza

Force: 80 | Joined: 24th Feb 2002 | Posts: 84

Member

Aculag wrote:

Alright, let's lynch him!
ha ha ha


I don't want to sound like an ass, but it kinda sounds like you don't know how to use the camera.
You do! (joking). I understand where you are coming from because you feel im imcompetent which is fair enough. The fact is I am no stranger to manual controls because the mx300 has em too and have been using that cam and the pd150 for the past 3 years. The xl1 has pretty much the same manual settings as the mx give or take a few notches so in this regard i knew exactly what i was doing. The settings i used on both cameras is as follows:
XL1 setting:
tv mode: normal/ 4:3 aspect
shutter speed: 1/50,
f.1.6, gain +12db (+9db) was too dark on the XL1, even though grain (noise as i prefer to call it was significantly reduced.
if you feel Ive left something out, please enlighting me.

It doesnt suprise me you aint heard of the mx300. Its a panasonic. In regards to you saying that the mx300 has a better low light, you are absolutely wrong. Quite the opposite in fact. If you read my post again you will note that I specifically stated that the technical spec of the XL1 is far superior in comparism to the mx300, so i aint having that. Check the specs for yourself.

Can you post shots from these tests you did so we can see?
are u mad?

Don't shoot in the dark.
i havent.

And if you're so pleased with the MX300, why did you need to borrow the Canon?
Read my post again. You obviously lack analytical skills. Its no biggie but comes in handy sometimes.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:51am

Post 6 of 47

dirtygeeza

Force: 80 | Joined: 24th Feb 2002 | Posts: 84

Member

Lloyd66 wrote:

Not really. You've seen movies and tv shows with a gritty look and feel to them, and that actually comes from the lighting.
fair point. I'm still peed off. Expected good results regardless. wasnt like i was filming in pitch black.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 6:22am

Post 7 of 47

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

dirtygeeza wrote:

are u mad?
No, I'm just wondering if we can see the shots. As a comparison.

Read my post again. You obviously lack analytical skills. Its no biggie but comes in handy sometimes.
I read your post fine. I just wanted clarification. Are you ONLY borrowing it because people know the camera (hence maybe you'll have a better chance of the documentary being on cable tv) or is there another reason? Seems like if you think the video quality is better on the MX300, why not stick with that?

Please don't think I'm out to get you, or that I "lack analytical skills" because I'm curious to know further details about what you're doing.

As for your settings, I don't like using the gain knob. I always keep it at the zero setting, because anything higher makes for grain (or noise). Yeah, it may help for low light, but like I said, I don't shoot in low light.

So, since I don't shoot in low light, and I haven't really heard any testimonials from people about shooting in low light on the XL1, I'm curious to know about all this stuff. You're coming off as though you're pissed off that I questioned you in the least, when I'm just trying to figure it out, because I'm curious.

Is there any way we can see the difference?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 7:21am

Post 8 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hey, Interesting post. I'm a big fan of the Canon but think it has a time and a place. I was shooting at a festival the other day and as pointing the camera at the stage was fine. But as soon as i spun it round to get crowd shots it was near pitch black. So i do get were your coming from.

My friend was shooting with a Panasonic DVCAM (forgotton the model but it splits in the middle so has a betacam front end and a dvcam back end. His quality in low light wasnt much better then mine.

Now having said all that. right now im sat in my bedroom with a 70 watt light bulb on and the curtains drawn (afraid of sunlight that i am)
And i know that i can turn on the xl1 and get a few shots and why they wont be the best in the world. It wont be pitch black and would look passable. So im not sure whats going on with your cam.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 7:58am

Post 9 of 47

billy3d

Force: 2678 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2002 | Posts: 1273

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

well i'v just got a vx2100E and its great for lowlight, i may even find the strength and upload some pics wink. Ah it was like nightime when i shot it, there were some street lights on outside, so i opened the curtains, some illumination came in. I just filmed then. The image looked a wee bit grainy in the viewfinder, but it looked awsome on the computer.

billy3d
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 8:42am

Post 10 of 47

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

The XL1s is a good camera but its not the best unless lenses are important to you. On all the shooting we have done our XM2 has constantly produced vastly better images in all light conditions. Was it an XL1s or just an XL1 you were using?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 8:44am

Post 11 of 47

ghevans

Force: 240 | Joined: 9th Jun 2004 | Posts: 131

Gold Member

im wanting to upgrade soon - i didnt want to start a new thread incase it was already covered elsewhere - so can you guys give me a top 3 of camcorders worth getting - im aiming at prosumer products (oh and preferrably PAL format as im in the UK).

thanks in advance.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 8:45am

Post 12 of 47

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

If you want progressive get a Canon XM2. If you don't want progressive but want the best quality interlaced DV camera out there get the Sony VX2100.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 8:53am

Post 13 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Take a look at the consumer hd cam - forget who makes it (jvc?) but ive heard good things about it..
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 9:00am

Post 14 of 47

billy3d

Force: 2678 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2002 | Posts: 1273

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

schwar, is it true that if a camera has true progressive ccd's, converting the interlaced footage to progressive in post using virualdub, with its nifty deinterlacing plugins, is as good as 25p?
billy3d

Ah here's the pic, looked brighter in the viewfinder razz , ended up darker.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 9:14am

Post 15 of 47

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Nope, when working in interlaced mode the 2 fields are still offset (taken 1/50th of a second appart PAL) so they'll never be like real progressive full frames taken at 1/25th of a second appart.

As for the HD JVC camera, although they are interesting its too new to really be useful at the moment. Editing in MPEG2 isn't gonna be much fun and recompression and resizing isn't gonna help either. Maybe when more stuff moves to HD and we get a faster consumer tape storage method than DV they will take over.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 9:27am

Post 16 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

totally off topic but can you please tell me how to post images in a thread like that smile
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 9:34am

Post 17 of 47

ghevans

Force: 240 | Joined: 9th Jun 2004 | Posts: 131

Gold Member

so basically would i be right in thinking the best to go for would be :

Sony VX2100
Canon XM2
Canon XL1-S
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 1:42pm

Post 18 of 47

dirtygeeza

Force: 80 | Joined: 24th Feb 2002 | Posts: 84

Member

Aculag wrote:

I'm curious to know about all this stuff. You're coming off as though you're pissed off that I questioned you in the least, when I'm just trying to figure it out, because I'm curious.
Sorry brus. I tend to get overly sensitive sometimes when i feel im being attacked. I kno the majority of you guys are hardcore xL1 fanatics and knew way in advance that my post was abit controversial so i was ready to take peoples heads off b4 mine.

In regards to why i borrowed the XL1, well first impressions definately count. The Xl1 is a very sexy piece of kit and i just wanted to experince first hand what the fuss was all about, having read in detail its specs. The reason for wanting to use it for the documentary is to gain an advantage technically by producing the best possible image and sound quality. I wasnt supposed to know otherwise. Im not saying the mx300 is a better cam over the Xl1. My grevience is purely on the raw image quality under produced under any condition.

I am making the doc as an independent producer/film maker. Ive already had talks with the top dog at the channel (shes a lady actually) during christmas of last year and she expressed a keen interest. I'm not getting paid for it but the way i see it, its an opportunity.

Schwar wrote:

Was it an XL1s or just an XL1 you were using?
It is an XL1 with the standard 16x canon lense.

Thanks for your contributions
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 2:04pm

Post 19 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

To be honest.. if i was doing a doc i would use an xml1 or a Sony pd150 /170 or vx whatever it is.

I love the XL1 but in those kind of random situations its so much easier to shoot on a good cam with a fold out screen then it is to bang your eye up against the camera
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 2:12pm

Post 20 of 47

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

To post images in a thread, whether it be your signature pic or an image, you put in [img]URL of Image[/img]. Then an image will appear. If you want to see the code available, look on the left where it says smilies/bbcode.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 2:54pm

Post 21 of 47

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't know all the specifics of the prosumer cameras, but I really like the feel of the XL1s. It's really nice for shooting movies, because the added weight and shoulder mount take away a need for a steadycam. Also, I find it much easier to shoot outside with one because you have to use a viewfinder outside anyway, and the viewfinder on the XL1s fits right up to your eyes, whereas on a smaller cam like the GL2, you have to hold it up to you're face, making it awkward if you have to move at all to follow the action.

Just my opinion, though.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 2:59pm

Post 22 of 47

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

The XL1 is pretty old, and for the times I've used them the XL1s (which is also getting on a bit now) produced better results. Still the XM2 has a way better CCD.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 3:12pm

Post 23 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

When were all shooting on HD cams the size of credit card we'll look back on this thread alnd laaaaaaaaugh :o)
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 3:17pm

Post 24 of 47

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

CMBmovies wrote:

When were all shooting on HD cams the size of credit card we'll look back on this thread alnd laaaaaaaaugh :o)
yeah... i was thinking along those lines... lol. biggrin
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 3:49pm

Post 25 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Thanks Seprpent.. Its been driving me nuts.

Ive updated my catwoman thread to show the pics in it instead of links smile
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 3:56pm

Post 26 of 47

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

CMBmovies wrote:

When were all shooting on HD cams the size of credit card we'll look back on this thread alnd laaaaaaaaugh :o)
When we're all shooting on ANYTHING the size of a credit card, I'm going to switch back to something a bit more hefty...
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:27pm

Post 27 of 47

Cutty201

Force: 188 | Joined: 14th Apr 2004 | Posts: 327

Windows User

Member

Aculag wrote:

CMBmovies wrote:

When were all shooting on HD cams the size of credit card we'll look back on this thread alnd laaaaaaaaugh :o)
When we're all shooting on ANYTHING the size of a credit card, I'm going to switch back to something a bit more hefty...
I'm with Aculag...again... on this one I have a Sony TRV240 and it's small and drives me nuts, but just for shites and giggles I booted up sony's website and to take a look at the updated version of my camera...and.....an..OMG AHHHHHHHH it's smalleR!! and it's not even a ...camera.. shape!! I jsut thought "OMG" ahhh.. Anywho smile

Someone said that teh GL2 has better CCDs? Is that true? I thought the GL2 was an XL1s with everything built on...in a nutshell..
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:29pm

Post 28 of 47

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Nope, the GL1 shares its insides with the XL1s. The GL2/XM2 is a new camera/ccd which is quite a lot better.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:30pm

Post 29 of 47

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

CMBmovies wrote:

When were all shooting on HD cams the size of credit card we'll look back on this thread alnd laaaaaaaaugh :o)
When we're all shooting on ANYTHING the size of a credit card, I'm going to switch back to something a bit more hefty...
Well if it has a super holographic screen and menu screen it'd be worth it smile
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:42pm

Post 30 of 47

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

schwar wrote:

If you want progressive get a Canon XM2. If you don't want progressive but want the best quality interlaced DV camera out there get the Sony VX2100.
Yo Schwar,

We've got 2 XM2's, but have not really had the opportunity to play with the progressive setting yet (Frame mode). Is it all it's cracked up to be?

As I say, we've not really played with it yet, but the one or two times we have used it (briefly) we appear to be getting a lot of stuttering in the footage. crazy

NoClue & Slayer
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:49pm

Post 31 of 47

TAP2

Force: 1128 | Joined: 8th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1848

Windows User

Member

I agree, I don't think the XL1 was ever something amazing.

My camera is a £700 JVC, and it is great. JVC cameras have a reputation for excellent colour reproduciton and quality. I don't need all of these fancy 'progressive' features because they're pointless.

You may aswell shoot your film with as many frames as possible. You've got more flexibility, and then you can easily deinterlace your film at the end.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 4:53pm

Post 32 of 47

Gibs

Force: 1663 | Joined: 21st May 2002 | Posts: 1611

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I thought I read once somewhere that Canon is going to release an update to the XL1s (ala XL2, or something like that). Is that true?
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:02pm

Post 33 of 47

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

CMBmovies wrote:

Take a look at the consumer hd cam - forget who makes it (jvc?) but ive heard good things about it..
Not true - it records on MPEG and the quality is worse than DV!

Shot with that thing and it's awful!
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:06pm

Post 34 of 47

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

JohnCarter wrote:

Not true - it records on MPEG and the quality is worse than DV!

Shot with that thing and it's awful!
Really? I thought the only cameras that shoot on MPEG were the ones that record straight to a dvd? That's crazy that an "HD" camera would look worse than DV.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:15pm

Post 35 of 47

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

JohnCarter wrote:

Not true - it records on MPEG and the quality is worse than DV!

Shot with that thing and it's awful!
Really? I thought the only cameras that shoot on MPEG were the ones that record straight to a dvd? That's crazy that an "HD" camera would look worse than DV.
It does! In order to squeeze all that info on a DV tape, they compress it using MPEG-2. Therefore you can't just play the tape in anything other than the camera and you need to use special software to capture it.

The only thing "HD" about those cameras is the size of the picture. The resolution is inferior to DV. Especially if you shoot near woods (what we did) the resolution was so terrible you can hardly make out what's there- especially true in wide shots. Wide shots are terrible with this camera. Also the colors bleed.

It gave a truly awful picture.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:22pm

Post 36 of 47

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

XL2? You sure you don't mean the XM2, the name for GL2 here in Europe.

Hey, I found this article: http://www.pictureline.com/digital/dvcameras/xl2.html
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:46pm

Post 37 of 47

adamlightandmagic

Force: 580 | Joined: 3rd Nov 2001 | Posts: 611

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

From what I read about HD camera operation, it does capture Mpeg2. BUT...it's actually a custom version that is not limited to 9.8MB rate. It's possible to put it right up to 29MB! Now, I don't know how it operates or how it looks, but that's what I read. Maybe there's a bad generation around right now that's limited.

Adam.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:51pm

Post 38 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hi - just to clarify. I love the XL1. I have an XL1s. It delivers crisp clear pictures and i'd reccomend it to anyone. What I meant was that there are certain types of situations where I would use a different camera.

I know more modern cameras are better in the dark lbut a portable light solves that smile

Also about the HD cam - I've read very good reviews of it and the picture quality i've seen is excellent. I know that it uses mpeg2 compression but ive seen images of waves crashing across a beach at sunset in low light that are strikingly clear with no pixellation. If i was in the market for a camera i would consider it at least.
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:56pm

Post 39 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

bear in mind that dvds are mpeg compression to (hollywood dvds average out at around 4mg bitrate) and no one seems to complain about there quality smile
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:58pm

Post 40 of 47

JohnCarter

Force: 3295 | Joined: 11th Mar 2003 | Posts: 1078

VisionLab User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

CMBmovies wrote:

Also about the HD cam - I've read very good reviews of it and the picture quality i've seen is excellent. I know that it uses mpeg2 compression but ive seen images of waves crashing across a beach at sunset in low light that are strikingly clear with no pixellation. If i was in the market for a camera i would consider it at least.
Well, the one I used was a JVC and from what I've seen so far - for God's sake we were shooting in broad daylight at high noon!!! - the technology isn't quite there yet... I manage to do better with my Fisher-Price PXL-2000!!! Barely exagerating here.

When you compress 4000 lines plus of resolution down to MPEG-2, that's not an issue...

When the resolution isn't even there and you compress, then you get CRAP!

Last edited Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 8:40pm; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 5:59pm

Post 41 of 47

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

29 mb bitrate! oh my god! eek
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 6:11pm

Post 42 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm talking about the JVC HD-10
From everything ive read it has its strengths and weaknesses like any other camera

"The reward for accepting these limitations, aggravations, and frustrations is gorgeous images with stunning detail. Concerns about an HD camera with only a single CCD vanish when you see the HD10's color reproduction. It is realistic and not super-saturated, as is often the case with prosumer DV camcorders. Color balance is realistic and is neither warm nor cool."


link to full review
http://videosystems.com/mag/video_jvc_jyhd/
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 6:15pm

Post 43 of 47

Brettsta

Force: 3385 | Joined: 15th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2114

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I have only heard bad things about that camera
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 6:18pm

Post 44 of 47

CMBmovies

Force: 200 | Joined: 30th Sep 2001 | Posts: 79

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

really, ah well. Like i said - no personel experience id just heard lots of good things
Posted: Tue, 22nd Jun 2004, 6:21pm

Post 45 of 47

dirtygeeza

Force: 80 | Joined: 24th Feb 2002 | Posts: 84

Member

JohnCarter wrote:

I manage to do better with my Fisher-Price PXL-2000!!! Barely excagerating here.
Oh Shhhhit. biggrin

Almost forgot. Schwar.. You seem pretty clued up about the progressive scan feature. I know what its there for, i.e. to film video specifically for a computer monitor/LCD so as to eliminate video fields . What I wanna know is this..
a) does shooting standard interlaced video, and then seperating its fields during post the same as "progressive scan" on a camera? If yes, whats the point in having such a feature on a cam?

b) is seperating fields and deinterlacing the same shite?

c) does progressve scan offer a better resolution in comparism to interlaced video?
Posted: Fri, 25th Jun 2004, 3:49pm

Post 46 of 47

Vega70

Force: 280 | Joined: 9th Apr 2001 | Posts: 295

Gold Member

"In my opinion what seperates a good cam from a bad one is the ability to perform well under any condition indoors and out, with and without lighting.
"

Well said... and yes... since my run in with Panasonic I avoid anything with their name marked on it too !!!
Posted: Sat, 31st Jul 2004, 10:07pm

Post 47 of 47

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

dirtygeeza wrote:

JohnCarter wrote:

I manage to do better with my Fisher-Price PXL-2000!!! Barely excagerating here.
Oh Shhhhit. biggrin

Almost forgot. Schwar.. You seem pretty clued up about the progressive scan feature. I know what its there for, i.e. to film video specifically for a computer monitor/LCD so as to eliminate video fields . What I wanna know is this..
a) does shooting standard interlaced video, and then seperating its fields during post the same as "progressive scan" on a camera? If yes, whats the point in having such a feature on a cam?

b) is seperating fields and deinterlacing the same shite?

c) does progressve scan offer a better resolution in comparism to interlaced video?
Schwar, look forward to your response to the above post from dirtygeeza, 'cos you never answered mine and you appear to be the man in the know!

[quote]schwar wrote:
If you want progressive get a Canon XM2. If you don't want progressive but want the best quality interlaced DV camera out there get the Sony VX2100.


Yo Schwar,

We've got 2 XM2's, but have not really had the opportunity to play with the progressive setting yet (Frame mode). Is it all it's cracked up to be?

As I say, we've not really played with it yet, but the one or two times we have used it (briefly) we appear to be getting a lot of stuttering in the footage.

NoClue & Slayer[quote]