[Eynstyn]

http://dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

(CHARTS AND FRAME GRABS CAN BE FOUND AT THE LINK)

Sony HDV FX1 vs. DVX100a vs. Canon XL2
by Jarred Land and Barry Green


Today’s video cameras are not what they used to be. Features like 24P recording, adjustable gamma settings, widescreen 16:9, and now high-def imaging are now on the market. For aspiring filmmakers, commercial producers, wedding/event videographers, and other shooters, there are three main cameras that are garnering all the attention: the new HDV Sony FX1, the almost-as-new Canon XL2, and the legendary Panasonic DVX100A (which is less than a year old, at the time of this writing).

Panasonic has sold a boatload of DVX100’s and DVX100A’s, they’re being used by networks, commercial producers, music video producers, independent filmmakers (and aspiring filmmakers) and videographers. A film shot on the DVX100 won the Best Cinematography award at the Sundance Film Festival. Clearly established as the camera of choice for many, it now finds its position challenged by two newcomers: Canon’s long-awaited XL2, and Sony’s first foray into consumer high-definition video, the HDR-FX1.

The cameras all share some factors in common – they’re all able to record in DV format, they all use three 1/3” CCD’s, they record on DV tape, and they all cost less than $5,000. How does a camera buyer choose among these three?


The DVX and the FX1 are roughly the same size.. the XL2 is big, which has its advantages and disadvantages

We decided to put these cameras to the test. We both got on a plane and headed to NY city, with the three cameras in hand mounted side-by-side on a tripod, with the aim to shoot identical footage of resolution charts, color charts, low light tests, frame rate tests, panning tests, motion tests, still-shot tests, latitude tests, anything and everything we could think of. And while we were at it, we got to learn the cameras quite well, learning how each performs and the differences in thought process and form factor that go into the cameras. What we found was, these cameras are in many ways more different than they are alike. For the potential buyer, we believe that’s a good thing – the more different they are, the easier it will be for you to determine what features are most important for your particular needs, and what features aren’t as important, and then you can select the camera that most closely fits your priorities.

The most glaring differences are these: the Sony shoots high-definition (HD) interlaced video, whereas the Canon and Panasonic shoot standard-definition (SD) 24P and 30P progressive-scan video (as well as SD interlaced video). The Canon also features interchangeable lenses, but costs about 33% more than the other two cameras, and is more of a shoulder-mount camera. The DVX and XL2 feature professional audio subsystems, the FX1 has a very limited consumer-style audio subsystem. The DVX and FX1 feature great wide-angle lenses, where the Canon has superb telephoto capabilities.

As far as which camera is “best”, that really depends on your intended usage. We’ll examine the cameras themselves, then we’ll examine the footage the cameras produce, and finally we’ll make some judgment calls as to what camera is best suited for particular applications.

FORM FACTOR:
Both the FX1 and the DVX share a similar form factor, and they look pretty much alike. Both are primarily hand-held cameras with flip-out LCD screens. Most DVX/FX1 users will find themselves primarily using the LCD, and less frequently using the viewfinder. The XL2 is built very differently – it’s much bigger than the others, and is meant to be primarily used with the viewfinder. The XL2 doesn’t have a conventional flip-out LCD; instead it provides that you can move the viewfinder’s magnifying glass out of the way, providing access to the tiny 2” LCD screen. More on the viewfinder later, but back to the body shape: the XL2 is bigger, heavier, and looks more like a typical broadcast camera: the viewfinder fits like a broadcast/ENG camera’s viewfinder, and the zoom handgrip is more like an ENG camera’s handgrip. If physical impressiveness of the camera package is important to you, the XL2 is the more broadcast-looking camera of the three. Some clients will want to see a camera that looks like something more substantial, and while it’s not in the same league as a Sony DSR300 or DSR570, the XL2 certainly looks more like it than the FX1 and DVX do. For wedding/event videography this could be an advantage.

If small size/stealth is more your preference, the FX1 and DVX are much smaller than the XL2. The FX1 looks beefier and thicker than the DVX, although it’s “airy”, meaning that while it looks a little bigger than the DVX, they weigh the same. If your style is to shoot “guerilla” without needing to get a permit, you’ll probably get further with an FX1 or DVX than you will with an XL2.

LENS:
No discussion of the XL2 can even start without mentioning its main claim to fame: it has the ability to use interchangeable lenses. The DVX and the FX1 have a fixed lens that cannot be removed or exchanged. Canon provides a small selection of lenses that offer unique features, such as a 3x wide-angle lens and a 16x manual-control lens. On the surface this would seem to be a huge advantage for the Canon.

The XL2's 4 adjustable channels

Awkward but long and steady lens

not sure why this dial is here.

In practice, however, this advantage is not nearly so clear-cut. While it’s true that you have the option to interchange lenses, no one lens does all the jobs one would want. Each lens in the Canon lineup requires that you sacrifice some (potentially) important feature. For example, Canon’s standard 20x zoom lens has superb optical image stabilization and autofocus, but an annoying non-repeatable, imprecise-control servo zoom and servo focus control, with no provision for true/precise manual focus and no feedback whatsoever about zoom or focus position. You can buy the 16x manual lens and get excellent manual focus and excellent manual and power zoom, but you will have to give up optical image stabilization and autofocus – they just don’t exist when using the 16x manual lens! And neither lens offers a real iris ring. So you can go to the 14x manual lens and get a real iris ring, real manual zoom and real manual focus, but then you have to give up autofocus, power zoom, neutral density filters and optical image stabilization! And none of these lenses offer a true wide-angle field of view, so to get that, you can buy the Canon 3x wide-angle lens, which offers an excellent very wide angle: but then you give up all telephoto reach (the 3x has only a 3x optical zoom), image stabilization and precision manual focus/manual zoom again. You cannot have it all, at the same time. And if you choose to buy these lenses to give you the options, you will spend thousands of dollars more for the complete XL2 kit – an XL2 with the 20x lens, 3x wide-angle, and 16x manual carries a “street price” of approximately $7,000 – or enough to buy both of the other cameras in this comparison. So while interchangeable lenses is a feature the other cameras don’t have, you’ll have to weigh just how important/useful this feature is for your intended use. If the lens is a deciding factor, please realize more than 75% of XL1 users never bought or even have used more than the standard lens... but the fact that you can if you decide to lures many buyers to the Canon camp.

For the rest of this article we will ignore the optional lenses and focus instead on the lens that Canon bundles with the camera, the fluorite 20x. The Canon lens has great glass, an excellent power zoom, and by far the longest telephoto reach of any of these cameras. For sports/events/nature photography, this can be a big advantage for the Canon. The longer lens also lets you get much shallower Depth of Field effects than the other cameras do. However, this lens comes with the worst manual control options – the servo zoom and the servo focus system offer no feedback whatsoever about lens position, and this lens is the most difficult to repeat zoom or focus moves (unless you pre-program the moves into the lens’ electronic memory system, a system shared – and expanded upon – by the FX1). When compared against the last generation of cameras (like the Sony PD150), the Canon lens controls would have been considered completely acceptable, but the bar has since been raised. It’s no understatement to say that we hated manual zooming/focusing with the XL2 lens, as compared to the DVX or even the FX1. The power zoom on the XL2 is luxurious, with 16 different speeds.

While not necessarily restricted to the lens itself, we’ll put discussions of the iris/f-stop ring in the lens section as well. The XL2 has the cheesiest iris control of all the cameras tested; it has a clicky stepping button, whereas the other cameras offer manual dials/rings that make changes smoother, easier, and with less danger of bouncing the camera during an iris change. For a professional camera designed by a company famous for its lenses, it’s really curious why the lens of the XL2 features the most amateur controls of all these cameras.

mmm.. three amigos?

The very cool FX1 built in lens cap.

The XL2 eyepiece.. a bad joke?

The FX1’s lens is a built-in system with a very wide-angle focal length and a nice 12x optical zoom. On the surface it looks to be directly inspired by the DVX’s lens: same 4.5mm wide-angle, same 72mm filter diameter, a manual zoom ring marked in focal length with hard stops and a zoom pin, and whereas the DVX lens is designed/certified by Leica, the Sony’s lens is designed/certified by Zeiss (both legendary German optics companies). However, there is a dramatic difference between the FX1’s “manual” zoom and the DVX’s: the FX1 “looks” like it has a real manual zoom, but in fact it’s a servo-driven motorized zoom, dressed up with a manual-looking ring. It acts and performs like a servo zoom. That’s not necessarily all bad, but it’s certainly not as nice as the actual mechanical linkage provided on the DVX. It’s definitely a step up from the XL2’s infinitely-spinning zoom ring however. When in manual mode the FX1’s zoom ring feels luxurious and smooth, and it does have hard stops at minimum and maximum. However, the lens is not directly linked to the action of the lever, and it’s possible to get the lever ahead of (or behind) the action of the lens. Also, when in power zoom mode, the ring doesn’t move! This means that the ring doesn’t reflect the actual zoom position of the lens. You could manually zoom to full wide angle, where the focal length of the lens would read as 4.5mm, and then switch to servo zoom and execute a motorized zoom, but the lens ring would still read as 4.5mm. There is no feedback of lens position when in servo zoom mode (other than an amateurish little bar graph with a “W” on one end and a “T” on the other!) For focus, the FX1 offers an improvement over the manual servo ring on the XL2: the camera reads out the focus distance of the lens in meters in the viewfinder, giving the user a good idea of where the lens is currently being focused. This is a great improvement over the XL2, which gives the user no clue as to where the focus position of the lens is. However, the distance readout can become inaccurate if you attach a wide-angle or telephoto lens adapter. The lens is reasonably sharp and looks good overall, although exhibiting some chromatic aberration, primarily showing a mild green fringe on high-contrast vertical elements on the left side of the screen and a purple fringe on similar elements on the right.

Unlike the XL2, the FX1 lens lets you have most nearly all the desired features at once: autofocus, image stabilization, power zoom, decent manual focus and a reasonably good manual zoom (better than the XL2’s at least). The lens provides multiple power-zoom speeds, and its fastest speed takes about 2 seconds to traverse the full range from full wide to full telephoto.

The FX1 has a superb-feeling manual iris dial, a large metal wheel that lets you dial in iris changes that are calibrated to ¼ of an f-stop. The changes are somewhat noticeable, but much better than whole-stop increments.

The DVX’s lens is not interchangeable, and it has the shortest focal length of the group. It also has the fewest power zoom speeds. That’s where the negatives stop, as it all gets good from there. The DVX provides true manual zoom with an actual mechanical linkage between the lever and the lens, it provides a very wide-angle 4.5mm field of view, a decent range from the 10x optical zoom, and easily the best focus ring of the bunch. The DVX provides the most comprehensive feedback to the user about lens and focus position: for zoom, the lens ring is marked in focal length, and a precise 00-99 scale shows up in the LCD/viewfinder to tell the user exactly how far into the zoom’s travel it is currently positioned. The focus ring is precise and repeatable and, while not offering hard stops at minimum and maximum, it acts with all the efficiency of a true manual focus ring. You can even convert it to hard stops with an optional adapter from Century Precision Optics. Even without it, you can execute smooth and precise completely repeatable focus moves. It provides focus position readout on a similar 00-99 scale, which not only lets you determine precisely where your focus marks should be, but the system is also adaptable to wide-angle and telephoto lens adapters (using lens adapters causes the focal plane to change, which would throw off a feet-and-inches focus scale, but doesn’t affect a numerical percentage scale… it’d be nice to have both though).

The DVX’s iris ring is the smoothest-acting of the three; the iris is calibrated in increments as small as 1/6 of an f-stop, so changes in iris can be executed smoothly and seamlessly.

As far as lens goes, the XL2 has by far the longest reach, the DVX is the hands-down winner for control and feedback, and the FX1 fits somewhere in the middle.

VIEWFINDER/LCD:
We found the XL2’s viewfinder to be the poorest of the group. It’s a huge improvement over the XL1, but it is completely and thoroughly outclassed by the DVX and the FX1. Both the DVX and the FX1 offer superb large easy-to-read high-resolution LCD’s. The XL2 offers a tiny 2” LCD panel, and the viewfinder consists of a magnifier over that panel. It may look externally like a broadcast camera’s, but in performance and usability the FX1 and DVX were much, much nicer to use.

All the cameras offer zebra exposure markers (zebras let you know what elements of your picture exceed a specified level of brightness, and are very handy for setting proper exposure). The FX1 and the XL2 offer one adjustable set of zebras and the DVX offers two adjustable sets, so you can check for skin tone exposure and also for overexposure. The FX1 and the DVX offer “peaking”, which is a viewfinder focus assist mechanism that sharpens outlines around objects that are in focus. Curiously, the FX1 will allow you to have zebras OR peaking, but not both at the same time. The DVX offers both at the same time. The XL2 doesn’t offer peaking at all (unless you get the additional $1550 FU-1000 B&W CRT viewfinder, but if you do, the peaking is much more useful on the FU-1000 than on the FX1 or DVX, and the viewfinder is much better on the whole, except that you lose any ability to monitor color).

The FX1 Flipout is arguably the best of the bunch.. Hi-rez and an odd but convenient location.


The FX1 offers a very nice “Expanded Focus” option. This zooms in on the picture in the LCD, extracting the center patch and displaying it at full resolution in the LCD, making precise focusing much easier. This is not some sort of “digital zoom”, it’s more of a full-resolution extraction that allows you to see the frame as it really is. Hopefully the other manufacturers will take note and offer this type of function on their future cameras, as it’s very nice to have. One minor complaint, Expanded Focus is not available while actually recording – it would be nice to have the option.

For viewfinder/LCD, the FX1 is the clear winner, with the DVX a very close second, and the XL2 a distant, distant third (although $1550 additional could reverse the XL2’s ranking, with the excellent optional FU-1000 viewfinder).

IMAGE CONTROLS:
All three cameras offer quite a good degree of control over the image. All offer some manner of controlling the chroma level, chroma phase, sharpness/detail, and some provision for selecting gamma. The FX1 offers the least amount of image control, but it’s still an impressive amount for a so-called “consumer camera” (Sony markets the FX1 through its consumer division, reserving the $5946 HVR-Z1 for its professional division). The XL2 offers more control than the FX1, but curiously its menus offer the least feedback. Whereas the DVX and FX1 offer precise numerical readouts of the image settings, the XL2 forces the user to “guess”, using an amateurish bar graph. Trying to repeat settings using this system was tedious, imprecise, and annoying. With the DVX and FX1, you could write down your settings exactly, such as “Detail Level +4”, but with the XL2 you would have to try to find the middle point and then count the number of times you click the up/down buttons to get your setting. Completely amateur, and does a disservice to this camera – the images it produces deserve better. It’s also somewhat of an enigma. Why does the camera offer some controls on excellent manual dials, while relegating important items like image control to a consumer-ish bar graph system? The biggest dial on the camera is for auto-exposure compensation, a large physical wheel that lets you select 0, ½, 1, 1 ½ stops over/underexposure etc. Why not give the user professional feedback on their menu settings? Hopefully Canon will address this if they ever release an XL2s.

As far as image controls go, the DVX offers by far the most control. It offers basically all the settings the other cameras do, but goes much further, offering 7 different gamma curves, four different color matrices, more options for vertical detail and overall offering the widest variety of image settings. I have gone through and actually replicated/simulated 12 of the looks from “Magic Bullet Movie LooksTM” in-camera in the DVX – that’s how extensive the menu settings are.

For variety of image controls, the DVX is the hands-down winner, with the XL2 coming second (and would have been a close second, had the feedback to the user been better) and the FX1 coming in third (although still offering a nice array of image settings, and good feedback on them).

[Eynstyn]

The Review Was More Than Twice As Long As Would Fit In This Space. See The Remainder Of The Review At The Link Provided Above.

[loki74]

i say go with the XL2. I didnt read what you have there, but comparing the XL2 to teh DVX100A, the XL2 is much better. They are more or less equal in quality, but XL2 has of course the Canon name, which comes with all of those available lenses. (and there are a LOT of lenses) The lens they provide you with is very good quality from what I understand, and as made clear by my previous sentence, is not a dedicated lens like the DVX100A. By the time you tac on the anamorphic converter for the DVX100A and the hundred or so for a shoulder mount, (both of which the XL2 have inherently) you may as well find a little more coin and get yourself the XL2.

just my 2 cents.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by loki74

i say go with the XL2. I didnt read what you have there, but comparing the XL2 to teh DVX100A, the XL2 is much better. They are more or less equal in quality, but XL2 has of course the Canon name, which comes with all of those available lenses. (and there are a LOT of lenses) The lens they provide you with is very good quality from what I understand, and as made clear by my previous sentence, is not a dedicated lens like the DVX100A. By the time you tac on the anamorphic converter for the DVX100A and the hundred or so for a shoulder mount, (both of which the XL2 have inherently) you may as well find a little more coin and get yourself the XL2.

just my 2 cents.

loki74, I KNOW you are a committed XL-2 fan. Hahaha! Who can blame you? It's a big, hunkin camera that delivers broadcast quality video and accommodates any number of lenses and attachments and is a real shooter's camera, giving a competent operator the control he/she wants and needs to create beautiful images. It a tried and proven camera made by a premier name in the industry.

I have 3 main problems with the XL-2.

1) It is TOO much camera for my current level of development and I NEED the "training wheels" of a good 'AUTO" mode before I can work my way up to becoming a real shooter. The cameras I'm looking at are those which will serve my current needs and will still do the job when I become a more adept shooter.

2) It doesn't come with a little flip out lcd monitor. In order to check focus and color and framing I would be tethered to the viewfinder. Not to mention the inconvenience of not being able to have the subject see themselves or have another crew member simultaneously see the scene on the lcd while I'm looking through the eyepiece.

With an XL-2 I'd have to buy an external monitor which needs to be mounted on something and needs to be powered...all of which costs extra $$$. But since were talking a $4,000+ camera, no body will notice another $300-$800 for a portable monitor and the gear it would need.

3) It is waaaay out of my budget.

And with that I am now going to announce my decision in this months long research process.

I ordered the Panasonic AG-DVC7.

My upward limit was about $1,500 or so.

I don't trust the really low prices I've seen on the internet for a DVX100A. I don't want to have the satisfaction of spending $1,600 +/- for a Canon GL-2 only to have problems with sound quality as I've read some users report there being. Also, when I am trying to convince a prospective bride why she should choose me over Uncle Joe who has a camera not much different in size or appearance than a GL-2 I want something Uncle Joe doesn't have. She may not be able to tell the difference in picture quality between Joe's camera, but when she sees my DVC7 she's got to be impressed by it's appearance.

And I finally saw a short film that was shot on a DVC7 and it really isn't bad.

I will use the extra money between the $950 I paid and the $1,500 I had budgeted to buy some mics and other gear.

I already volunteered to do some work for my church using the camera and I can't wait to get started.

I'll let you know how it works out.

[Eynstyn]

Sorry, loki74, I can't stop being impressed with the look of the DVX100A's 24p film look. Here's some more screen grabs from Steve Buscemi's new film. Phil Parmet is the Director of Photography. These images are gorgeous and if you didn't know it was videotape you'd swear it was film.

http://dvxuser.com/articles/parmetinterview/

[loki74]

yeah i do like the xl2 VERY VERY much...

about the 24p pretty much all the higher end 3-chips should have it. My dad filmed my brother's graduation w/ a DVX100A in 24p and it looks sooooooo much better than 60i. So you are definately on track if you want 24p. The main reason I like the XL2 so much compared to the DVX is that they actually cost avout the same once you tack on the $700 anamorphic to the DVX. The lack of LCD is a big prob though... the viewfinder flips open to become a 2" LCD, but thats not a whole lot compared to some the typical LCD screens seen on even consumer level cameras. Youre beef on this issue is definately well placed...

If you dont need widescreen, by all means, the DVX is the best bet 100% yadda yadda indeed no doubt. But if you're pro enough to want 24p, surely widescreen is one of those...."of course" thingies..

however... if youre buying a camera after this july and you can afford the xl2... look out for the JVC GYHD100U. tis crazy. I would love to have that camera WAY more than the XL2. Just wish it would come out sooner .......

According to the revies ive read, the DVC7 gets REALLY REALLY good resolution/quality in high light envirnoments (outdoors). So if thats your gig, its a really good buy. I dont think it does 24p though. I could be wrong...

about not trusting prices-- youre RIGHT. Dont trust any price thats too good to be true. Its not. They send you a cam w/ no lens, no viewfinder, no batteries, no cables and no warranty. And they try to force you into getting all sorts of accessoriees which double the cost of your order... yeah its ugly. The only people I buy from is B&H Photo Video. It may not be quite as cheap, but its a good price for the service etc yo get. wait... I may have said that before in another post. ah whatever. I guess by now everyone knows:loki likes xl2's from B&H lol.

good luck with the new cam!

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by loki74

yeah i do like the xl2 VERY VERY much...good luck with the new cam!

Thanks!

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Eynstyn

These images are gorgeous and if you didn't know it was videotape you'd swear it was film.

http://dvxuser.com/articles/parmetinterview/

I wouldn't mistake that or any current digital shot for film. Digital is making huge leaps and in a couple of years the difference should be very hard to tell but there will always be limitations - the running scenes in Chariots of Fire could never be shot on digital because of the limitations of the format. Some of the shots were done at 200FPS. Digital's maximum is currently 60FPS. 200FPS would be impossible to record to tape and to do so to disk would require huge bandwidth. There's also the infamous beach run in that movie which was done by exposing film in a special way that is impossible to do so digitally.

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

I wouldn't mistake that or any current digital shot for film. Digital is making huge leaps and in a couple of years the difference should be very hard to tell but there will always be limitations - the running scenes in Chariots of Fire could never be shot on digital because of the limitations of the format. Some of the shots were done at 200FPS. Digital's maximum is currently 60FPS. 200FPS would be impossible to record to tape and to do so to disk would require huge bandwidth. There's also the infamous beach run in that movie which was done by exposing film in a special way that is impossible to do so digitally.

In our zeal to praise or comdemn the new technology let us not forget that no two cameras or media have exactly equal characteristics. And while you may reject the video 'film look' as lacking in some area or another I love the ability this new technology gives a video guy to approximate the look of film but without the cost.

I'm reminded of the line about the talking dog, who some criticize as not being able to form perfectly understandable sentences and another observer (I think it was Mark Twain) replied, you're missing the point. It is not how well the dog speaks but THAT he speaks that is the marvel.

Granted. Video is NOT film. There are things video will NEVER be able to match film's ability to do.

And I'm sure you would agree the opposite is true; there are things film will never be able to do which video excels at.

The bottom line, after all, isn't technology...it is the STORY.

And it is video that is democratizing storytelling. The little fat girl in Ohio may turn out the next screen classic simply because video has become simple and inexpensive enough for her parents to provide her the tools.

[loki74]

Ronnie... dude.... really man, did he say he needed 200fps? come on. Star Wars used digital, and Mr.Lucas et al saved TONS of money. Digital is by no means unprofessional. I think that the two biggest limitations of digital is the framerate issue you mentioned, and the fact that film can produce extremely high resolution, while video is stuck at where it is.

But that still cant justify the cost issue. I mean, I dont even know how to find out the official running price of one of those theatrical Panavision film cams. Didnt see them on the site. And hell, even Panavision is making digital cams. HD of course.

Dont get be wrong--the look of authentic film is great. But on a budget? Really, if someone was looking to get a film camera and they could feasably do it (ie they were very very very rich) they would not be posting here.... I'd rather go with a simple HD cam, and get something like Shake, which can actually extrapolate the grain of a given clip and recreate it exacly on another, as well as interpolate frames for slowmo, mimicking high frame rates. If you look at the quick tour on apples site it is pretty accurate too.

oh well whatever....

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by loki74

Ronnie... dude.... really man, did he say he needed 200fps? come on. Star Wars used digital, and Mr.Lucas et al saved TONS of money. Digital is by no means unprofessional. I think that the two biggest limitations of digital is the framerate issue you mentioned, and the fact that film can produce extremely high resolution, while video is stuck at where it is.


.

Did he need 200FPS? If you get the DVD and listen to the director's commentary you'll see that digitial will never be able to do certain kinds of shots. Hudson had shots running at 72FPS to 200FPS. Not possible with digital right now and yes it was needed - 60FPS wouldn't cut it. No current HD cam does 60 FPS or higher progressive frames anyway. For regular shooting it's great and can replace film. It's also easier to shoot dark locations or night scenes with digital as film requires lighting in order to expose the scene to film. Will digital replace film? In Collateral they used a combination of three cameras - two digital, one film, all because of the limitations of digital in shooting some scenes.

No doubt HD could replace film completely, just not yet. It will take another generation and even higher resolution than 1080P to do that, and of course more in camera control over frame rates, emulated exposure times (if that's possible), etc. Doing all of that in post-production isn't as nearly as convenient as doing it in camera.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by loki74

But that still cant justify the cost issue. I mean, I dont even know how to find out the official running price of one of those theatrical Panavision film cams. Didnt see them on the site. And hell, even Panavision is making digital cams. HD of course.

There's a good rundown of digital cameras and their prices at this site.

http://www.pixelmonger.com/hg_cam.html

[loki74]

I know the prices of most digital cams. I was talking about film cams. I mean what is the running price on a Panavision PFX-P Platinum Panaflex camera system?

If teh Canon XL2 is "too much camera" for Eynstyn's project, as he said in a previous post in this thread, what makes you think that he wants to take on a film camera? Then hes got to deal with digitization, telecine, blah blah blah unless he plans on distributing to theaters for a theatrical-only release (no TV, no DVD.)

I am a very strong advoate of digital. Its cheap and it gets the job done. HD can be transferred to film if you want to distribute to theaters. It can be converted to SD and 30 fps, all digitially with no mess and low cost if you want to broadcast or burn to DVD. For those of us who dont make millions and millions each year, digital is simply the best out there. Period.

That being said, I dont think that digital can ever replace film for those who DO have millions and millions of dollars. Even in the world of still photography, where sigital SLR's can get you all the resoltion you want, many photographers sill use film. Recording something to film is an art, and it is very literal. I mean, you can see the image on a negative. You cant see it on a hard drive or tape or DVD or what have you. (that is, looking at the physical object of the hard drive or tape etc) And they dont provide the same feel. Even if they can recreate it accurately, you know that its isnt the real McCoy.

BUT once again thats if you make millions and millions of dollars. Maybe you do. But I dont. And somehting tells me the Eynstyn doesnt either..... (correct me if im wrong)

[Eynstyn]

Originally Posted by loki74

I know the prices of most digital cams. I was talking about film cams. I mean what is the running price on a Panavision PFX-P Platinum Panaflex camera system?

If teh Canon XL2 is "too much camera" for Eynstyn's project, as he said in a previous post in this thread, what makes you think that he wants to take on a film camera? Then hes got to deal with digitization, telecine, blah blah blah unless he plans on distributing to theaters for a theatrical-only release (no TV, no DVD.)

I am a very strong advoate of digital. Its cheap and it gets the job done. HD can be transferred to film if you want to distribute to theaters. It can be converted to SD and 30 fps, all digitially with no mess and low cost if you want to broadcast or burn to DVD. For those of us who dont make millions and millions each year, digital is simply the best out there. Period.

That being said, I dont think that digital can ever replace film for those who DO have millions and millions of dollars. Even in the world of still photography, where sigital SLR's can get you all the resoltion you want, many photographers sill use film. Recording something to film is an art, and it is very literal. I mean, you can see the image on a negative. You cant see it on a hard drive or tape or DVD or what have you. (that is, looking at the physical object of the hard drive or tape etc) And they dont provide the same feel. Even if they can recreate it accurately, you know that its isnt the real McCoy.

BUT once again thats if you make millions and millions of dollars. Maybe you do. But I dont. And somehting tells me the Eynstyn doesnt either..... (correct me if im wrong)

loki, my man, you be right as rain!

What's more, let's really emphasize the fact that the two mediums are DIFFERENT and NOT that one is BETTER than the other.

How can we begin to twist our brains to accommodate this ridiculous notion?

Ronnie, you have a story about a new wave of artists and artistry which is changing the world and making a statement that is being seen heard and felt the world over. You want to make a movie to document this important phenomenon as well as some of the significant artists and their work.

The artists are indie videographers. Their art is storytelling with videography.

You have a $200 million budget and creative carte blanche and guaranteed rights to have the final cut on your film. The only restriction?

Shoot it ONLY with film. No video allowed.

As Astro Jetson might say, "rotsa ruck!"

Video is different than film but NOT better.

I'll remind you that movie studios once felt that a TV star wasn't as talented or as GOOD as a film star.

Maybe it was Steve McQueen who helped change that notion. You heard of him, right?