Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: LethalWolfe
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
The prosumer market is pretty split between the XL-1 and PD-150/VX2000. If you have the budget for the lenses the XL-1's ability to change lenses gives it a distinct edge.
Lethal
Well, college productions seem to favor the xl1 but professional studios (I know, why aren't they using film?? they can afford it) tend to use either the vx2000/pd150 or the sony hi-def camera (900w or something).. The xl1 is a fine camera but I've heard that it's just not as tweakable in post as the sony offerings (this is from a larger article I read by the Orphanage - a group of ILM techs that formed a dv-post production company). My next camera may be either the gl2 or a vx2000.. They are both excellent cameras at very fair prices.. The XL1 looks great on video but once blown up to 35mm it loses it's edge (check out "Full Frontal" for an example)
I'm just going off my experience. I know the XL-1 is popular w/indie filmmakers who are going after the "film look" because it shoots in "frame mode" and in 16x9 better than any other 4:3 native camera in it's price range. Although there is some image loss when shooting in those modes it is much, much less image loss than if you did it Frame or 16x9 w/a Sony. Heck, Sony's frame mode kicks the shutter speed down to 1/15th of a second which basically makes it useless. Some indie filmmakers even go further and purcahse PAL equipment because it's natively 25fps (easier to xfer to film) and PAL has a higher res than NTSC.
Of course you also have to take your info w/a grain of salt. Canon vs. Sony is just like Mac vs. PC, Avid vs. FCP, and Film vs. HD. Either product will do what you need it to do but each one also has strong points and weak points.
As for Full Frontal. Soderburgh<sp?> intentionally beat the hell out of the image. Will DV ever look like 35mm? Hell no. But using Full Frontal to gauge how good DV can look is very inaccurate.
Lethal
