Marcus van Bavel sheds more light on the DV transfer issue mentioned in previous messages:
David,
How are you? I am the engineering director for FilmTeam Transfers, a DV to film transfer house. I cam across your FAQ, and noted the comments on the XL-1 here:
http://www.amazing.com/dv/xl1-vs-vx1000/comments.html
I thing this unfairly maligns the XL-1. We've done a lot of transfers from the XL-1 to 35mm, including some stuff I shot myself. The pixel shift technology does _not_ adversely affect the image. In addition to our own work, I've seen a side-by-side demo of VX-1000 and XL-1 footage transferred to 35mm by one of our competitors, 4MC, instigated by my friend Brian O'Kelley. It was presented at SXSW '99. The Sony and Canon shots were hard to tell apart. The Canon came out slightly ahead with its superior auto-focus.
I think what the guy at Swiss Effects was trying to say (I saw his presentation at Sundance as well) was the XL-1 has no controls over sharpening like the VX-1000. They like the sharpening to be turned off. But the XL-1 does not over-sharpen anyway and I think the standard setting is fine.
By the way we have also transferred footage from the Sony TRV-900 and from a JVC Digital-S with excellent results.
David comments: Many thanks for the update; I'm sure it will reassure many XL1 owners.
Max Reig writes: You should note that Swiss Effects, who specialize on blowing up digital video to 35mm have recommended that you NOT use the XL-1. Apparently there is something about the pixel shift that gives a distinctly "video" like image to blowups. I don't understand exactly, but it is something similar to "edging" that works best if it is completely defeated while shooting DV for good blowups to film. I believe that if you contact the Sony High Def center in Culver city they will tell you the same thing. This info is based on conversations with techs from Sony and Swiss Effects at the Sundance Festival last week.
My reply:
I've included this since a lot of people are definitely interested in blowing up their productions to 35mm. This would certainly be an excellent reason to choose the VX1000.
Ken wrote:
David, I was interested reading your website on the above subject. Let me first start off by admitting that I am a VX1000 owner for several years. Like you, I conducted side by side tests with both cameras. I tried to be as totally unbiased as you tried. I must say that I agree with some of what you say but very much disagree with other points. The biggest difference in picture quality was the tendency for the XL1 to "bloom" in highlighted areas while the VX1000 maintained detail in the picture. I agree that the Canon produces "punchier" pictures but, I felt, at the expense of realism. I shot a bowl of fruit with both cameras and there was no doubt the Sony produced a much more believable picture. I adjusted the viewing monitor to make each camera look its best. If you don't do this you very much bias one camera or the other. However, no matter how I adjusted the monitor the XL1 was simply not as convincing in rendering a realistic picture. The videos I made were shown to 3 different people who had no idea which camera shot what. All picked the VX1000 as looking better. Both cameras were set at the full auto position for fairness. By the way, I have found over the years that Canon's design philosophy is to produce cameras with a very punch look. I still own a Canon Hi8 camera which does the same thing. However, like the XL1, you pay the price when the subject is a high contrast subject. At that point the picture begins to bloom in the highlighted areas unless you do some serious exposure compensation. The Sony has a more controlled look which I feel holds up far better under a variety of lighting situations. In looking at some of the Sony grabs on your website (particularly the one of the house in the distance) I can't help but feel there was either something not right with that particular camera or you were doing something wrong with the unit. In 3 years of ownership I don't believe I ever shot anything that looked nearly that bad with my VX1000 (colors and certainly the sharpness). I'm certainly not saying I think the Canon is a 'bad" camera, I just think the Sony is somewhat better. By the way you can radically improve low light on the Sony not by just using the menu's -3 db command but by not letting the gain go over +9 db under low light conditions. This is very easy to do. Your night shot comparison actually had the Sony looking better (sharper and more detailed) on my monitor. Oh well, just one man's opinion. Enjoy your camera, they're both great!
David replies:
It's certainly possible that a rental camera, which I suspect has not been handled too well over its live, might be in some way misadjusted. This is especially true given that I didn't have any kind of documentation on the unit.
The differences in quality between the night shots come out very differently on tape, where you can clearly see "noise particles" moving in the Sony picture. The Canon picture is rock solid. I can't blame you for not noticing this, since it's not as evident unless you're viewing a few frames of tape.
I recently shot some pictures at a Christmas Store in Newport Beach, which I think show the effects you're talking about. They have a very "digital" feel to them; something doesn't quite feel right about the way they look. (You'll probably have to look at the full-sized images to appreciate this). Feel free to check them out and let me know what you think.
Thanks for writing and expressing your views!
Have some thoughts to share? Write me!