Thanks for clearing that up farrs yes the Pixel Count I was not sure about...I should now about ADC /DACs :) That explains it OK SO now there is Higher quality Pixels On my Picture And No doubt a Higher Quality lens with the Canon This translates to better Picture Overall Then.. So the Canon is Likely to have a Better Picture...

Mark,
youre absolutely right, better lens and CCDs designed for video are a big help, better signal processing also goes a long way as well.
Once all that's down pat there are other issues to consider. How well does the camera suit your shooting style.
For a general all round camera I still recommend the PD170. It isn't the best camera in the price range but it's by far the most solid and goof proof.
I'd say the best cameras in the price range were (are?) the DVX100A or this new XL2but neither of those will suit everybody and every situation, I wouldn't recommend either of them for weddings for example as they're pretty much gun and run events. If you're shooting drama where you've got the time to worry about optimal camera setups, DOF, good lighting and manual focusing then they'll win hands down.
The only reason I'm pretty keen on the two offerings from Panasonic is they've designed them with cameramen in mind, and no fancy bits to impress the consummers. At the same time if you don't want to put in the effort to spend a bit of time getting to know how to use them, I'd give them a wide berth, same with any pro camera. I'd say the same thing about the XL1 and even more so the XL2, they've all got great and very useful features but there's a price to pay, things like autofocus on all of them is pretty marginal, no fault of the camera, just goes with the territory.

Bob.

Someone asked what can the XL2 do that their camera couldn't. I'm not 100% certain what this is saying, I read this on the Canon site:

"DV Streaming
Not only can you capture high quality video with the XL2, you can stream it over the Internet. With streaming video, the content is compressed and encoded to make the file size smaller and more quickly transmitted. This lets the video be played as it is being received."

Interesting concept if it is saying what it appears to be saying.

Jay

I would go for the best Camera... I was Just reading about the JVC GY-DV 500 WITH 1/2 inch CCDs and 14 Bit Digital Signal Proccessing... It was used to make a film called" Gordon"

http://www.gordonthemovie.com/

It was upconverted toHDcam... Projected on a 40 foot Screen.. Not only made it to Sundance But was picked up by Artisan.. The Camera cost them less than $6000.. They wanted a Video look So chose this One instead of a 24p..
Of course if they had wanted to they could always have run it through MB

My query would be.. IS this Camera Better? Because of its 14 Bit Quantization... Better Lens... 1/2 inch CCDs....DID This enable the HD UpConversion?

Wheras The Digital Signal Processing of Only 8 Bits The not so Good lens On the CANON and the smaller CCDs Make this Unviable ?

This is really Important... Imagine you make a Film... spend A Year doing it.. Only to Discover" HEY We love your Film And we would have used it But it Cant be Upconverted because The Quality is not there"... This is a Nightmare Scenario... Granted We always hear how DV Cameras were used to make Feature Films BUT They were either Almost Totally Rebuilt with Added extras Or used to show the Video look which WOULD be totally Appropriate..... I want to make sure I know what can be done or can't.... then make a decision based on that...

So How would this JVC Compete against the Canon with 14 bit Digital Signal Processing..1/2 inch CCDs and Better Lens

Compared to

Canons 24p widescreen with the Extra Pixels 1/3 CCDs 8 Bit Quantization

Better Lens...

From what I've read about the "standard" (Fujinon) lens on that camera, it's not better than the Canon lens. Canon has earned its excellent reputation for making "great glass."

Jay

We have exactly that camera (PAL version). Sure takes great video, we've got a decent lens on it which helps but if you wanted to shoot for film I'd be looking at the 700 which is native 16:9.
But here's the thing, If you're serious about transfer to film and you have a good grasp of what it'll cost, I mean you really know, just yesterday friend of mine was telling me the release prints for F9/11 cost $11M and that didn't include transfer from video, then shooting on film to start with is not going to make a big dint in the budget, may even work out cheaper.
Much of the stuff shot on DV that ends up on film is done with DV cameras with film lenses etc. This stuff costs big time.
I've projected DV, shot on a TRV900, in a cinema using a good digital projector and in my opinion it looks way better than anything shot on DV and transferred to film. People are used to the 'look' of video. Light it right, have talent than can act, have excellent sound and the rest of it isn't so important, and oh yes have a good story to tell.
If you really want the film look, first of all don't try to make it look like film before it's transferred from what I know, the transfer will take care of that. Best to shoot 24p/25p and maybe send it to them on a HD or else PTT as 24pA and let them do the pulldown removal. Provide credits as graphics files for direct to film xfer.

Just my two bobs worth.

Jay The Idea is you buy the Camera not the lens You would buy that separately the One I would Have in Mind was this

http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/reframe.php?url=http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/pages/cvp_rental.htm

Scroll down to see the Lens Options !

You didn't say that. That being the case, you weren't comparing apples to apples.

Jay

Bob would you replace your JVC With say the panny100 ?

The Print cost and Distribution.... Serious concerns and Perhaps the Most Important of all... I Guess this is where you need those people skills and some serious Negotiating and Backing.... Perhaps This would be the end of the line ?

Light it right, have talent than can act, have excellent sound and the rest of it isn't so important, and oh yes have a good story to tell.

Here, here! That's what I've been saying. The audience could care less what camera you used.

You could go crazy trying to figure out all the "what ifs" and "what abouts" flying back and forth. Sony makes quality cameras; Canon makes quality cameras; Panasonic makes quality cameras; JVC makes quality cameras. Just bloody pick one that suits your needs and likes and get on with it!

Jay

I dont understand Jay...The camera is Bought without lens You then Pick one(A lens).. I thought that to be understood...

As for Picking one that suits My needs I actually thought this was a very Interesting Conversation ONE that is trying to get to the truth about the various Processes needed to get the best out of a Camera... Bob I want to thank you for your help In this regard I learnt a Lot through this conversation....

. . I'm confused . .. :Q

Would I replace the JVC 500 with a DVX 100?

Well they don't belong to me, they're 'owned' by the boss!
But if it was my call, probably yes, but we're in the hire business and the DVX100 has been very popular. Doens't take anything away from the 500 even though it's a bit old now. Very different cameras, the 500 was about the first to show that DV25 wasn't a toy format.
You've to remember these are ALL DV25 cameras, for best results you really need to step up to either DVCPRO 50 or DigiBetacam or better still HDCAM /CineAlta. If this gear is outside your budget (you can hire it!) then forget about film.
The other way to go which has been quite popular is to shoot on Super 16, transfer that to video and edit for video. If the things really a goer you can go back to the camera original for cinema release.

My point (and Bob's) was, and always has been and always will be, that the tool (if it's a quality tool) makes no difference.

Tell me, Mark, can you tell (without looking at the end credits) which movies are made with Panavison cameras and lenses and which are made with Arriflex cameras and Zeiss lenses? I don't think so.

You weren't talking about "the various Processes needed to get the best out of a Camera," you were attempting to compare cameras. Which in and of it self is fine. But you weren't comparing like pieces of equipment.

Whenever someone starts throwing out all the "what ifs" my common retort is, "What if you're killed tomorow in a car wreck? It's all moot, then, isn't it?"

Jay

well to try to Outline the Situation

Canon XL2 = 8bit Quantization... Wide Chip with EXTRA Pixels... 1/3 CCD

JVC 500 = 14bit Quantization... 2/3 CCDs Bought without Lens ...But without extra Pixels In the CCDs

Question
What is The better Recipe for Picture Quality

Farrs was doing a very good Job of Helping "Me at Least" to understand the Differences ect..

Jay Thinks the Camera is not Important and Concentrate on the making of the Thing

Me I think its So easy to end up with an out of date Model and A Possible Problem later ...That its Important you make sure every base is Covered...To me With that level of spending I want to make sure I get what I want... I do the Same thing when Buying a Car !

The DVX100 has two balanced mic inputs with phantom power and they're in a sensible place as are the mic level controls. It also gets good press for the quality of the audio. No it doesn't have CCDs optimised for 16x9 which is why Panasonic and Century make a lens for that.
There's a lot of argument over this point, film cameras always use a anamorphic lens. Part of the reasoning is that 16x9 should be wider than 4:3 not the other way around which is what happens with any form of electronic squeeze.
One thing that gets overlooked in the rush to 16x9 is it's a much more demanding format. 16x9 is much less forgiving of wobbly shots.

Jay your right I was not comparing like for like... The specs are different...

So on that Basis Please read Carefully what my Posts are about ...The JVC On its own without add ons(Obviously the Lens) is good enough to upconvert to HD Cam so would The Canon be able to Compete...Could you Upconvert 8 BIT DV FILM Shot with 1/3 Chips In its Progressive 24p Mode To the same high standard as The JVC

Mark, I understand the rationale behind "why" you were asking . . I too have bought cars . .far too many . . It was the technicals that was confusing me .. No, I wasn't confused over "why" you were asking . .that's not my bag .. it was purely and simply understanding the tech stuff . .and to a lesser degree what WAS the point you and Jay were making WITH each other . . . I've been reading the DVinfo stuff regarding the pixels and 16:9 versus 4:3 and the CCD thing . . I've just about got my head around THAT!

Hey ho . . now buy another XM2 OR save up for a biggy? DON't anybody answer .. thank you .. . ;-)

Grazie

Mark, your, "Could you Upconvert 8 BIT DV FILM Shot with 1/3 Chips In its Progressive 24p Mode To the same high standard as The JVC" neat question . . . I'm listening . ..

G

Question

Answer:
Arriflex 765 (65mm film) with any of the Carl Zeiss Ultra Prime lenses.

Jay Thinks the Camera is not Important and Concentrate on the making of the Thing

This is the kind of "paraphrasing" out of context that infuriates me. It just goes to show how disingenuous your "conversation" really is.

I NEVER said the camera is not important. Go back and re-read my posts.

Me I think its So easy to end up with an out of date Model and A Possible Problem later

Mark, very few us here have the bank account to keep up with the technology. Whatever camera you buy today, it will be "outdated" within two to three years after you've bought it. So get used to that idea.

The bottom line is this: If you buy a quality camera today, if you know how to use that camera and lighting equipment, if you have a quality script and quality actors, your work will sell. Period!

Jay

Jay read your words..


Light it right, have talent than can act, have excellent sound and the rest of it isn't so important, and oh yes have a good story to tell.

Here, here! That's what I've been saying. The audience could care less what camera you used.