Canon XL2 & mini35 aniticipation!

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Anyone here plan to swap their XL1/XL1s for the new XL2 that shoots SD at 24p? I am!

I've been using the XL1s and mini35 and lately have been considering moving over to the DVX100 platform mainly to benefit from 24p for my use. The problem I'd have then is getting rid of the Canon XL kit for the mini35, and a new DVX100 kit for the mini35 is about $2000 alone.

When I found out Canon came out with their 24p version I was happy with the thought of sticking with Canon. I was even happier to find out the camera can do 16:9 at 460k pixels because of the oversized CCD's.

The XL2 definitely sounds like a step up... a small one, but still up.

[Eric MacIver]

The canon XL2 seems like a dream. Personally I/we are buying two XL2's and the adapter for our rentals - but I just can't wait to shoot with that thing. The native 16:9 CCD's is what really excites me. (Beyond the 24P and CineGamma that I was hoping for).

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Eric, you might want to check this thread which originally started talking about the XL2 PAL version but goes into detail on questioning whether or not the "over sized" CCD will really make a difference in image quality at the end of the day.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1

From a technical stand point it seems the 16:9 mode "may" offer some quality advantages but also it's left in question whether or not we'll really see a difference on the screen.

Time will only tell - but still I plan to move over to the XL2 because of 24p, cinegamma, 11 effects tweaks and resolution that is much higher than the XL1 offered.

If you shoot or have shot with the mini35 adapter than you'll know that the XL cams are the only ones that ergomically make sense for efficient shooting, mainly due to the fact the viewfinder can be moved to the front of the mini35 and lets not forget the relay lens for the XL's kit that gives you a secondary iris control. That is a big plus.

Eric, I can't wait to shoot with that thing either!

[Barry Green]

I've spent time with the mini35 on the PD150, DVX100 and even a homebrew mod to get it to work on the JVC HD1. I've also seen a lot of XL1/mini35 footage.

Up until now, the DVX100 has been far & away the best cam to use with the mini35 (imho). But the XL2 may change all that. With true 24P and cinegamma-style image adjustments, real progressive scan and all, it should ("should" being the operative word) match the best features that make the DVX so good with the mini35. Then add in the bonus that instead of a 10x zoom lens you only have to shoot through a small relay lens, which should improve optical quality... and then, if you want 16:9, there's no real satisfactory way to do that on the DVX/mini35... but the XL2 may offer the ultimate widescreen mini35 combo. Plus with the relay lens combo, you may have a lot less 'backfocus' fiddling, which can be annoying when using the DVX/mini35...

Gotta test it to verify the theory, but in theory it looks like the XL2 will be the ultimate camera for use with the mini35!

[Dennis Hingsberg]

My point is more based around the fact that when it come to ergonimics and versatility the mini35/XL combo can not be beat. A lot of what the DVX100 does in camera can be done in post if desired - but that takes extra time to do as you know. Why I'm excited about the mini35/XL combo is it's the only setup that doesn't require an additional external LCD monitor when going shoulder mount, and I still swear by the secondary relay lens with iris control too and the fact you're not shooting through the camera stock lens. Yes it will in fact be exciting to see the results with the XL2 and mini35.

Barry - do you have any work online we can see? I would love to see some of it.

[Eric MacIver]

Dennis - thanks for the link, that was an interesting discussion. Of course, it'd be nice for those Alternative Imaging guys to get a 4:4:4 full pixel pull off the XL2 CCD's but that's not something I'll mess around with until they get it pretty solid.

Sure am looking forward to the ergonomics of it all though. Should be better than the DVX, but time will tell.

[Luis Caffesse]

"there's no real satisfactory way to do that on the DVX/mini35"

I dont' have any hands on experience with the Mini35, but was
recently having a conversation with a friend who also mentioned
that you cannot use the DVX100a's 16:9 mode with the mini35.

What is the reason for that?

Do people simply mean that the loss in resolution will give you
unsatisfactory results, or is there something else going on?

Thanks for any clarification.

-Luis

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Luis, you can shoot 16:9 mode on the DVX100 using the mini35. I think he was referring to the fact that if you go with the mini35 you can't then use the add on 16:9 lens for the DVX100 which many people like because it uses the full 4:3 CCD. (The image gets squashed optically rather than electronically) So if the XL2 gives the same 16:9 results electronically then the mini35 with XL2 would be the ideal way to get 16:9.

I just got back from a local Toronto reseller here and they plan to get the XL2 September 12th. Although the retail price is $4999 USD / $6999 CDN he thinks they will be selling for a couple hundred dollars less than that.

It's going to be a really long month to wait I tell ya.........

[Charles Papert]

Hi chaps,

I'm almost done shooting a high-end short with the Mini35/DVX and have really been stretching the capabilities for the camera, and for the most part I am impressed. I am however seeing a lot more noise in the image than I would like, which seems to be connected with the 24p mode (it reduces significantly when I switch to--ugh--60i!) Yes, the backfocus needs to be watched closely, and the handheld ergonomics are non-existent, but I plan to make a breakout cable to use my FU1000 viewfinder with the DVX shortly to remedy this last issue.

I can definitely see an increase in resolution over the XL1, but I do miss the look of that camera, so I am indeed looking forward to the XL2. I really hope the issue with the camera not recognizing the Mini35 as a bona fide lens has been rectified, does anyone know about this? The problem is that when you go to playback or put the camera in standby, it loses the white balance settings due to the "no lens" status--it seems to think that just because you don't have an official Canon lens onboard, you can't be serious about silly little things like consistent white balance!

But I will be adding an XL2 and the relay lens when they come out, I'm quite sure. And that will be an incredible package. Can't wait.

[Barry Green]

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hingsberg :
Barry - do you have any work online we can see? I would love to see some of it. -->>>

Here's a spot that we shot on the DVX/mini35 combo:

http://www.fiftv.com/NetDrMatrix.wmv

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Barry - love that opening sequence... the whole thing looked really great!

Charles - I'm more or less led to believe that from Canon's point of view under normal operating conditions you would not be shooting without the stock lens so I doubt anything will be done about losing the white balance settings. It is definitely a pain.

I think it would be up to PS Technik to incorporate a solution for this into their end of the mini35, but due to the market perhaps it might not be worthwhile for them. If anyone actually knew what signals were going through those electronic lens contacts then it actually would be possible for me to design a microprocessor circuit that would fool the XL body into thinking the stock lens is always attached, thus never losing the actual white balance settings.

I speculate that the contacts on the XL mount and lens are low speed serial based signals, one for zoom function, one that turns on/off auto focus and of course power contacts.

Taking this one step further, with an add on circuit like this it would actually then be possible to use the XL body zoom control function to pull focus on prime lenses using servo controls. Now that would be neat actually.

[Charles Papert]

Dennis:

Great info and thoughts.

The practicality of using a zoom control to pull focus is limited at best. Even a high-end stepless zoom servo as found on broadcast cameras is not the right tool for a job that requires more immediate and positive feedback. A focus puller can snap his wrist and come to an immediate stop, or hover back and forth on the knob when an actor does a sudden lean, for instance; neither of which are suited for a rocker zoom.

[Dennis Hingsberg]

Yes that is a great point about pulling focus. The degree of speed the servo could control focus of the lens would in fact be limited by the degree of zoom speed offered by the Canon - making it impossible for wrist snap type of focusing.

The first part of my idea was a better one though, I just took a look at the lens and there are 7 contacts on the XL lens in total. 2 would have to be for DC power and the other 5 could very well be for serial data or parallel data, and a few perhaps just basic on/off switching. For all we know it could be that just one of the contacts serves the purpose of a feedback sensor to tell the XL body/brain the lens is on.

I really don't want to wreck my XL1s to reverse engineer this, but it would be really great for XL/mini35 owners. Any service manuals or schematic diagrams would definitely help the cause.

[Nick Hiltgen]

You might not have to wreck your xl1 you might only need to wreck a ef adapter to figure out whcih contcts do what, if I remember right the contackts lead to a pretty multi colored set of wires and of those 7? wires 2 branch off which should narrow down some of the possibilities.

[Duncan Wilson]

The technicalities of this are way beyond my knowledge, but it is worth noting that you can use non-Canon "EOS-fit" lenses with the EF adapter. I use Sigma lenses, and the XL1 does recognise these lenses. As has already been noted, this may indicate that the "fault" lies with P+S rather than the XL1.

On a different subject, could anybody tell me how "T" values relate to "f" stop values on still lenses. Is T2 the same as f2, and what does the "T" stand-for?

Cheers
Duncan