Howdy from Texas,

Now that Canon has released the XL1S, which replaces the XL1 but is not a radical ergonomic departure from it, I'm wondering what Canon has in store later on down the road.

Many folks were surprised that the XL1 follow-up didn't include the by-now-ubiquitous flip-out LCD monitor so common to other prosumer camcorders, that it doesn't record on full-size DVCAM cassettes, etc. etc.

I'm willing to bet that DV tape-based cameras will be eclipsed in the near future by DV disc-based camcorders. I keep thinking that the next manifestation of the XL1, if there ever is such a thing to be known as the XL2 or whatever, will have a round back end instead of a square one... and record on disc media. In a consumer version of the HD format, no less. Native widescreen! And under five grand! Hmm?

Yeah I would love to see native 16:9 and pure 24fps modes.

A flip out screen would be nice, how about one that can do 4:3 and 16:9 switchable? A hood for it too would be good, what about folding out? I am sure the guys there could do that. :-)

I would like to see pro connectors throughout, like BNC, XLR, and what ever the standard power connector for pro gear is.

I guess this has to do with the "software" but how about having 4 chan audio with 16 bit @ 44.1Khz? Its not that hard to build in good preamps and ADCs.

I think there is a small chance that they will use DVD recordable or something disks. It makes it eiser for the consumer who owns a DVD player. DVD stuff is coming down in price but not enough...

Correct me if I am wrong, but can they make it a higer res cam? Better image qualtiy plus native 16:9 and 24fps will make it the cam of choice for small film units.

Well I guess we could go on and on about stuff we would luv to see in the new XL series. Lets hope that Canon's R&D department is reading this site!

Cheers!

xl2
3 ccd 1280 x 720 or 960 x 720
50 Mbit mini dv up to 40 min in sp, up to 60 in lp

1280 x 720 - 4:2:0 - 24 Fps - 5.2:1 compression

4 ch audio 16 bit 48 kz
8 ch 12 bit 32 Kz
8 ch 16 bit 48 Kz 2:1 compression

ntsc
720 x 480 x 60i, 720 x 480 x 30p, 5:1 or 3,3:1
720 x 480 x 60P 5:1

pal
720 x 576 x 50i, 720 x 576 x 25p, 5:1 or 3,3:1
720 x 576 x 50P 5:1

12,5 mbit extended recording 3 hr, 4hr
6,25 superextended recording mpeg2 6hr, 8hr

dvi video out tu see 24 fps on pc monitor

is good for you???

Wow thoes are some good specs francesco.

My question is, can the MiniDV casset take higher res or what not? Or does it have to be alterd...

What about post production? Can it take the diffrent res?

You can tell I am just a beginner. :-)

Cheers!

(sorry for my english)

with 25 Mbit you can record up to 80 Min in SP or 120 Min in LP

with 50 Mbit the tape run double so you can record up to 40 in HDSP or 60 in HDLP

my idea is only to double the bits like in dvcpro50 so with more bit we have a good quality in 1280 *720 *24

the difference from SP to LP are the correction bits
15bits to write 9 bits in SP
9 bits to write 8 bits in LP

who have more idea for a dv-Minidv hd format???

Its prolly getting into way too high a price range here, but what about Hi-Def cassets?

That is what they are shooting the 2nd Star Wars film on.

Thats the funny thing with the big Sony cams they are using, they need 7 cables. HD, TimeCode, GenLock, 2 Audios, and Data. (I assume some of thoes need two cables or something.)

Cheers!

I don't now about 7 or 8 cables in hdcam, if are necessary 10 they are 10.
The hdcam is surely a good format, but is only a

1440 x 1080 + 480 x 1080 + 480 x1080

145 mbit in 24 fps

my HDdv 50 is
1280 x 720 + 640 x 360 + 640 x 360

50 mbit in 24 fps

with only a firewire you can send to pc the data, and with a dvi you can see on a pc monitor the video out.

i think that with the new 1280x720 dlp you can see a very good images, non like star wars but good.

the price make the difference for a Sony hdw 900 you pay 100.000 US$

for a xl2 you pay about 6000-8000 US$

i'm sure that there isn't a problem to develop a camcorder with 50 Mbit or hd ccd (the megapixel camera have 1.5 Mpixels).
Perhaps is a standard problem?
P.S.
the extended mode is standard?
we see E-mode in other camcorder(Sony,Panasonic,jvc etc)?

by Francesco

I would suggest that the xl-2 might use some form or variation of the Sony memory stick system. After all, it makes for a more reliable, and stable product; e.g.: without a tape or disc drive, fewer moving parts to go out of wack! I wounder just how much memmory would be necessary to handle 0ne hour of video plus audio? Perhaps a tetrabit??! Anyone have a guestimate?

P.S. My biggest disappointment in the XL-1s, is the fact that it is not native 16:9.

Hi all,

I tend to agree with francesco. The major issues to improving the quaility of the image are the CCD's resolution and the amount of data that the tape can store.

A couple of posts have mentioned using DVDs. Now that's only 4.7GB. That's nothing. And has anyone really been impressed with the quality of DVDs? I haven't. Sure, it's better than VHS, but it's no where near DV, and is miles off Digibeta or even BetaSP. There currently is no (cheap) better way to store huge amounts of data than digital tape. The easiest way to improve the miniDV format is to look at DVCAM - increase the tape speed - DVCPro 50 is the perfect example.

Now, some of the items on the wish list are just too expensive and one has to remember that Canon's main target market isn't ever going to need 8 channel audio, and won't have XLRs at home. I mean, if we need more than 2 channel audio we're going to have our sound guy there mixing it down - if you need more, then timecode DAT or similar. I'd never use a flip-out LCD - that's what field monitors are for - and I certainly wouldn't want it if the trade off was image quality to keep the price point.

The CCDs would of course be the most important change, but the increase to CCDs capable of handinling true HDTV or the interims is the most expensive change. Digital-S is heading in this direction at the lowest cost (from what I've seen) but the fact remains that we're a little ways off being able to justify that cost for a product under $5k.

It's a question of who's the target, and Canon will have to make some compromises. Now, I'd be happy to only get 20 mins on a tape if I could get a higher resolution with lower compression, but would the rest of the users complain? I'm not overly fussed about the audio stuff - most of our stuff goes to audio post anyway, but again, if the tape speed increase you can have 4 channels of 24bit audio at 96Khz...

Faster tape, bigger CCDs, lower compression (higher bandwidth) are on my list. Any comments?

Take care,
Chris

I read. I absorb the info. I am unimpressed.
I still say tape is DEAD! The designer's dream is for no moving parts. Therefore, something akin to the Sony "sticks", will be the next developement in the progression to a system that will have at least the quality of film/digital tape. Perhaps, it will be the magnetic oil drop, being developed in the state of Texas...., capable of holding the entire contents of the library of congress.
Once that, or something similiar, is put on the market, the nit picking over audio/video/etc needs, will end. This is not a far out concept. It is suggested to be available within a year.
My point being, worry about audio/video db, etc., has become some what academic.
The creative possibilities, sans the technical dribble, will develope around the nature of the classical "mood". that you will be able to attain with your new no tape system.
These are the areas that I am investigating. I choose to use my XL-1s, in combination with a disc burner, via a mind interested in pushing my toys beyond the limits of those who designed them! (My hummingbird stuff using multible electronic flash, is getting rave reviews from those who have been permitted to see them.)
The heck!! with the supposed limitations on my equipment.
To paraphrase the words of the US cavalry: Gentlemen. Draw your 16:1 lens......, and CHARGE!!!

Robert,

no offense, but for Canon - this is business, not art.

Let's say there is a new technology capable of storing 20+GB (looked at Iomega's Peerless?). What's the technology's entry price? Way to high for Canon and the XL2. I don't know about you but I'd rather get my XL2 next year using tape than wait 2 years for the technology to drop to a point cheap enough to use. Maybe we need two threads, one for semi-realistic items in the short term and another for developments in the 2-5 year time frame.

Agreed, tape isn't the ideal, but it's a PROVEN technology. And for the short term, I don't think that's going to change.

Take care,
Chris

Please tell me what is wrong with tape? We use Digital BETA at the post house where I am a trainee, and it has great quality. Also Star Wars II is being shot totally on Hi-DEF, is this not an indication that tape is still the better medium? If Sony wanted to they would have used RAM or some other storage for their HD-Cam.

Cheers!

The problem is both DVD and memory sticks require HIGH compression. MPEG sucks as an origination standard and is hard to edit. The various encoding schemes for memory sticks are even worse (usually just web-streaming variants). While these are great for low-cost distribution standards, they really suck for program origination.

I think we're stuck with tape (and its fragile, overly mechanical nature) for the moment. Whole new standards would be required, and new disk formats, to effectively overcome tape.

I do think you'll see small, handheld 16:9 "personal" screens for watching movies on memory sticks. Like a watchman.

If you really wanted quality, reliability, standardization and archival potential, you'd shoot on film. After Lucas tinkers with his "anamorphic" aspect, he's down to 800 lines. It'll be interesting to see what that looks like projected (remember, 35mm can yield 2000 to 4000 lines). Line-doubling and tripling and quadrupling only goes so far (when the original image sucks and is only 800 lines to begin with).

HI there!

I am sure that George and ILM know what they are doing. I know that he would not use anything that might make his film look worse than the rest. He has alwasy wanted the best, I mean how many theaters have THX installed? I could count them on my two hands I bet. It is the best way to hear a movie, so I doubt that they are going to compromise the quality of the images.

Cheers!

Most DPs disagree. George, it must be remembered, is most concerned with a quick, efficient way to input image files into the effects stream...not with sparkling cinematography. I don't share your confidence in George Lucas. Most don't (except in video circles, who have no other savior).

His DP, in a recent issue of Millimeter, described how they were shooting for an aspect similar to 35 anamorphic. That is much more rectangular than the normal Sony Hi-Def (really, medium-def) image. This gives them the ability to play with their composition in post, which is a really cool idea. But it knocks their resolution down to 800 lines (because they're cropping top and bottom).

Regrettably, there is NO way to make 800 lines look like 4000! Now, it is true that res is lost with optical printing and successive generation loss (in film). This is why the new printing route includes scanning the 35mm original and digitally printing a master. The result is WAY beyond Med-def (HDTV) origination!

The main prob with film is expense. But the problems associated with digital origination would take a book.

Back to the point: We need a whole new disk technology that isn't even on the horizon yet. Existing DVD wouldn't give you the quality yopu're already getting with the XL-1.

I have the opportunity to often talk with senior product engineers of major companies like Harry Yu at Panasonic. I formerly designed robotics and have several years experience in product development. What I mostly talk to these engineers about these days, is the development of a sub-ten-thousand-dollar, 2/3" chip, true progressive scan 16x9 camera. Panasonic presently has the only 3 chip 480p camera of that description in the world, which is intended for broadcast. The medical imaging and scientific imaging people have had them for years and years. However using these cameras for independent cinema represents a whole different ball of custard.
(If anyone is interested, do internet searches on the following cameras: RDC-A10Z-S, JAI CV-M7, the Cooke PixelFly, the Phantom V-5.0 and the Dalsa web site)
Why do I mention this in opening? I do so to prequalify some of my following statements, and to hopefully show where my background lies. I believe Canon is in the proverbial "cat-bird seat", to quote a line by the Coen Bros., when it comes to video cameras. You see, Panasonic wants $39,000.00 for their 480p camera. It also takes 60 full frames per second. There is no capture card presently that will take that. I have spoken at length to the engineering team at Aurora to modify their Igniter RT capture card's SDI signal imput. They would have to drop every other frame. It may happen, it may not. The real question is, why did Panasonic develop a camera that no one could use? The answer: "Usually capture card companies do that on their own," says my friend at Panasonic. "CineWave was supposed to, but then they backed out."
My friend Micheal Caporale is trying to sell his 480p. He lives in Cinncinatti and owns the renowned Caporale Studios. He simply up-resed his 480p footage to 720p before sending it to the emulsion. Then he got smart and bought Panasonic's 720p camera instead. Variable frame rate. It's the same story with Birns & Saywer on Highland and Santa Monica in Hollywood. They are trying to unload all 3 of thier 480p cameras due to the same issue, no damned capture card supports it, and the very cameras they are selling were just used shoot the movie "Tortilla Soup!" What will Panasonic do now?
Well, if you know anything at all about the Japenese honor system, we may not be seeing a consumer version of 480p (at 30 fps) from them for quite some time. However they do sell a "kind-of" version in other countries with a similar chipset as Canon's XL1s, called the NV-MX3000. It only has 1/4" chips, but much, much higher resolution than the Canon, and makes use of the same "Frame Mode". It is said to be superiour to the SonyPD 150. (Which is, as you know, the VX2000 and the DSR 250) I only mention this because Canon uses Panasonic chipsets in the XL1s. Somebody stop me if you think I'm mistaken. Find the MX3000 at: http://www.supervideo.com/mxhome.htm
So why is Canon set so well? Because Canon is not cutting its own throat or deflowering their giri, meiyo, sessou, ichibun or menboku by offering a 480p camera! They don't make 50mbps 4:2:2 cameras. They are not high def-ending themselves by not releasing one. They could very well be the first to release a true 3-chip, 16x9, 30fps, 480p (525p) camera. If any of you fine shooters out there have ever seen 480p, then you know what I mean. If you have not, go to the local Circut City and load a DVD into a 480p capable player, then watch it on a widescreen HDtv. You will instantly realize why this is better than any other standard definition format. It is better than, yes, gasp, Digibeta! (Better at what? Film conversion and initial picture quality, yes digibeta still has more chroma info and all that, but it doesn't look as good.)
The interesting thing is, Canon could do this and change only two items: the CCD chipset and the internal frame-grabbing chipset. (You have a lot more simultaneous info coming in from 3 progressive scan chips than you do from 3 interlaced chips.) The tape will hold it with no changes and everything would be ten times better in your video life as a result. Firewire would run it and if you went straight to DVD via a low-cost stamping house, you would have quite a movie. I believe that Canon has shown its hand in steering toward the independant cinema market as seen by its feature set and camera shooting modes. Therefore, to me anyway it's the next logical step, and since they have no fiscal reason not to, lets hope.
We could all only pray that they Canon will step up and be a hitter in the progressive-scan ballgame. On the other hand, they certainly will not be going to the DVD-drive format. The way MPEG 2 is compressed means it has to scan several frames in front of and behind each frame it compresses. It is slow to compress and slower to edit. The only thing that is better about it than DV is its size. Since new compression schemes are capable of delivering lossless compression greater than that of DVD, (MGEP 4 is only one of many) I doubt that Canon would lower its sights or quality to sloppy MPEG 2 compression. It just can't match native DV.
They will not have memory sticks either, since memory sticks were designed to sell memory sticks and Canon does not make them. However high-end cameras like the ones I use do have memory cards that save presets. It is when multiple users handle one camera as in the ENG field. Who knows, perhaps we will see something of that nature after all. But would it sell more cameras? I doubt it. Most users of the XL1s level don't need the "all in one" camera features that memory sticks provide. We'll see, but I doubt it.
The XL2 will probably drop the anemic 270000 pixel CCD chipset for chips that have at least twice the pixel count, and since they haven't made an anamorphic lens for the XL1S, which I suppose they shelved in order to hurry out the yippie-yahoo 3D lens!, then let's hope and pray it's because they knew they wouldn't need one. Get it?, they wouldn't need one because the next camera will have 16x9 chips.
The last thing I am pretty sure of is that the next camera will have dual drives for media storage: the traditional miniDV drive and a bracketed, removable harddrive. They already list the ability to record straight onto harddrive with the XL1s, so to keep running in that same direction, they will probably have a knew gizmo to take advantage of that. And at a very "Canon" pricerange I'm sure. Remember, right now there are firewire drives at 80gig for around $400.00. That's more than 6 hours of recording time and there's absolutely zero time logging, capturing or digitizing. And it will be dual drives because Canon does sell tapes and you really do need redundancy in highend work.
See, these are good selling points to make the camera more appealing that don't cost Canon more money. Canon has no reason to "Feature Geld" its top-end camera, because it's their top end camera. You know, like Sony does to their mid'range cameras. (And, Oh yes baby, believe me they do...) That's why I would expect to see these improvements on the next model.
Now they don't want to stop making and selling all of those XL1 lenses, but on the other hand they, hmmmmm, already make fabulous lenses for Pro cameras. Could we see an enlargement of the CCD size? Don't get your hopes up. Larger CCDs mean more cost to Canon. Keep in mind that many, many people already think a $4000.00 camera is a rediculous price for a $10,000.00 camera. So we will probably not see a larger CCD. But will we see more pixels.
Here is my wishlist. These are things that are mostly software and a few caps. Make the freaking camera variable frame rate. Let it shoot at 24fps, 25fps and 30fps. Do you know how many international travelers and photographers use this camera? I don't, I'll admit, but I read...and it seems to be a lot. Just tweak the voltage and it's a done deal. Overcranking would mean a large price jump in data-capture hardware, but undercranking is not expensive.
So if you will call Birns & Sawyer (323.466.8211) and speak to Ryan, you will understand that the first big jump in detail and quality is at 480p. The Canon XL1s is currently only lacking this one thing to deliver the quality of $50,000.00 cameras. It would thrill me to no end to see this happen. My appologies to Chris that I inferred to Mr. Pappas that he had told me things inwhich he had not.
Please feel free to e-mail me with comments, cursing or congratulations at: boguskitty@yahoo.com