Can someone clarify which lens the XL-2 will come with? Will it be the current 16x or the new 20x?

I may upgrade my DVX but only if this lens performs better than the 16x in my XL-1. That lens always hunted for focus when I was in AF mode. Also, my XL-1 sucked at white balance. My DVX-100 is flawless. If whatever lens it comes with works fine and the camera will correctly white balance, I'll buy one.

Greg

So, as I understand it, in order to keep the lenses backwards compatible, the chips had to stay the same "size" and ratio. The increase in pixels was necessary to give a "true" 16x9 while masking the top and bottom of the pixels?

Greg,

The new camera comes with the 20X lense. Also, you'll be able to buy a 'no lense' version for about 2 grand less. And, the 20x lense will be sold separately for the XL1 masses who want it.

Very, very good marketing design by Canon. They even retained the 'look' of the XL1/1s because they know that look has turned a lot of heads over the past 6 years.

Looks like the 'photo' button is now MIA...aw darn it. Like I ever used that function...not!

Everything but HD. Well I guess we can't have it all.

But other than interchangeable lenses and 16x9 CCD (nothing to sneeze at, granted), is this thing any more special than the DVX100A??

Peter: read the website's pages and find out. There is a lot more
to it then what you think from a first glance.

Canon and the rest will likely unveil their HDV, non-vaporware cameras next year, I'll bet.

The XL-2 is cool and all, but as an HDV user, I'm spoiled.

heath

I apprehensively was looking forward to possibly HDV at least something switchable as the compressed format still seems odd, and not too many people are asking me for HDV=== by the time canon updates to HDV they will. Although it seems completely and utterly consumer so far - from a marketing aspect to an engineering one.

Let's not forget, there are no 1/3" 3-ccd HDV cameras out there. Sony says they will have one, but they don't have one yet. Sony will announce in the future, Canon stays secret. My guess is, Canon's HDV camera will be a camera in a new line when 3-ccd 1/3" camera can be produced.

See my take on the HDV thing on this page (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/xl2faq.php#presales).

Very nice, Chris.

heath

Man Chris, you have been busy this morning.

Well fortunately I can't afford a new camera now :) So I'll have the luxury of waiting to see what Sony comes up with in the HDV realm and see if Canon brings an XL2-HD next year.

The "super range OIS"is the same as used on the XL1s. It has OIS driven by gyro sensors and actuators and it interprets the motion vector on the CCD's, not for correcting the CCD read-out like EIS does, but for generating extra correction info on the OIS system for "slow"shakes which are difficult to be detected by gyro's

Really great work on the new XL2 Watchdog Chris!

A hell lot of information.... and pictures... whoa... but the greatest of all: It is all up and running on the day the cam was announced!!!

Andre is quite right. There are several flavors of OIS, and the Super-Range VAP type in the Canon XL series is the best.

Well shoot guys, now your making me all paranoid about Canon coming out with an HD version in a few months or next year! <=D

I dunno, I could stick with my GL1 for awhile longer I guess. It should be good enough for college projects.

great work chris for putting together ALL the info on xl2, i'm not into hdv editing yet, and i'm not sure who is out there and/or who is familiar with editing issues in hd, but i doubt half the complainers would not be able to afford an hd version if it did come out... the features look slick but still the price is pretty steep, i'm glad though because my xl1s will still keep it's value for a while longer... i may just have to go out and pick up the new pana gs400 to hold me over for a while...

-dr

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Balkum : Let's not forget, there are no 1/3" 3-ccd HDV cameras out there. -->>>

For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...

For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...

I've been waiting forever for a 1/3" 3CCD with HQ Widescreen but ouch on the price.

How long did it take before the XL1S prices started dropping "legitimately" below $4000?

The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The XL2 isnt native 16:9... its a 4:3 chip that is chopped.

Native 16:9 seems to have a lot of confusion, let's add some facts
in here, okay?

1) the CCD chips in the XL2 are NOT widescreen in ratio, they are 4:3 indeed (as Jarred says)

2) however, the 16:9 mode DOES USE MORE resolution than the 4:3 (which is also better than the XL1S 4:3 mode)

So in this case it IS native 16:9 since it is not made from electronic
stretching in which you LOOSE resolution. So the chips do not
have an actual 16:9 aspect, but they will produce native 16:9.

Perhaps true 16:9 is a better word than native 16:9 in this
regard. The XL2 does actually GAINS resolution in regards to it's
4:3 mode.

So it is simply not using it's full VERTICAL height of the CCD's.
Is this a problem? Not really since it still uses more pixels in its
16:9 mode than any of the competition.

It's just a bit less suited as a 4:3 camera, perhaps (due to
increase focal lengths and shortened DoF). It still has more
resolution in 4:3 mode than the XL1S does, however!

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope? -->>>

It's still DV, there are no extra pixels written to tape, only extra pixels sampled on the CCD. The signal from the sensors is then converted to regular DV.

Rob, it seems the only element we are still missing is how this all translates in regards to the XL2's low-light capabilites. It would seem not to be a strong selling point for the XL2, since it is never mentionned as such by Canon.

However, for most indies, I believe higher resolution is much more important than higher low-light capabilities. You can always add some lighting...

Oh, and the GS400 claims to make use of 1156x646 pixels in 16:9 mode, which is a bit more than the XL2. Not that you could really compare both cameras...

Hmmmm. Not a home run Canon, but a double.

I think I would buy a dvx100a and add a anamorphic lens instead.

Still waiting on HD. Sharp, where are you?

Steven: the GS400 isn't 3 chip right? If so then they loose quite a
lot of resolution due to Bayer transforms.The three CCD image sensors are specifically designed to capture as much image detail as possible and for shooting under extremely low light conditions. In super low light, the XL2 captures crisp and clear digital data. Under extremely bright conditions, the XL2 greatly reduces vertical white streaks and smearsSource: Canon USA (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=10350#f11) (just under the "Focal Lengths using the XL2" table)

Yes, the GS400 is 3CCD, although they are only 1/4.7".

So they do mention low light... but don't seem to make it a very strong selling point like for the DVX100 or the PD170.

Maybe Simon Beer can give us more insight on this since he has access to a XL2.

thanks guys this has all been very informative.

Chris you've been very busy and we all thank you, this really is a keen watch dog.

Bravo

This shoots 16X9 and then loses resolution to fit it to DV tape, am I right about this? Too bad.

But then I see you can link it to a PC to record direct to disc. Does this preserve the higher pixel count? That would be fantastic. Not HDV, but certainly better than coming off the compressed signal on a DV tape.

Much better(if this is true) in the long run for out putting it to film. Can anybody address this if you are in the know?

Hopefully my speculation is correct, and they get a MAC version of the DV-PC software.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Native 16:9 seems to have a lot of confusion -->>>

I agree with Rob, but really we're just into semantics. If you look at Chris' section on the CCD block you will see that Canon simply doesn't use the area above and below the 16:9 frame. For all practical purposes that part of the CCD doesn't exist, so I'd consider this "native" for all practical purposes. Why should you care about the unused portion of the CCD when the active area has enough resolution to form a complete 16:9 image.

Actually, if you've followed the multiple GS400 threads, it appears that the GS-400 uses the same 1,070,000 pixel chips as the PDX-10 and maps 16:9 in similar fashion. I'd also consider this "native", but I suppose we could quibble about the finer points.

Here's how (http://greenmist.com/dv/16x9/10.JPG) the PDX-10 uses its CCD's to produce video in the different modes, very similar to the XL-2, except the area which isn't used for video is available for still photos.

Now if you want something to complain about, I suppose you could question why Canon decided to discard that area above and below the 16:9 frame instead of using it to form a higher resolution 4:3 image. I'm sure there was a solid engineering reason for this decision though.

Geoff: no this will not work. All (pro)sumer 16:9 equipment works
like this. The image is always stored as 720x480 (NTSC) on DV
tape **AND** DVD. Just with a different pixel aspect ratio.

The increase is not in the horizontal resolution (that is still scaled
down to 720), but in the VERTICAL!!

This vertical resolution TRULY increases. It is not downsampled.
You capture 480 lines and you will get 480 lines. With electronic
stretching or letterboxing you would get something around 350
lines.

So that is the resolution that increased. The horizontal resolution
is always 720 pixels (although sampled from a higher source in
this case).

Real resolution increases vertically, spatial resolution increases
horizontally.

Boyd: that would result in dropping native/true 16:9 in regards
to 4:3. Ofcourse it still remains the same. I think this would have
not have sold well. Everyone would have said it did not have
native 16:9 even though the resolution have increased.

I guess the definition of true/native 16:9 is that it increases
resolution over 4:3.

Then again, the full 4:3 sensor would have to be sampled down,
so perhaps this would not constitute a higher resolution for 4:3
then. Perhaps it just took too much processing power to do at
a high enough quality? Who knows.

So the XL-1 and XL-1s create a cropped 16:9 image when working in that mode masking out the bottom and top portions of the CCD.

Now the XL-2 is the opposite. It is essentially a 16:9 camera with a 4:3 mode that crops the sides of the image. I would only use this camera in 16:9 so that appears to be okay, but I am curious as to how the image will look.

Greg

Yes, that is basically correct. After masking the XL1 range stretched
the image electronically back to full resolution.

Keep in mind that with the XL2 the 4:3 resolution is still higher
than the XL1S. So you actually increase your resolution, even
in 4:3 (especially in what was frame mode / progressive).

However you also increase focal length (zoom) and change
Depth of Field characteriscs as well. Those are more "problematic"
perhaps.

Then again, most people who want DOF also shoot in 16:9
(in this case).

Any idea why this camera was announced now and not at NAB? It seems to be aimed at much the same market as the Panny is and an announcement at NAB would have made a lot of sense.

Anybody want to buy a used GL1 and GL2?

That is simple to answer: they either did not want to or it just
wasn't finished yet. Canon has a clear history of just giving you
a camera introduction just shortly before you can buy one. This
camera is going to be out in August. That's just a couple of more
weeks from now!

Lots of people moaning about no HDV (me included, a little-though this cam seems sweet). On another forum(DVXUser I think) I read some rumor/speculation about Canon announcing/explaining why the XL2 is not HDV, tomorrow.

Makes me laugh. Here we are with a great new cam announced, and already speculation about a future cam! But I'm just as pathetic! I can't help it - now I am hoping we will see new Canon HDV tomorow! This is insane.

Still, XL2 looks cool. Can't wait for reviews.

Hey, it's obvious Canon knew they were a bit late to the game, their PR is already spinning "why it's not HDV"...*L*

I dunno, it's a nice unit, but it might have a much shorter shelf life than it's predecessor.

I know that the current debate some have in mind is the XL2 vs DVX100(A), but how does this stack up to the Panny SDX900? I realize that the SDX is obviously the beetr camera, but how much better?

Both are dv with native 16X9, both have alot of control over the image (Gamma, knee, master ped etc.).

Any thoughts?

HDV...

I don't think Canon will lose too many legitimate buyers (excluding dreamers) by leaving off HDV. For getting the job done (like the DVX100A) the XL2 is highly qualified and I can't wait to see its real world performance.

Besides, what good is a little extra resolution when it will take until 2008 for HDTV to be in 15% of homes? I'm all for an affordable (and quality) HD solution but I think Canon made the right decision by leaving off HDV.

Dealing with HDV, I feel, limits you in creativity. Especially in post and distribution.

btw - I love HDTV and I'm on my 8th HD set since 1998.

I know people are going to bag on me for being negative (1 day out from release) but I'm really interested to hear the take on the Xl2 from those with lots of experience with different cameras based on what you've read so far (And seen for those few who are lucky enough)

I'm sure you can put stuff in perspective for me, but looking at it on the surface it really does seem like an almost nothing offer. Sure, better than the Xl1s but hey that's 3 years old. Compared to DVX100a, not much there.

XLR been on other cams for years.

16:9 - Nice, but is it that much of a winner? We could chuck anamorphic lenses on the old ones.

DoF and magnification characteristics have changed (For arguably the worse) cause there isn't a full 1/3" 4:3 chip usage anymore.

DVX has had presets so nothing new there

Xl2 has no lens markings on barrel - ie. No real focus pull (And yeah I know about the focus preset thing)

2" LCD which is a flip out of the EVF

Progressive 24fps - Just catching up to the DVX here

So it seems that they offer, basically interchangeable lenses over the DVX. I'll be interested to see more about the audio specs. I'd imagine, like all camera manufacturers that they hardly even put R&D into it. But this is an area that would have been nice if they'd just gone hard out and put in some good audio circuitry.

Aaron

Aaron

Well I have to admit that I'm disappointed by the most exciting, and surprising piece of info in the lead statement of canon's press release

---new 680,000 pixel progressive scan CCDs--

appears to be not much more than a piece of bunk. When I read it, it really was a shock...so I was disappointed to find out that, well, it really isn't the truth...but lets imagine Canon didn't really feel the need to lie about what's in the camera....in fact what if they hadn't even told us about all the pixels that they "turned off". What if they had just said:

"The xl2 is an evolutionary design based on all the suggestions put to us by all the whiners over there at dvinfo.net (except hdv). Native, or true 16:9. Higher native resolution. 24p, 30p. Progressive scan. Expanded picture adjustment. xlr inputs. better low light capability....blah, blah, blah. We'd have put 680k chips in the thing, but no-one asked. (actually we did....oh, don't ask)."

Anyway, we'll have to wait till the frame grabs start popping up on all those japanese websites that I can't read...to see what the real improvements in image quality are. An I'll probably wait to sell my xl1s until I have my xl2 in hand...just so I can convince myself that it was worth it.

But I'm already convinced that this will put the canon flagship camera right back up there where it belongs, and it will relegate the dvx's of the world to the second camera, back up position. Why am I so convinced?

1. 16:9...functionally this may be very close to what you can do with a dvx and an anamorphic adapter, but in reality, anamorphics require more light, and introduce another layer of funk to the image. I think the xl2's solution will produce a higher quality result. Again we'll have to wait and see, but I think the math is on my side. From my experience the DVX looks great simply blown up (no anamorphic) on my HD set, so I have a feeling that this 'true' 16:9 should look significantly better.

2. the platform...the xl2 is still simply the best, most professional platform in this market segment. The mere fact that I can put a manual lens on this thing is the reason I'll buy the xl2 instead of another DVX. Also, I don't know of any other camera currently offering a 16 speed automatic zoom.

3. Ergonomics and the art of the button...I'm thrilled that you can switch from 60i to 30p to 24p right on the body, I love that you can switch from 4:3 to 16:9 without having to enter a menu. The DVX menu system bugs the crap out of me. The Xl2s myriad of buttons seem intelligently layed out. Easy to see and find.

In almost any way you want to look at it, the xl2 has the most advanced feature set of any camera in this market segment. So what if there is nothing hugely new about most of it. It still has all the right stuff, and more of that stuff than anyone else.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the DOF thing Aaron...I think the difference is going to be marginal, like it currently is between the gl2, and xl1s. If the new lens is truly an L, we all may be able to shoot wide open a little more often, giving us that lovely blurred background in every shot!!

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : HDV...

I don't think Canon will lose too many legitimate buyers (excluding dreamers) by leaving off HDV. For getting the job done (like the DVX100A) the XL2 is highly qualified and I can't wait to see its real world performance.

btw - I love HDTV and I'm on my 8th HD set since 1998. -->>>

Well, you may love it, Tommy, and have a lot of money to dump on eight tv sets, but the rest of the buying public is not so enchanted. The word I get from friends in Europe is that HD is a non-issue; they are happy with their PAL pictures. It seems the only real market for HD is Japan and the USA. And there doesn't seem to be a big rush to watch Jay Leno in HD.

Sure, eventually we will all get in line with HD, but it isn't the slam dunk the manufacturers were hoping for, so don't expect that XL2 in HD anytime soon. The word from rental houses has been, that except for rentals for 24P shows, HD cameras were a tough sell, and no one wanted to pony up the extra rental dough because there were no paying markets for HD product.

Still, the news from Canon is great, if for no other reason than to turn down the volume from the DVX100 people.

Thanks Barry. That's the sort of commentary I'm after. Some experienced guys trying to clarify the conjecture from us that don't have as much experience. I don't deny the XL2 is probably the best camera out there, it's entirely possible, but cause of the timing and the fact that it might not be too far off before Sonys's or who knows, Panasonics next cam comes out. Yes I know that you'll never be able to have the best for ever ;)

I'm probably not too worried about the DoF, I just know some peple will be. But I have some questions about the lens. Assuming that we'd need a manual lens (And that is an assumption because the preset focus/zoom might be fine and the programmability might add great power for focus pulls/rack zooms etc) then would the old 16x manual lens be any comparison (Image quality wise) to the flourite one of the XL2 standard lens?


Aaron

Another reason why HD may not be such a big deal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/technology/28cable.html?ex=1089864000&en=8eca7b23bd4752b1&ei=5070

This kind of thing does not make people want to run out and buy sets, I imagine.

Chris--tremendous job on getting all that info together and up for everybody so quickly.

It does appear that the camera has true 16:9, which makes a non-Canon person like me want one.

In looking at the high res photos there does appear to be some sort of lens markings on the 20x lens. These are on the inner ring (the zoom?).

Jeff, these marks are for the two steps ND filter built in the lens. You engage it through the use of this ring like on the 16X manual instead of a switch.

This kind of thing does not make people want to run out and buy sets, I imagine.

Of course if you're in the market for a 40" or larger TV you're pretty much getting a HDTV.

I bet the XL2 is going to look great on a widescreen HD set or projector.

I can't find the pictures right now, but I think I remember seeing those markings and I think they are ND filter markings.

Aaron

Ahh... Huh! That's good news. Can't wait to see real thing. Hopefully it would come with LCD. If that's so, we can buy 1 for the office. I like the XL1-s design. I guess this one will be better. I'm sure the Canon people know how to design good cameras.