If you read the specs it does have an LCD, but a paultry 2" one that's actually hidden under the viewfinder.


Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman :

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.

s. -->>>

Rob,

Can you clarify something for me. When you say "electronic stretching" are you referring to how the DVX100a now records a digital squeeze or something else?

It would seem to me that a digital squeeze or anamorphic adapter would utilize the full 720x480 as opposed to the 350 lines you mention. Maybe you are referring to yet another method of getting a 16:9 look other than with an anamorphic lens or digital squeeze.

Thanks.

Greg

With 30p and the extra-powerful lens possibilities, the XL2 should be more effective for generating footage that is good for still-picture captures, than any other camcorder. In addition to grabbing these from progressive-shot tape, it would be nice if you could capture them as J-PEGs on a memory-card, from a camera-direct signal. However, I've seen nothing anywhere, about a memory-card slot. Have I missed something or is a card slot too much of a consumer-type feature to have included on the XL2?

I've snapped hundreds of 640 X 480 J-PEGs
onto my VX2100's Memory-Stick and they've been very useful for sending on E-Mail and to newsgroups. I also frequently show them to people out in the field, using the viewscreen. During times when there's no action footage to shoot, I've amused myself a lot by taking them. They look very sharp for pictures of that pixel size.

Steve McDonald

Greg: sure. I don't know much about the DVX so I'm not sure
whether it has 16:9 chips or not.

An anamorphic adapter has an optical "stretch" so does NOT
have this issue! Neither will any camera with a true/native
16:9 resolution (like the XL2).

Every other camera (including the XL1 range, GLx range and
probably the DVX) do an electronic stretch to get 16:9 since
they do not have the higher resolution chips or the anamorphic
adapter in the lens or something.

What they do is this. They have a 720x480 pixel array whic is
of a 4:3 aspect ratio. They "somehow" need to change this to
a 960 x 480 image (x 1.33). That is the first stage.

Now you can't just resample the 720 pixels to 960 because all
the dimensions would look wrong (try this in a paint program
with maintain aspect ratio turned off). So for this to work they
will need to crop (yes CROP) your vertical resolution by 1.33 to
get a 16:9 aspect ratio image.

So 480 pixels become 360 pixels. Now you have a 720 x 360
pixel image which is 16:9. To prove see the following formula:

16/9 = (720 * 0.9) / 360

You need to the * 0.9 part because that is the PIXEL aspect ratio.

Now you can test this as well. Do a crop in your image program
and you will see it looks nice widescreen.

The DV standard only allows for 720x480 format so it then
stretches this back to 720x480 creating the famous stretched
look. Your NLE then displays this image as 960x480 (which is
easier to do and more compatible with true 16:9). However,
you have LOST 120 lines of information in that earlier crop.

The stretching adds some softening as well, but you'll see we
also have that with true 16:9 resolution, only horizontally instead
of vertically (which should be less noticable).

On a camera like the XL2 you have 960x480 pixel array to work
with. This simply gets sampled back to 720x480. Your NLE
stretches it back to 960x480 for display.

See how there is no cropping in there? So you loose no resolution.

The only "bad" (depends highly on algorithms and such) thing
still remaining is the resampling. You can remove this with an
anamorphic attachment, but it will probably introduce other
issues like vignetting, zoom through problems and light loss.

Now you want to know what the best would be? Capture that
960x480 pixel image and store it as is. Only problem is that you
can't do this in the DV format.... too bad.

I hope this explained things a bit better.

Well come on guys . . .

They haven't even mentioned color space or bit rates or MHz . . . this thing could be the biggest piece of crap we've ever seen. If someone knows of an XL-2 spec sheet with these things on it, please let me know.

And I doubt they will, and who cares. It's about the end product
anyway. And since it is plain DV bitrate is easy to answer: 25 mbps.

And MHz of what? Who cares if the colorspace is RGB or YUV?
It is stored as YUV in DV anyway.

So Laurence, what do these answers tell you and in what way
do they relate to the camera? I'm really interested in your MHz
question....

I'm keeping my eye on this thread (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28887). To judge final quality.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman :
I hope this explained things a bit better. -->>>

Rob,

That was a great explanation. Thanks for taking the time.

My DVX-100 only has the letterboxed 16:9 where the camera merely adds black bars on top and bottom of the screen. The DVX-100a has the digital squeeze and I always thought is somehow shot a wider angle image, compressed it horizontally and then recorded it to tape. Then the NLE would re-sample the image to the correct number of horizontal pixels and you are good to go.

I did not know the horizontally squeezed image was actually stretched vertically. Thanks for clearing that up.

Greg

The easy way to see if you have true 16:9 is if your FOV (Field Of
View) widens when you switch from 4:3 to 16:9. So you should
actually SEE a WIDER picture then before.

If it uses a fake 16:9 stretch you will either just see black bars
being added or everyone will suddenly look taller.

There is only one catch. If you have a true 16:9 camera (or anamorphic
attachment) but with a normal viewfinder your people will look
taller AS WELL, but the FOV should ALSO get wider!

Im just wondering why Canon decided not to use the whole area of the 1/3 ccd that they created. Since the XL2 (in the viewfinder) shows you the 16:9 with black bars on top and bottom, and the 4:3 covering the whole screen, why didnt they just use the whole 1/3 ccd to capture the 4:3 image? (Because it wouldnt change the shape in the viewfinder- it would just change the DoF of the 4:3 making it more of a wide angle, but that would be welcome) That would obviously give the 4:3 image a huge jump in resolution.
They went through all the trouble to put more pixels in the ccd, but now are only using this advantage in the 16:9 aspect. Obviously the 4:3 is elarged compared to the XL1s, but none the less, its still not using its full capacity technically (that is if they put the rest of the non-firing pixels into use).

I just wonder why they chose not to use that extra space.
Anyone have any theories or knowledge of why they didnt?

And I really hope that they didnt choose to not use that space because it "technically" wouldnt make the XL2 a true 16:9 camera.... that would be very pitiful to me- because obviously it wouldnt change the area on the ccd where the 16:9 aspect recorded from, thus not changing any part of how it now actually is. It would be the same, but with a better 4:3 version.

Kevin, as far as I understand it you don't need much over 340k pixels to get an excellent 4:3 720x480 picture. Just look at the VX2100 or other 1/3" 3CCD cams.

I think the extra pixels are there only for 16:9.

Kevin, my understanding is that in order to make the XL2 backwards compatible with the existing XL lenses and attachements, they were constrained to use a 1/3 chip. Now, Canon knew they would also HAVE to include native 16:9 in order to make the new camera a worthwhile upgrade in the customers mind. Obviously 16:9 was always going to take up the full width of the chip so to offer 4:3 on the same chip without altering the plane of the lens or the chip and incurring all the attendant focussing nightmares, this would HAVE to be acheived by chopping down the sides of the image.

Have I said that right??

Well, if the XL1s uses a 1/3 ccd then there should be no compatability problems if they wanted to use the whole chip. Though if its true that the extra pixels dont make a difference on the recording, then that may be why they chose to do it the way they did. But if not, then I guess the reason they did it was because they wanted a true 16:9.

I dont know.

What does HD record on? It doesnt use DV tapes does it?

thanks,

I'm trying to get my head round this myself.

So - same lens and a 1/3 chip in the same place as before, right? OK, so if we use the whole of the chip for 4:3, how do we get 16:9 out of the same configuration without employing squeeze or crop?

You see what I mean?

Canon have gone the other way round - ASSUMED 16:9 and cropped to get 4:3. That way, we don't have to think hard about loss of horizontal resolution when choosing to shoot 16:9 over 4:3.

Thing is, because they've managed to fit more pixels in, even wasting the top and bottom of the chip we still get better resolution.

Have I got this right? Somebody clever help me here!

I hear what your saying, but either way you have to crop. So if you're going to have to crop, why not crop with the bigger 4:3? The only thing that happens if you crop from 4:3 to 16:9 is that you cant say its "true" 16:9. But if you do it the way they did it, you can say its "true" 16:9.... either way though, your 16:9 picture remains the same.

I agree, Kevin. The method that canon chose is the true 16:9, but we 4:3 players could argue that we don't have the true 4:3 mode right now....


Shame for the DOF that's going to be sighnificantly worse I suppose.

Rob,

Good points, and I'll tell you what they tell me . . .

For all the hype, etc. . . . this camera SUCKS!

LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOL

Yeah, I get that the chip has been *hobbled* in that way. But if I were Canon I'd have done the same ...

Imagine them coming to market with a fine 4:3 cam with great resolution but that when you wanted 16:9 you were into the losing 25% res game all over again. Exactly the same frustrations of trying to find an anamorphic adapter to extract the resolution that you just *know* is there. It's a human nature thing. And it's a marketing thing. Canon had to bring *native* 16:9 to this release for it to be a worthwhile upgrade and they had to stick with a 1/3 chip to remain backward compatible. I can see their dilemma.

I hope that marketting isn't the reason. I've seen so many companies do this sort of thing. Release sub-par products (And for me, <1/3" 4:3 is subpar) just to have a tick on a box.

Aaron

<And for me, <1/3" 4:3 is subpar>

Even when it's way better than what we've got now?

Michael, I'm not bagging it. I'm just not impressed and just have this "gut" feeling that Canon isn't a company that's wants to break new ground. I love innovation and, companies outdoing each other with all these great enhancements. It benefits us, the end user immensely. I just don't (so far) see that the XL2 has really jumped up and kicked me in the nads to say it's here and gonna challange the DVX etc.

I'm sure it will be way better that the xl1s, but as far as CCD size goes I was thinking about people who want to squeeze whatever shallow DoF they can out of it, and also usually the smaller pixels on the CCD's mean lower sensitivity right?. If these aren't issues then it will probably be fine for people. I guess there's this mindset that 1/3" is the standard for a "prosumer" camera and to go back on that sounds risky.

As I keep saying "The proof is in the pudding". I want to see footage.


Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Rob,

Good points, and I'll tell you what they tell me . . .

For all the hype, etc. . . . this camera SUCKS!

LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOL -->>>

Laurence
Certainly a well educated and biased opinion. On behalf of the rest of the forum, I thank you deeply for sharing it with us. Undoubtably, you have helped set back Canon's marketing department by years. XL2's will be collecting dust on the shelves.
Were there an award that I could give you for this great revelation, I would deliver it to your door in person, as well as a great big cheque for the $5000 you saved me by not spending my money on this "lame duck" of a camera.

Phew....

You 'da man.

Actually, I think you might be bitter because your DVX100 doesn't look like the king of the hill anymore. Pity.

PS, your "L" and "O" keys appear to be broken. I've noticed this in a few of your posts regarding the XL2. New keyboards are cheap these days, I suggest you purchase one.

The PAL version has 960X576 pixels which is pretty good. This means it will acquire at higher resolution at 25P than NTSC at 24P. I wonder if the Indie filmakers will rush the PAL model.

Chris must have been on a huge NDA to have all this material ready at launch zero. In terms of marketing the symbiotic relationship between Canon and DVInfo Net have shown how to do it. In any event what a stunning resource. Thank you Chris Hurd and moderators.

As I have been saying for some time now, anyone that buys a prosumer 4:3 camera will be looking at a massive resale value drop... especially now.

Jim

Aaron, the way this cam is going to 'kick' is that it is the cheapest in its class to offer lens interchangability. This is a huge advantage when you consider that the XL system can use everything from still cam lenses to primes! Add to that a native 16:9 progressive image processing and you have a pretty impresive system.

If Canon had gone to larger CCDs they probably would have had to abandon the XL lens system. That would have required new lens development and ticking off a bunch of people with stables of XL lens products.

But I am with you on pudding proof. I suspect though that Canon has really taken great care with this system (heck they even have a dust seal on the tape drive cover).

The XL2 certainly should have a dust seal on the cassette hatch. They're not that complicated or expensive to make. They put one on their LX100 in l991, so they've known all this time how to do it.

In some parts of the world, this dust seal could make a big difference. If I go out on the alkalai flats of the Alvord Desert later this year, I'd want to have one on a camcorder. I once worked around this area on a botanical survey and that nasty dust penetrated everything, no matter how careful we were. Everytime we wandered in from the desert, it took days
to get it out of our skin and noses. Think what it would do to the workings of a VTR.

Steve McDonald

Ive never used an xl1, and just wondering, if it can use prime lenses and stuff, why whould you need to get a mini35 to put those lenses on it?

Primes will adjust the focal length of the lens and hence cause magnification, and the Depth of Field associated with them is lost.

Aaron

Nathan, I guess you've hit it on the head. The interchangeable lens thing has never seemed to me to be a big bonus. With mini35's there are versions that work with fixed lens cameras. I do understand it for those that have a lot of investment in lenses that will work with it. If I was one of those people, it would probably be a no brainer.

Aaron

Hey everyone,
Owner of a GL2 here, I want to the New York DV Expo East yesterday, and got a chance to put my hand son the XL2. Its very nice, a little longer then the XL1S. Im not too farmiliar with the XL's But its a really, really nice cam, and its the same price and when the XL1S came out. If you want a real brochure I have one, I wont need it. Lemme know Ill send it to ya!

What is it with all these whiners that didn't get their HDV?! I mean this is the best prosumer camera ( for the price ) out there, until I see a professional review that is. Anyhow I live in Asia and no one cares about HDV , only in the States. If you need HDV go buy a full 1/2 CCD HDV camera and quit whining!
I'm so excited about this new camera to the fine Canon family I hate these whiners raining on the parade!

Not quite so simple for the prosumer side at least. If you are using your XL2 to make videos for money then you have to consider your market. While there is still a huge market for SD there are some segments of the market that now require HD (some PBS for example). Now being able to buy a Viper would be really cool but outside of many freelancer's price range . A great sub $10,000 HD camera would be really nice.

That is not to say you can't upconvert material to HD but not all material will convert adequately. It will certainly help that the XL2 has improved resolution at 16:9 but you still have compression issues.

So it remains a trade-off between price, quality and size of camera. Sort of like the rule of 2/3 for making videos - fast,good,cheap - you can have any 2 of the 3 at the same time.

There will be some films shot with the Canon XL2, but I think SD has one foot in the grave, unless you are just making really cool home videos.

If you want people to watch/buy your work, you need as much rez as you can get.

First co that puts out a nice hDV cam gets my $$$.

>Anyhow I live in Asia and no one cares about HDV , only in the States.

In Japan HDV is a huge topic.

Sorry Michael, but that is just nonsense and one of the major reasons people tie themselves in knots ranting about whether one camera is better/worse than the one they haven't got.

Whether or not someone will commission/buy/watch your work has nothing to do with *rez* and everything to do with content, effectiveness, engagement, integrity and creativity. Audiences want to be moved and/or exited - corporations commissioning video want to know that what they are buying will do the job they want it to, not how many pixels they get for their money.

As a professional I will always strive to deliver the best technical quality I can - that's a given. - but they day has yet to come when one of my clients says to me "Hey, Michael - GREAT resolution yo got there!".

Well, actually, when I first got my new ED-Beta camcorder and VCR setup more than 15 years ago, most people were dazzled by the picture resolution it produced. As long as I did a good job of shooting it, people would eagerly watch anything I had to show and always remarked about how sharp and lifelike it looked. However, I did have some good subjects, mostly beautiful birds and other wildlife.

It shouldn't be a surprise that within a few months, the same people demanded some meaningful content and creative substance, if they were to sit through my video presentations.

Good content can overcome mediocre picture quality, especially with sophisticated audiences. But, high-resolution images will attract people for only a limited time and as they become more experienced as viewers and critics, the subject matter must improve and diversify, to keep them interested.

It's best to have both good content and resolution, although it's likely that if you dwell too much on image quality, you may dilute the effort you can devote to
even more important aspects of your production. I suppose that the more attractive you are physically, the more attention people will give to you at first. But, to keep their interest, you usually have to say and do some noteworthy things.

Steve McDonald

I have not read the whole thread.. please don't kill if this has been addressed before:

If the XL2 has a "true" 16:9 mode and records 960x576 (here in Europe) or 960x480 then shouldn't:

1. The output via Firewire have a higher data rate than 3,5mb/s? Does more resolution not require more data?

2. The tapes run shorter for the same reason?

I mean they cannot change the 5:1 compression, this is a standard, isn't it?


BTW.. I am really pissed off at Canon's pricing policy:

USA: 4,999 USD which equals 3,996 EURO
EU: 5,499 EURO which equals 6,681 USD

So here in Europe we are very happy to pay an extra 1,500 EURO for nothing. Which is a shame considering the currency exchange rate is acutally in our favor (even with the japanese Yen).

Peter

Peter, NTSC DV has an mbps rate of 25. It never occurred to me, but does PAL DV have a higher bit rate for recording and FireWire transfer? In any case and with either system, there's quite a bit of headroom in the amount of bits available and most DV video scenes would usually require somewhat less. Obviously, when the material that is shot in 16:9 mode is recorded, it is contained within the standard CoDec. It won't cause the tape to roll faster than it does ordinarily with each system. I'm curious how much a Pal XL2 will cost if you buy it from a U.S. dealer, such as B&H?

Steve McDonald

>>I'm curious how much a Pal XL2 will cost if you buy it from a U.S. dealer, such as B&H?


I haven't seen prices quoted. Generally, it is significantly cheaper for me to buy high-value items from a large US supplier like B&H than to buy in the UK, even allowing for the higher shipping costs. I'm fortunate in living in the Channel Islands, which don't have VAT or sales tax, so it may be different for other potential buyers in PAL-land.

With cheap air fares, it may well make financial sense for European buyers to have a weekend in NY and take the credit card - assuming no warranty issues.

This whole NTSC/PAL issue has been a miracle to me anyway...

PAL has a higher resolution but lower framerate but overall a 60 minute tape in PAL-country should have a different runtime when put into a NTSC camcorder and the tape in one of them must run faster.

Also NTSC uses 4:1:1 und PAL 4:2:0 sampling. As far as I know the output via firewire has the same bitrate.. do you mean with the headroom, that there will be 4-5mb/s instead of the 3,5mb/s we have now?

Cheers, Peter -confused

Duncan, you folks on Jerri do have the best of things. Warmer weather, big tax breaks and if anyone tries to invade you again, the Limeys will come running to help. A friend took one of the international ferries from Ireland and stopped there a few years ago and now wants to live there permanently. I understand the island has become a hotbed of computer-based activities. Have NLE and videomaking gotten popular there, as well? I know there's some great websites on the isle, as I've visited them a lot studying the native tongue of Jerriaise, an old Norman French dialect. If you're one of the few who can still speak it, that would be interesting. What do you do for TV programming? Is there satellite availability?

If you were to buy and have a shipment direct from the U.S., would there be any duties or taxes at all on it?

Steve McDonald

Let's stay on topic please.

Later this weekend I'm going to come in and split up this thread into its various topics. Too hard to follow as is and it's roaming all over the place. Please start a new thread if you have a specific statement to discuss. Many thanks,

This is why I think the camera sucks . . .

All the companies are far more cabable of putting out better technologies in their cameras, and they don't. They're claiming this is the new thing for indie filmmakers . . . my butt. It's not high enough quality to make REAL MOVIES (we're talking for big screen projection, a chance of limited to wide theatrical release images. Yet, they insist on saying this is the camera to revolutionize the indie film world.

The only way it will revolutionize the indy film world is by yet again expotentially increasing the number of sub standard films seeking distribution, and decreasing the chances of talented filmmakers shooting on somthing much better. The massive number of tapes coming into film acquisition offices will make it hard for anyone to get anything but a first glance at a title before it gets thrown into the trash can.

If this camera wanted to do something for the "indie community" it should have been at least 50 Mbps 3 full chip 720p (Really, 1080p) with 4:2:2 color separation. This is nothing more than a slightly better version of what is already out.

16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV, and isn't suitable for theater filmmaking.

Now if someone wants to shoot straight to video releases, maybe. Probably ok for that. But screens? No.

Why do I think the camera sucks? They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't becasue they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas. That's all. Personally, I think HDV is a joke medium, but they weren't even cool enough to offer that!

Laurence raises a good point many film makers will probably choose this format over a different one. I for one was seriously looking at renting an HD package for my next shoot, however for the cost of the equipment plus insurance I could buy an XL2.

I think that while 4:2:2 may have been an option (and still could be...) real HD was probably never a real option for this camera because HD glass is so expensive Cheap HD lenses are still in the 10's of thousands of dollars, and I think the only way for someone to make glass that would be HD quality would be for canon to throw away the interchangable lens function, which I think would not justify the switch to HD, but it would have been cool to have a vericam for 5k...

. . which makes me think .. have they got something wrong? . .

Grazie

They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't because they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas.Couldn't be further from reality, Laurence. Canon doesn't have any big boy tools. No Digital Beta, no 50Mbps format, nothing, only mini DV. Canon does consumer and prosumer cameras, that's it. In fact you even said so yourself;16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV,. . .Don't expect Canon to suddenly produce a camera for a market that historically, they haven't produced cameras for. If your disappointed it's only because you let your fantasies get the best of you. Canon is an extremely well run company and they know their markets a little better than you do. They are the second largest US patient holder and the most consistently profitable Japanese camera producer.

SOOOOO please Laurence, study the facts and give your rhetoric a rest.

Lets not forget that, love it or hate it '28 days later' was shot on the Pal XL1-s using frame mode. I bet Danny Boyle would have liked to have used a Pal XL2 with true 25p progressive and 16:9 (not forgetting higher resolution than NTSC ;) to shoot his movie.

Surely the techniques like lighting etc and actual content of any low budget movie are the key factors, and having true progressive and 16:9 just adds to the way the story can be told.

Maybe this camera wasn't ready for HD, maybe it was, who knows. Over the next year hopefully the XL2 will drop in price enough to make it a better buy.

HD is probably in the future of indie filmaking, but I don't think SD is finished yet. When an affordable pro-sumer HD 3CCD, 24p, 16:9 camera comes out it could be the final nail in the coffin for SD, we shall have to wait and see.

You only have to see what people have produced with the DVX to know what SD is capable of. Hopefully the XL2 will extend the boundaries even further to the limit. After this has happened HD should step in to extend them even more.

Dave.

Laurence, from what I read on the Canon web site, they never claimed they were revolutionizing indy filmmaking. Those claims come from people who think the Canon is the greatest camera ever made.

Many excellent films have been made with DV25 format cameras in the past few years, but for a higher quality image, obviously you need 2/3" chip HD cameras, or stick with film. Filmmakers choose DV because it is affordable and because the small size cameras allow them to get shots they might not otherwise. They don't choose DV because it is the best quality available. If Canon had made a DV50 2/3" chip camera, they would be putting themselves into a totally different market. Several of those cameras are already out there and have the market pretty much dominated. Canon video cameras are consumer products, not broadcast products.

Even so, look at what talented people have done with consumer cameras in the past few years: Vinterberg's "The Celebration" (shot with single chip Sony consumer cameras, Hal Hartley's amazing "The Book of Life" shot for French TV with a VX1000, "The King Is Alive," shot with PD150s and one of the best looking DV-to-film films I've ever seen, Agnes Varda's amazing documentary, "The Gleaners and I," much of which was shot with the 1/4" chip TRV900, "Tadpole," shot with PD150's, the Academy Award nominated documentary "Spellbound," shot with a plain old NTSC XL1 with standard lens, and of course "28 Days Later," shot mostly with PAL XL1's. Oh yeah, then there's all the music and dance sequences from Lars Von Trier's Palme d'Or winner, "Dancer in the Dark," shot with one hundred PAL PD100's.

Those are just a few films I can think of off the top of my head that used the DV25 format with consumer cameras. I also thought about "The Anniversary Party," shot with two PAL DSR500's, which have 2/3" 16:9 chips and starring Jennifer Jason Leigh. Interestingly, I thought "The King Is Alive" had a much better look, even though it was shot with the lowly PD150. While the technical quality of "Anniversary Party" was better, several of the other films I mentioned above had a better look. It's all about lighting.

Would all these films have looked better shot in HD or 35mm? Hell yes. But they wouldn't have got made.

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : This is why I think the camera sucks . . .

All the companies are far more cabable of putting out better technologies in their cameras, and they don't. They're claiming this is the new thing for indie filmmakers . . . my butt. It's not high enough quality to make REAL MOVIES >>>

Laurence, if you want to make movies for theatrical release, why don't you go pound the pavement, raise some money and shoot on 35mm? Or rent a Varicam? Most of the companies out there DO put better technology in their cameras, BUT THEY SELL THEM FOR TEN TIMES THE PRICE OF AN XL2.

<<< - The only way it will revolutionize the indy film world is by yet again expotentially increasing the number of sub standard films seeking distribution, and decreasing the chances of talented filmmakers shooting on somthing much better. The massive number of tapes coming into film acquisition offices will make it hard for anyone to get anything but a first glance at a title before it gets thrown into the trash can. -->>>

Now I know you are just pulling our legs. Thats possibly the more ridiculous statement I've read on this forum ever. Ever heard of content? It beats all. I cite Blair Witch Project and 28 Days Later as proof.

<<<-If this camera wanted to do something for the "indie community" it should have been at least 50 Mbps 3 full chip 720p (Really, 1080p) with 4:2:2 color separation. This is nothing more than a slightly better version of what is already out. -->>>

There are cameras like that on the market already, in the $50,000 price range. The lenses cost many times the price of the XL2. It would be completely naive to expect Canon to give you that setup for $5,000. That would be like me complaing that Ferrari doesn't make an F360 available for $20,000. If Canon really wanted to do something for the indie community, they would just give away free money to filmmakers....

<<<-16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV, and isn't suitable for theater filmmaking. -->>>

SO GO RENT A 35MM CAMERA SETUP AND SHOOT ON FILM. It isn't supposed to be a camera suitable for theatrical films....

<<<- Why do I think the camera sucks? They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't becasue they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas. That's all. Personally, I think HDV is a joke medium, but they weren't even cool enough to offer that! -->>>

How old are you? Canon is a business, in the business of making money. Sure they could offer more, hell, they could give them away for free. But that's not how the world works. For a measly $5,000 (chump change to any real indie film, compared to the cost of feeding a crew for a month) this is one hell of a butt kicking camera, and really a bargain for the money.

I think we should ease up on Larry, especially if he eases up on being a bit
brash/dreamy. He just wants it all at a price he can afford . . . so do I ;)

Yes Larry, I too am a bit disappointed that the XL2 is limited to
DV25, but OTOH, Canon has not left the XL1 customer base hanging
in the wind. Canon has made us an affordable upgrade that will work
with almost all the extras XL1 owners have afforded over the years.
There is a certain kind of loyalty there.

But, back to the XL2's short comings. In the XL2 wish list I outlined a bunch
of features that I wanted and two directions that Canon could go.
One was evolutionary and the other revolutionary.

This is the evolutionary track, NOT the revolutionary path (that could still happen).
But what is missing from my evolutionary model is the serial digital output
that I was really hoping Canon would include. HAD they put this feature
into the camera, we could at least "plug in" to uncompressed video 8 bit video
and do away with the macroblocks and mosquitoes.
That would be a clincher for me, but even so, unless something else
comes along soon, the XL2 is the MOST affordable solution out there with
true 16x9.

I also suspect that Canon is working hard on an HDV camcorder as we write.
The issue there is HDV is still ONLY 25mbps, but needs to produce an image
four times the size with only that same amount of bandwidth.
IMO, DV25 already walks the 'knife edge' of being too low res.

I hope to be proved wrong, but for what I do that isn't going to work.

What WOULD WORK is if Canon can put a 292M SDI jack on the XLHD camera.
Then you could plug into REAL HD video and bring along the NLE or
rent an HD VTR for capture. Yes, bringing along a cased
NLE capable of HD capture would be a pain, but _a lot_ less
money than a D5 deck @ $100K.

As has been mentioned, Canon makes the $100K HD lens that are used by
the big boys, so the chances of them coming out if a camcorder that
produces moving images as good as their 10D still camera is tiny. They aren't
going to hurt that side of the business by going too far and that's a shame
because there are companies like Olympus who are also working on HD
camcorders and have nothing to lose. Our best hope may be there.

Nikon are YOU listening?! Forget about the 'corder part of the camcorder,
just make us an inexpensive HD head.

What's improving are the conversion processes. They can make mini dv look pretty decent now, better than when Celebration came out. A film shot with an sdx 900 and blown up to 35mm movie would probably look great, especially the interiors. That's why I think a SD cam with 1/2 chips and 16/9 and 24p would be good enough.

That jVC gy 5000 has 1/2 chips for 5K, so you know it can be done.