Hmmm...The LCD sits in the viewfinder, so one has to flip one part of the viewfinder to view from the LCD. I'm just wondering how many positions can this LCD be moved.

Most of my work are interviews and most times I shoot and interview myself. I'm using the PD170 now and the LCD on that is really helpful when I sit / stand beside the camera while interviewing the subject.

Get a separate external LCD monitor. I just constructed a system that uses a £99 TV/AV monitor. Works great! .. You can use it to show client work .. and if the filming is boring, you can always watch the latest football. . . . .

Shuf.
The viewfinder can be rotated up and down, but it can't move laterally such as the XM2/GL2
I personaly didn't rate the viewfinder in its open position for checking focus, but it's ok for checking framing etc.

Robin.

Okay,

First things first. Jacques, I really appreciate the "ease up" thing, just so it's said.

Second things second. Been a while since I was on this thread, but I read it today and see I've got a few people looking to defend the XL-2 with various examples of various . . .

So I'm back to support my arguements.

Jeff . . .

Never said Canon wasn't a good company at what they chose to do. Never said they weren't good at business. But they are part of the big wigs that are all in bed and in bred. What they chose to do is squeeze as much as they can out of their paying customers. Being a good company and being good at business doesn't mean they always make sound decisions for their customers. Canon can afford to make the cameras better for cheaper and don't. Not even HDV. How blatant does it have to be before some of us accept things like that were a marketing choice that helped the Canon milk more cash from customers before providing an HDV model? What I say is not rhetoric, it's obvious fact that I just find a little insulting. By the way, I laugh that you suggest I expected much more. I didn't figure what I wanted would come out, but I did figure at least the balls for HDV. (Which should have been the bare minimum with current technologies). No, I should point out that I'm just having fun laughing at the sadness of how much was expected of the camera, and how little it delivered.

Believe it or not, I don't think it's a bad camera at all. I mean true 16:9 and more resolution etc. That's great. Better than it was. Most likely an excellent, excellent mini dv camera, and is impressive . . . but again . . . only for what it IS, not what it COULD OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

Back to general . . . .

I should point out that films like "Tadple" with Sigourney Weaver and "The Anniversary Party" with Jennifer Jason Leigh are far from examples of something that should be cherrished as little engines that could. Let's throw out all films that got into theaters on celebrity status, shall we?
Also on todays agenday . . .

Also, let's remember that "Celebration" really got bigger hype than it deserved, due to the fact that it was one of the first mini-dv features around. Again, more novilty than craftsmanship (in my opinion anyway . . . don't kick me too hard, but I really thought it was fairly lame, just IMHO. If nothing else, I remember seeing it in the theater and cringing at the quality blown up to 35.

I should point out that I'm not saying a film shot on dv isn't a great effort and that it should not make one proud. It should. It takes a lot to make a feature, even on DV. Not saying these films shouldn't be made. Not insisting it needs to be 35 or nothing. Hell, if that's your only option, or even your artistic choice, go for it. Kudos to you. Life is about "doing it". My points are directed more at the generalities so often made with all the mini-dv hype. The fact remains that what it takes to finish a project now requires less, and combination of technology and hype (promoted by sub-standard products) has made many wanna be filmmakers (often ones that claim to know some of the very distinct boundaries between amateur films and professional ones) believe that mini-dv is the entry point to filmmaking. For the most part, it is not. It is the entry point of experimentation that might later lead to filmmaking. Only the select few extremely lucky or extremely connected mini dv films will make it as a commercial product. While HD, on the other hand, is actually starting to blur the lines between video and film. It is much more a true option, and could be provided by the likes of Canon if the company wanted to do so. No doubt about it. You can try to tell me that Canon only makes "prosumer" stuff . . . but hey, their still cameras sure are pro, now aren't they? Are you suggesting they lack the connections? The funds? Please. It's choice. Pure, simple.

Dylan . . .

You really did nothing but prove my point more thouroughly. Yes, the products we'd like are the more expensive ones, but again, the big-wig companies sell their merchandise for exuberant amounts more than it costs to make. Yes, Canon is a business. Never said they weren't good at the business side. A good businessman buys for a little and sells for a lot. That's what Canon (and Sony and all the rest) are doing. Can they afford to make such a humungous profit by not gouging us with inferior profits? No. But that's not the issue. The issue is, did they make a product inferior to what they could have for a $5000 price tag, (which would still have made a comfortable profit and even better still satisfy a more professional crowd)? Answer: Most definitely. The big wigs are all in bed with each other, and make decisions based on what is the overall good for the big wigs. They increase their fatty bellies by handing us watered down products, and charging us a zillion bucks for the not so watered down products. It's always been that way. Always will. As for Blair Witch, it did well because it had a pretty cool gimmick, but more importantly it was picked up by a mini-major and then marketed to the hilt. Films with far better "content" as you call it never saw the light of day, becasue they weren't so LUCKY. 28 days later was made by an established filmaker. That's why it was a success. Not saying they weren't good films over all, but they were also no where near the "norm", and mini-dv movies have a basically a non-existent chance of the big screen (with a relatively large release) until some kind of power is attached to it.

From the previous post, one must remember that old saying that someone's junk
is someone else's treasure and that the XL2 camera for certain people is a
disappointment. As I have posted, had the XL2 been only native HDV, I would
have had NO interest in it. Larry might have jumped for joy. We are
different people with different wants (but we both want cheap REAL HD!).

Last night I was able to finally able to ONLINE our nature documentary
to digital betacam. It was shot on an XL1 w/ EF lens and VX2K.
My system takes DV25 and uncompresses it, after which the video
is sampled into an (now old) Avid at AVR77 (2:1 compression).
I took my drive to a suite with a DVW-A500 deck and same kind of Avid. I
hooked up our drive, fired up and pooped.

When you pump out SDI from the Avid to digital betacam and monitor
analog component, you wouldn't believe how good DV can look. I am
impressed, except for NTSC's "twittering" I am happy with the quality vs.
the price. (IMAX 70mm would have been better and made me happier,
and even more broke than I am after funding this project.) The fact is,
I have many more "free" pixels to work with @ 90mbps than HDV's
GOP at 25mbps .

The next step up the 'quality ladder' is to be able to shoot in progressive scan
which should get rid of NTSC line twitter.
(though it may add some strobing at 24 or 30fps).

Larry, the XL2 gives me a better image, works with all my XL1 accessories
and is really not that expensive when compared to a varicam or the Panasonic
SDX900. For me the XL2 is a good choice. YOU, you have to wait for the next
generation HDV version that I am SURE Canon is working on right now.
If that version has an REAL HD SDI uncompressed output for under $6K,
I will buy that too. If it is HDV only, pass.

"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"

NOTHING - you get 100 more lines of resolution !!!! and 4:2:0 color space that has to be worth something ..remember NTSC nick name is Never the same Color ... PLUS you don't get the funky pull down cadence !!! that is worth some extra $$...

now isn't some of that price increase import/excise taxes because the camera records and anything that records gets those fine extra taxes in europe ???

Yes, part of that higher price in Europe related to (video) recording devices is an historical "gift" from France. They were afraid several decades ago that cheap consumer VCR's from Japan would harm their own (expensive) VCR products and developments, so they convinced their European friends to block the situation by introducing extra taxes.

Another reason for staying outside the EC? Well outside the legislation ..

Congratulations, you guys are officially WAY off topic.

Just to add some clarification to the questions asked in this thread:

1) the reason they are NOT using the full 4:3 CCD is to give the 16:9 mode MORE resolution than 4:3. Otherwise they would NOT have had native 16:9. 4:3 still has more pixels than with the XL1S though!

2) DV is *ALWAYS* 25 mbps or around 3.5 MB/s. The reason they can store both PAL (higher res) and NTSC (lower res) in this is due to the DIFFERENT FRAMERATES! 720x480x30 = 720x576x25

3) anamorphic signal is ALWAYS stored at 720x480 or 720x576. The difference with DV is in the pixel aspect ration and increase vertical resolution (not horizontal as everyone always thinks). See my explenation in the other XL2 threads.

At first view they could have used the full CCD area and have still better resolution and/or sensitivity in 4/3 without compromising 16/9.
Maybe they used an existing design, or didn't want to change the vertical readout between the two formats, or got too much vignetting in full 4/3 mode (image field limits), or the screened-off parts of these chips are being needed for additional buffer memory when in progressive mode (like FT CCD's)

Canon wanted to maintain compatibility with their existing line of XL mount lenses. The Circle of Illumination would have been insufficient and severe vignetting would have occurred.

Jeff: are you sure about that? The FULL CCD is the same size as
with the XL1S. It just has more pixels. They are using less space
(change in DOF and the crop thing you mentioned earlier) then
is available, in both modes.

Andre: in my opinion that would be fully possible indeed. BUT,
you will loose the edge of 16:9. Why? Because it will not GAIN
resolution but again LOOSE it. Yes, it will be the same as 16:9
is now, but it will not have more resolution than the 4:3 mode
would've had.

Now keep in mind that his is a challenging issue mentally. Make
sure you really think about this.

Yeah, but who cares if you gain or lose resolution between 4:3 and 16:9. All you want is high res on both. I don't care if I have 12 Megapixels in 4:3 but oh, only 10 megapixels in 16:9. The best thing would be to have an anamorphic lens no? That will automatically use the whole 4:3 chip but place a 16:9 image in it.

I guess it doesn't matter which way you look at it. It's all relative anyway.


Aaron

It's certainly relative, but everybody DOES seem to care. Look at
how the XL1S was bashed for this. Keep in mind that 4:3 on the
XL2 still has a better pixel count than on the the XL1S, so you
are getting a higher resolution when sampling. As you know it
will always end up being 720x480 or 720x576.

All I know is Im going to have to find someone who wants to buy a kidney, im still paying off my XL1s, along with my editing software suite, and my car!!!

If the 16:9 footage looks at least as good as DVX-100 footage shot anamorphically, I think almost everyone will be satisfied. That may not result in a picture quality improvement, but it will eliminate the hassle of having to manipulate an anamorphic adapter. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the footage looks like.

Greg

<<As you know it
will always end up being 720x480 or 720x576.>>
Hey Rob maybe you should add that to the specs page, or create a seperate read only link that explains it, so you won't have to keep answering and explaining it. Also maybe include the info about how the 1.3x magnification works and what that means to the old xl1(s) user updating the camera body.

I mentioned both the 1.1x mag for 16:9 and the 1.3x mag for 4:3 in the second paragraph of my XL2 CCD Block Overview (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php) article. I suppose this needs to be worked into other areas of the site as well. I thought I had it in the XL2 FAQ (http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/xl2faq.php); I'll have to re-check that page.

Originally posted by Greg Matty : If the 16:9 footage looks at least as good as DVX-100 footage shot anamorphically, I think almost everyone will be satisfied. That may not result in a picture quality improvement, but it will eliminate the hassle of having to manipulate an anamorphic adapter. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the footage looks like.
Absolutely. If it matches anamorphic DVX, I would be thrilled with it. The anamorphic adapter on the DVX can provide excellent results, but it takes work. If the XL2 matches DVX quality, gives real 16:9 at full res, and with none of the hassles, that's a mighty tempting combination!

Already I'm looking at it as a mini35 cam, since it's very difficult to get high-res 16:9 footage on a mini35/DVX. The built-in 16:9 on the XL2 could be just heavenly for mini35 footage.

<<<-- Originally posted by Barry Green : Absolutely. If it matches anamorphic DVX, I would be thrilled with it. The anamorphic adapter on the DVX can provide excellent results, but it takes work. If the XL2 matches DVX quality, gives real 16:9 at full res, and with none of the hassles, that's a mighty tempting combination!

Already I'm looking at it as a mini35 cam, since it's very difficult to get high-res 16:9 footage on a mini35/DVX. The built-in 16:9 on the XL2 could be just heavenly for mini35 footage. -->>>

Barry,

Is mini35 a film format?

Greg

Greg, mini35 is referring to an attachment (an expensive one, I might add) that goes on the front of the camera body and accepts prime lenses. You can read about it here:
http://www.zgc.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/b20461fb956bf08085256a8400801da2?OpenDocument

Hope this helps.

Jay

Nick: I'm working on something so we can link to one place that
describes it indeed. Thanks!

Has anyone seen the specs on the A/D converters used in the XL2?

Test shots to date, don't seem to include very wide lighting ranges.

The very anemic 9-bit units in the XL1 (I own one) were the greatest limit to shooting outdoors. Pray for cloud cover, large crew, scrim, and no wind ;-) One of the more sobering tests I ran (over 4 years ago) was shooting the same scene with an XL1, BetaSP, and an early Nikon D1. Tossing out the resolution advantage, the color and dynamic range advantage of the early (and quite faulty) Nikon D1 was exceptional, dusting both video cameras. 12 bit converters.

The reason one would want greater bit depth is that it enables greater dynamic range, or in film terms, greater lattitude. 12-bit is the current standard for Digital SLRs and newer video cameras like the SDX900. This is what let's one shoot in situations of greater contrast. (Think bright backlit windows.)

In the spirit of providing a little backround info (and no intention of diverting the thread). CCDs are analog devices. There is a voltage level for each pixel that varies depending on how many photons hit the cell (thus larger pixels are better in low light) for each frame's time slice. The pixels are serialized and clocked out, with voltage varying with illumination. This voltage typically adjusted a bit with the white balance circuitry.

Now this source has to be converted to a digital stream and further processed (frame building and pixel shifting in the XL1/s) This is where the A/D (analog to digital) converters are employed, one for each (R,G,B) chip. The analog voltage is converted into a 9 bit number. Then a custom ASIC crunches all the numbers and outputs what looks like, believe it or not, CCIR656 (8-bit uncompressed 4:2:2), (a little gem in hiding for the DYI crowd). This is then routed to another big ASIC that compresses this 20MByte/sec data stream down to the 3.5M/sec DV stream that is written to tape.

The DV data stream is an 8-bit standard. Just like the photo world's JPEG. However most camera's CCD can produce a wider range of values. This wider range of values is converted to 9,10,or 12 bits and then mapped down into an 8-bit range. However, a great deal of the dynamic range of the scene is maintained. This holds detail in the highlights among other things.

Now some of the dynamic range (lattitude) is a function of the CCD quality, but a good portion is a function of those old A/D converters. There is more to image quality than resolution.

As Bill Pryor said earlier: "It's all about lighting.". Better A/D converters get more of that light (range) down onto the tape.

The specs don't seem to mention this aspect.

Hopefully yours,

- Phil

Thanks Phil, that's interesting and has made me ask a question I've been thinking about.

In in practical terms when talking about the dynamic range of a camera are we really talking about the level of banding that will be present in the final footage? I ask because to me, whether you have a 8bit, 12 bit or 128 bit a/d converter, your bright whites are always going to be the highest value and the blacks are going to be the lowest. So you will not "see" more into the dark, or the light. You will of course have more of a range in those light areas, and dark areas so you can physically see the detailed gradation. Am I correct in this, or does the CCD play more of a part than I think and so a high end camera would actually not blow out the whites like a cheapo one.

Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by hainline : Has anyone seen the specs on the A/D converters used in the XL2?>>>

No, but you're right about a higher bit rate = better image. I too was
disappointed to hear the XL2 is only 8 bit. Doesn't Canon remember
the banding issues that are still common in 8 bit video? OTOH, I haven't
seen XL2 images and what they look like is what really matters.

<<<Test shots to date, don't seem to include very wide lighting ranges.>>>

I'm SHOCKED! ;)

<<<The very anemic 9-bit units in the XL1 (I own one) were the greatest limit to shooting outdoors. >>>

But if your up and shooting at dawn the video looks good :)

<<< Nikon D1 was exceptional, dusting both video cameras. 12 bit converters>>

Yup.

<<<Then a custom ASIC crunches all the numbers and outputs what looks like, believe it or not, CCIR656 (8-bit uncompressed 4:2:2), (a little gem in hiding for the DYI crowd).>>>

DYI crowd? Why in the HELL can't Canon port this output? Losers.
(they'll lose sales and we lose resolution!)
With some of the new video cards/boxes/decks, you could capture this signal
without a lot of trouble.

The other day, my boss had taken a 5 megapixel camera and did a time lapse
of our building's coffee shop using only existing light (glass wall).
He then made a crop action in photoshop and imported the wonderful wide screen
aspect ratio into quicktime. Man, how cool is having 3072x2048 pixels
to work with. Room to crop aspect ratio and pan and scan too.

The clarity, color and contrast handling combined with a 1:2.35
aspect ratio made amazing (albeit studdering) video.

Dynamic latitude is important, but without seeing the camera and doing some tests in real world lighting conditions, you really can't know all that much about it. Specs are important, but they don't tell everything. I'm going to hold off my judgement until I actually get to see some footage from the camera.

Bill, you're quite right regarding the real world footage. We are just nattering on about what might be possible, based on the limited info that has been available. I was just curious.

Certainly chips have moved on and Canon will used whatever made economic sense. I only get excited about this package because you can mount an Mini35 on it (in a reasonable fashion, as opposed to the DVX, which works well but is no fun to use)

>> DYI crowd? Why in the HELL can't Canon port this output?

Jacques is referring to my comment that in an XL1/s there is a buss that contains a CCIR656 (8-bit uncompressed 4:2:2) signal. There is a chip that converts this buss standard into SDI (you can't really plug a CCIR656 signal into anything we use). Circuit board real estate, power, and most expensive, another jack on the camera (BNC).

Like most companies, Canon looks at the number of people who might get excited about this idea (small hundreds, at best) and yawns. Direct to disk, uncompressed, in the field, is only of interest to poor startup filmakers and green screen affectionados. I have great empathy, but the numbers just are not there. At least Canon doesn't have a broadcast line of cameras to protect.

Back in the days *before* the P+S Technik PRO35, when the mini35 was just out, I was excited about direct to disk of this signal. The electronics are pretty easy, but the mechanical aspects could be a little daunting. The inside is all state of the art surface mount. Beautiful miniaturization, cute little sub-assemblies.

As for Jacques other comment:
>> I too was disappointed to hear the XL2 is only 8 bit

At little clarification is in order. The DV tape standard is 8 bit. So are many higher standards like DVCPRO50. So is JPEG. There is no problem representing an image with 256 levels of RGB or YCC, more accurately YCbCr. Capturing the image in a world that often has geater dynamic range is where the issues crop up. I'm sure the XL2 is better than 8 bit. The XL1, as I mentioned, was 9 bit.

Which brings me to Aaron's question:
>> so a high end camera would actually not blow out the whites like a cheapo one

Yes, more money does make a difference. It is both the CCD and the A/D converters that let one capture a high dynamic range. That bigger range (for example 12 bit) then maps down just fine into 8 bit. Typically without banding if properly exposured. Bigger CCDs help in low light, better A/D converters help with the highlights. A gross oversimplification, but basically valid. In the still world Fuji is working a sensor with two sizes of pixels, large ones for the shadows, and small ones for the highlights. This is hard stuff.

Jacques:
>> Doesn't Canon remember the banding issues that are still common in 8 bit video?

More of these problems crop up in heavy post manipulation in an 8-bit world. On the camera, a better A/D converter will catch the great variance of light. Then the onboard chips can then compress (a different kind than the DV compression) the signal down into the 8 bit range. Done successfully all the time.

There is also the desire to hang onto more of that dynamic range into the post process. In the STILL photo world, most pros are moving to shoot RAW files, where you have all 12 bits of data. Post-shutter white balance, push and pull a stop or two. In the high end video world you have the THOMSON VIPER Filmstream Camera where the data is 10-bit log.


One closing note on all these consumer tradeoffs. When you look at the schematics, you see how many chips and engineering (!!!) go into making the consumer ("one little red button") experience work. Feels like 80% of the cost. So much goes into auto-focus, tape control, compression, etc.

I too yearn for a $4k block camera, with 10-bit SDI out, progammable analog gamma, with a lense mount. Yes it could be easily built, but not for the very few would be interested. Funny thing about all this volume efficiency manufacturing.

So we go on discussing where a sweet spot might be that we can use.

I'll just wait for some challenging real-world lighting examples to show up.

Have fun. -Phil

<<I only get excited about this package because you can mount an Mini35 on it (in a reasonable fashion, as opposed to the DVX, which works well but is no fun to use)>>

Care to elaborate on the no-fun issue?

Dynamic range of a camcorder CCD is not determined by the A/D conversion bit depth. Only the grayscale resolution and thus the performance of knee processing, black stretching, matrix processing, WB precision... is determined by the bit depth.

Andre, if I understand you, that's along the lines I was thinking. Regardless of bit depth of the A/D, Assuming all CCD's and everything else is equal, the brightest white will be the biggest number on each A/D correct? This seems to make perfect sense to me as a programmer, but I'm not up with all the optical stuff.

Aaron

Andre, I'm not following what your saying. Are you saying 8 bit and 16 bit image files have the same dynamic range?

Yes Jeff. The non adaptive CCD dynamic range is the range between the highest signal level (limited by a certain amount of distortion- "white clip" in video)and the lowest signal level (limitted by a certain amount of unwanted vs wanted signals- noise, glare..in cams ). This figure is seldon higher than 45 db in consumer camcorders. Maybe there is a confusion about how well a scene's dynamic range (80db and more) is being "packed"into the limited camers range. This subjective compression
performance is like I wrote (knee processing, gamma, ..) bitdepth dependent.

Even before processing the 16 bit file would contain more levels of gray (greater dynamic range) that are discernible to the eye than an 8 bit file.

Here http://www.fillfactory.com/htm/technology/pdf/oeepe99.pdf (PDF) is some info on CCD (and CMOS) dynamic range. IMEC is a Belgian micro electronics research center where I used to be a member of the scientific advisory commitee for several years.

Thanks Andre, I'll look that over after classes this afternoon. You may be interested in Norman Koren site (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html) and his discussion on tonality and dynamic range.

Interesting article. Although dynamic range is a well defined ratio, the " hidden dynamic range" approach is a good idea that kinf of explains what I wrote before: using high bitdepths allows manipulating (mainly expand) "hidden" parts in the analog signal.