At least I couldn't find these by browsing the forum.

Does the Gain work in all of the modes? 60i, 30p and 24p?

Does the auto Focus work in all modes? 60i, 30p and 24p?

I read that the viewfinder doesn't show guides for 16x9 mode. Does that mean that the image will be stretched vertically in the viewfinder and on an external monitor? (non 16x9 monitor that is)

Is the iris control now more of a switch and less of a wheel? It looks like it is notched and couldn't spin infinitely but would be pushed up or down and the logic of the XL2 would open or close the iris based on this. Anyone?

Does the Gain work in all of the modes? 60i, 30p and 24p?
yes

Does the auto Focus work in all modes? 60i, 30p and 24p?
yes

will be stretched vertically in the viewfinder and on an external monitor?
no stretch black bands, same goes for monitor

Is the iris control now more of a switch and less of a wheel?
yes and it works very well...

looks like the same switch canon implemented on the gl2...It took awhile to get use to, but it works fine.

Barry

16:9 is letterboxed in the EVF and external 4:3 monitors.

CORRECTION: 16:9 is letterboxed in the EVF only.

Do you know if the viewfinder has underscan?

No, it doesn't have underscan. In fact, the picture area in the viewfinder matched what I was seeing on my domestic tv.
It would be nice to be able to see a little more of things happening in the edges...

Robin.

I'm curious if it has a peaking feature like the dvx, i have grown to love that feature.

The monochrome CRT finder has a peaking control. The color LCD finder does not.

Well, for what it is worth, there is a seperate EVF settings control in the XL2 menu which does include a Sharpness control for the new EVF.

- don

Yes, but it doesn't really make the edges "zing" to be enough of an asset for focussing...

Robin.

And now a silly, but very hopeful question. The EVF doesn't have underscan, but if you flip it up into the LCD does *that* do underscan? Just hoping.

There's no way that flipping up the eyepiece would magically give underscan. It is either there or it isn't. That is unfortunate and reduces the value of the camera a bit in my book. It's not a tota deal killer, but it's a negative.

Bill, no I know that, but what I was getting at was, maybe the LCD was underscane, but the EVF edges covered some of this. As I said, I was being hopeful. I'm quite bummed that they've apparently used the GL2 irs control wheel. That thing is stupid - a rolling wheel would have been much better.

Aaron

It doesn't have iris control on the lens?
Sheesh, my new camera euphoria is really starting to go away. Y'know, a camera is a helluvalot more than just its chips. A little thing like not having underscan in the viewfinder can be a very big thing on a complicated shoot. I've seen shots ruined because the cameraman did not have underscan and couldn't adjust minutely when the soundman dipped the boom just a hair too low....and when you're on a tight set and want to pan as far as you can but not get the damn lightstand or edge of the cyc in the shot, and you can see it coming in underscan.

Someday somebody will come out with a "handycam" style small camera with all the professional features you need to make movies. Seems to me that it wouldn't really cost anymore to do some things right. Not everything, obviously, but...for example, how come I get iris control on the lens where it belongs with a DSR250 but not with a PD150? How come they don't give me a color temperature readout on the 250 like the DSR500 has? The camera white balances perfectly, so it KNOWS what the damn color temperature is. With all the other crap they put in the viewfinder, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to believe they could give me a color temperature readout just as easily as the little hand that tells me steadyshot is on.

Of course...if they put all the good stuff on the cheap cameras, lots of people would probably not want to spend the money on the better stuff.

"Of course...if they put all the good stuff on the cheap cameras, lots of people would probably not want to spend the money on the better stuff."

You hit it right on the head!


Aaron

Just found out about the xl2...
Wow this is truely good news. I'm glad they just left the hdv out. or did they?
Has anybody already taken the camera to see if the auto focus is fast enough? or feedback on the servo focus usage?
Thanks for the info,
Takeshi

HDV would require a different CCD block, I think.

Bill, there are two lenses for this thing with an analog iris ring on the barrel: the old Canon 14x, and the old Fuji 14x. They are discontinued but can still be found if they're wanted bad enough. Where were you people when I was looking for a buyer for my Fuji for three years straight.

I sold one of my 14X's recently and in my opinion it is the best lens short of the P+S Technik unit and it's compatible film lenses. The EOS EF lenses are great for wildlife and surveillance etc. But for day to day use the 14X is the benchmark by what all other lenses for the XL series will be measured.

Jeff, I agree. I have that 14X and I cannot believe the beautiful video I get out of it. I really enjoy the iris ring on the lens. I thought of going with the 16X just for the auto-zoom, I am glad I went with the 14X. Bob Safay

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Koolen : "Of course...if they put all the good stuff on the cheap cameras, lots of people would probably not want to spend the money on the better stuff."

You hit it right on the head!


Aaron -->>>

In the case of the Canon XL2, which better stuff would that be?

I'm afraid the lack of higher end features on this camera are simply a matter of either trying to keep the cost down or neglect. I would say that in the case of the EVF not having underscan, it's probably just neglect.

It's a great camera but unlike Panasonic, who learned their lesson with the DVX100, Canon still doesn't seem to have figured out that ergonomics are the most important element in camera design.

Would I buy it? Maybe for a tripod based shoot that I wanted to transfer to film or upconvert to hidef - in which case the PAL version could be a better choice.

David

David

<<<Someday somebody will come out with a "handycam" style small camera with all the professional features you need to make movies. Seems to me that it wouldn't really cost anymore to do some things right. Not everything, obviously, but...-->>>

Some day, but it will have to be a company like Olympus or Sharp that
has little if any presence in the pro video market. I know Olympus was
working on a cheap real HD camcorder.

The whole underscan, letterboxing, and action safe guides
were asked for in the XL2 wish list. I guess there were issues with
adding one those important features . . . ear wax?

I can live with the old thumb wheel iris IF the result is NOW smooth. I hate
those obvious "click downs" of the old XL1 and other handycams.

These issues aside, the XL2 is still on my wish list.

<<<-- Originally posted by David Cherniack : <<<-- Originally posted
It's a great camera but unlike Panasonic, who learned their lesson with the DVX100, Canon still doesn't seem to have figured out that ergonomics are the most important element in camera design.
-->>>

That depends on who you're selling too. For many people (for very valid reasons, I might add), that's exactly the case. For me personally, it's very much not true. Most of the filming I plan to do will be using support mechanisims such as tripods, dollies, or stabilizers, so ergonomics isn't really a big factor. And I've got basically as much time as I need to get things done, so ease of use isn't really a factor, either. I want the camera that's going to give me the greatest versatility to get the shot that I want and the highest picture quality I can get - without busting my budget. The XL2's interchangeable lenses give me the first, and it's new CCD pixel block is going to be competetive (at the very least) with anything else in its price range. So for me, it's probably going to be the best tradeoff I can get.

Would I like better ergonomics? Probably (I hedge only because I haven't actually used this camera yet). Am I willing to pay for it? Maybe later, but not at this point in the game.

Now, somebody who works all day as a news videographer or doing various other things might have exactly the opposite point of view, and want something ergonomic and/or simple to use. It's all in the application - and for my application, I'm thinking the XL2 is the way to go.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : 16:9 is letterboxed in the EVF and external 4:3 monitors. -->>>

Since I'm not familiar with Canon's way of doing things I might not understand the implications of this, but it seems odd. So in other words, if you hook up a 4:3 external monitor to the camera as you shoot in 16:9 mode you will see a black bar above and below the letterboxed image? But then if you use the same monitor, connected in the same fashion while playing back the tape you will see a squashed anamorphic image? Surely it doesn't letterbox output on playback, does it? Or is there some menu setting that selects letterbox vs. anamorphic for external video? It would be a shame to have real 16:9 but not be able to view the full resolution image on an external 16:9 monitor during either recording or playback.

Can you clarify how this all works?

Boyd

I have made an incredibly stupid mistake. Chalk it up to an extreme lack of sleep this week. Of course it is not letterboxed in 4:3 monitors. It's a spaghetti western in 4:3 monitors. I have no idea what I was thinking about, except going to bed.

Ah, that makes much more sense. Chris: get some sleep! Take some time off! God knows you've earned it, and thanks so much for all your hard work in getting the word out on this new camera.

And for Bill Pryor, who asked about underscan: according to my notes here, the LCD shows only 92% of the total image area. Watch out for those boom mics!

More proof for the theory that canon is trying to force us into 16:9 No boom mic problems on the LCD when it's letterboxed! ;) Although lightstands and spurious crew still are.

Aaron

Well, not that Canon is trying to "force us into 16:9",,, it's just that everyone wants 16:9, there is a huge market demand for it.

Personally, I prefer 16:9 too. We will probably never see a "4:3 only" camcorder again. That's fine by me.

- don

I guess it's different all over the place. 16:9 is almost non existent here in New Zealand. We just don't uptake on things like this very fast. While 16:9 TV's are out, there are no 16:9 stations, occasionally Sky transmits a movie in it, but I guarantee it'll take our news stations about 30 years to get there.

I do my own independent news stuff and I would prefer 4:3, but even if this camera is meant to be 16:9 primarily, why didn't they underscan at least the horizontal sides of the LCD?


Aaron

That's a good question Aaron, and if it helps, where I am in Texas (which by virtue of being the "third coast" of the U.S. is only five years behind the east and west coasts as opposed to ten years behind for the rest of the central United States), there's not much 16:9 either. I've got a great spot in my living room for a widescreen set, the built-in is ready for it, a 42" would fit perfectly, but the wife says no way for right now. Not much wide programming down here except for the ESPN sat feeds anyway.

Hmmm, only 42" Chris? hehe

C'mon, why not this: http://www.mitsubishi-tv.com/WS73711.html ?

I agree, there definitely is a shortage of HDTV content. Most of the HDTV cable programming seems to be Sports-related. Maybe some people will shoot with the XL2 in 16:9 mode, create something entertaining which motivates the viewer, uprez that edit to 1080i and sell their work to HDTV networks who hanker for new HDTV material.

http://www.snellwilcox.com/applications/hd_apps.html

- don

Be glad you're a bit behind the times, Chris. Unfortunately here in Kansas City, as far away from salt water as one can be in most of the civilized world (if you want to consider this vast wasteland civilized), we seem to always be ready to jump on new stuff, which means you're always in debt. When Betacam first arrived in the U.S. we had one of the first Betacam edit suites here, and Avid made giant inroads before people could even spell Avid. A couple of production houses were shooting HD almost the day it came out. I switched from 3/4 to Betacam SP back in the '80's, and we went with DVCAM a year after the DSR500 came out. We feel we're in the backwater of the universe, so we have this zealous urge to always get the newest thing...which means we're always in debt for new stuff. I'd guess there are filmmakers who have already ordered the XL2, and probably some people who placed orders at NAB for the Sony prototype HDV camera that nobody knows anything about yet because it's not even real yet. I'm the only person in our office who doesn't have a 54" HD wide screen TV at home. Well, that's a bit of an exaggeration--there are two of us who don't have them. I don't have an iPod either.
As far as wide screen video...I spent Saturday morning at a local theater where we have our Kansas International Film Festival providing some 16:9 footage so the techie could set up some files on the big Barco theatrical video projector. Unfortunately, it appears they're going to have to buy an anamorphic lens. It works OK and the 16:9 looks good, but with the anamorphic lens, it will look a lot better and sharper. Interesting, the new cheapo video projectors allow you to show 16:9 at the flick of a menu switch, but the big huge theatrical ones don't do that. Of course, the big ones can project an image onto the surface of the moon from Kansas City.

Bill, that must be an old Barco. We projected anamorphic 16:9 DV on a 44' wide screen last fall as part of Il Trovatore using a Barco SLM R10 (http://www.barco.com/events/en/products/product.asp?element=1258) which is a 10,000 lumen DLP projector with a native resolution of 1280x1024. That's more than enough to get impressive results with anamorphic DV or even 720p HD... These new projectors are getting much better, and have very high contrast ratios. 6 months earlier we "auditioned" a 12,000 lumen DLP unit from Digital Projection, but the Barco SLM looked brighter even with 2,000 less lumens.

Now regarding a shortage of widescreen programming in your state or country... um, they do sell DVD's around your parts, right? ;-) If they're anamorphic then you'll get the best quality images from them on a 16:9 monitor as well. I don't have a big widescreen TV either though, just my little 17" 16:9 Sony LCD. I watch anamorphic DVD's on my 27" 4:3 WEGA which has a 16:9 mode that gives a nicer picture than watching the standard letterboxed version.

But I was in WalMart just a couple days ago, and noticed they are now selling two different models of tube-type 30" 16:9 HDTV monitor/receivers. I think one was a Sharp and the other a Toshiba. Both were selling for a bit over $700. That's still a lot more than the big 4:3 sets, but I'll bet we start seeing these prices drop pretty rapidly on CRT sets as well as plasma and LCD. Resist though I might, one of these days I'm gonna probably just get something on an impulse...