http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-XL2-and-Panasonic-AG-DVX100-compared.htm

This is a good review and comparison between these two fine cameras and answers my question of the Xl-2's lux rating which someone on this site said was only 5.5 lux but actually is the same as the DVX-100a which is 3 lux.
enjoy!

Interesting article, Paul. Thanks for sharing that with us!

I had someone recently, in another fourm, ask what could the XL2 do that his DVX100A couldn't. I'll steer him to the article you've provided.

Jay

I would say that the main advantage of the XL2 over the DVX100A is the fact it acquires 16:9 at nearly double the resolution/pixel count of the DVX100 with its faux 16:9 mode. More specifically the XL2 acquires 16:9 with its 680k progressive CCD's using about 460k pixels while the DVX100A acquires 16:9 with its 410k progressive CCD's using only about 75% because of its squeeze mode - which works out to about 300k. Even less with the Sony VX2100/PD170 (270k).

For anyone who wants the extra resolution, say on the big screen projected from DVD or blown up to 35mm film this subtle improvment will definitely matter.

The other great thing about the Canon seems to be the fact that there are now about 11 processing effects that you can play around with to tweak the camera into all kinds of ways to give you more film like looking images. The ones I'm interesting to see for myself will be the coring, skin detail, film grain and knee.

Lastly the lens mount: When the Canon XL1 first came out I can honestly say the feature of being able to remove the lens never appealed to me nor did I really see people going out there and building up a huge collection of XL mount lenses - yet now I'm shooting projects exlcusively using the mini35 adapter which means with the Canon I don't have to shoot through the camera stock lens and can get the 35mm images from the lens straight to the CCD block without worrying about any effects of shooting through multiple lenses.

All in all there should be no doubt that the Canon XL2 will be a better camera than the DVX100 but as with everything in the world of high end camcorders the real question is just for how long?

<<<-- Originally posted by Dennis Hingsberg :
. . . but as with everything in the world of high end camcorders the real question is just for how long? -->>>

I've put that thought out of my mind. If not, I'd go nuts! You can say that about any technology today. For those who are going to wait for the next model to come out, they'll never get anything!As I've said elsewhere, anything made today will be obsolete within the next three years. So why sweat it? Accept it and move on.

Carpe Canon!

Jay

You know, I was as stoked as anybody when the XL2 was announced and while I love the "true" 16:9 abilities of the XL2, I am finding too much info to the contrary that the XL2 will surpass the DVX in it's image quality. I use my DVX100a with an Animorphic adaptor, and not only does that give me the full CCD to use but it also widens the focal lenghth. The thing that bugs me about the XL2 is the way they designed the 16:9/4:3 capture. You end up with the equivalent of a 1/4 inch CCD. I have seen the screen grabs, even uncompressed tiffs, and I really don't see any advantage "visibly" of the XL2 over the DVX. I was on the edge of my seet when it was announced, but I don't think I will be "upgrading" to the xl2, when it really doesn't seem like much of an upgrade over the DVX. Now if I owned any other camera, definatly that would be the way to go, or would I still go for the DVX for $1500 less and the same performance. I'm not even sure that the image quality will even rival that of the DVX with the CCD's designed the way they are. I'm sure it will be a great camera, but I don't think that

"All in all there should be no doubt that the Canon XL2 will be a better camera than the DVX100 but as with everything in the world of high end camcorders the real question is just for how long?"

Sorry, I just don't see that happening, unless there is some mirracle secret that canon is hiding until it's official release. As far as Camcorder info. com goes, I would trust my 8year old sister over a review from them anyday. I have seen so much crap come out of that site that I don't even need to read the reveiw to tell you that it sucks.

Stefan, with all due respect, I must ask if you read the article? It said:

The Panasonic has:
Gross pixels per CCD 410K Effective pixels 380K (16:9)

And the Canon has:
Gross pixels per CCD 680K Effective pixels 460K (16:9)

Now common sense tells them that has to account for something. Plus the Canon's 16:9 is a "true" 16:9, whereas the Panasonic's isn't (from everything I've read).

If you prefer the Panasonic, more power to you, my friend. I have no doubts that your videos look great. But as for me and my family, we've chosen the Canon XL2. I've never been disappointed in any XL camera I've own, and I'm confident that I'm not going to disappointed in the XL2.

Some drive Chevy's others drive Fords. Both get to you to where you want to go!

Jay

<<<-- Originally posted by Jay Gladwell : For those who are going to wait for the next model to come out, they'll never get anything! -->>>

Very true, but there is also something to be said about waiting a bit when a new model is released. If you buy it right off the blocks you are assured of paying a premium price, and you're also assured of being the first to learn about any problems...

Jay, I think Stefan's point is that the DVX with the anamorphic lens is using all 410K pixels which isn't a huge difference from the XL-2's 460K, plus he pointed out that it uses the entire surface of the CCD while the XL-2 is only using a rectangle in the middle. Does any of this really matter? Who knows until people get their hands on them. All things being equal I would personally prefer a camera with native 16:9 capability since adaptors have their own limitations (which is why I bought a PDX-10 instead of an adaptor to put on my VX-2000). But of course you need to factor price into the equation.

It is fascinating to see how much passion "Canon People" and "Panasonic People" are pouring out ever since the XL-2 introduction however. I'm enjoying watching from the safety of the sidelines, but clearly the game has just begun.

To best of my knowledge, Boyd, no camera uses every one of the gross pixels. You may want to check that out.

Too, it'll be a while before the price drops to the point of making any real difference. Maybe a month or two before the XL3 comes out.

Jay

{addendum} Boyd said, "It is fascinating to see how much passion "Canon People" and "Panasonic People" are pouring out ever since the XL-2 introduction however."

Boyd, what gripes me is the people that have never used the XL2, much less any XL camera, and are harping on the weaknesses of the camera isn't available yet! I've never used the Panasonic DVX100 or the Sony PD150, but you don't see me writing how weak they are, how poor this or that is, etc.

Jay

I completely understand where you are coming from, and yes I did read the article. What I am comparing is the DVX with animorphic adapter that uses the total resolution of the CCD thus using an entire 4:3 CCD whereas the XL2 uses a cropped allbeit hires 4:3 CCD. THis is where the XL2 could suffer, not in resolution but color reproduction and smearing as does the PDX10 with it's similar CCD. The end result is 720x480pixels, there is no getting around that. On the DVX it samples the full 720x480 pixels (with animorphic adapter) and the XL2 samples a higher 9??x480 pixels and then downconverts it to 720x480. Both end up being compressed at 720x480. The DVX also has a DSP @ 12bit rather than 8bit for the XL2. Will that make the image quality better? Technically, it does, but to the naked eye, I really can't tell the difference. Will downsampling the XL2's 9??x480pixels to 720x480 sqeezed make it better? Technically speaking yes, but I doubt we will be able to tell the difference. I'm not saying that the XL2 is a bad camera, infact I am still open to the possiblity of purchasing one myself, however, as dennis stated earlier "all in all the XL2 will be a better camera than the DVX" I really don't think that is a true statement. Both have advantages and dissadvantages but I think in the end the Video quality will be very very close.

Well, Stefan, considering the early reviews I've read by professional cinematographers that *have* actually *used* the camera, I must give them more creedence than the arm-chair quarterbacks here that haven't.

So I guess, in the end, we agree to disagree agreeably.

Jay

Just for the record...

According to the Panasonic AG-DVX100A Owner's Manual, page 69, under "Specifications, General," the total (gross) number of pixels per CCD is 410,000. The number of effective pixels is 380,000.

On the XL2, the total number of pixels per CCD is 680,000. The effective number of pixels is 460,800 per CCD. So there is a combined increase of 1,268,400 effective pixels in the XL2 over the DVX100A.

Therefore, the DVX100A is *not* using the total number of pixels per CCD as earlier claimed in this thread. Hence, the XL2 is using more pixels per image than the DVX100A.

Jay

<<<-- Originally posted by Stefan Scherperel : Jay

Will downsampling the XL2's 9??x480pixels to 720x480 sqeezed make it better? Technically speaking yes, but I doubt we will be able to tell the difference. I'm not saying that the XL2 is a bad camera, infact I am still open to the possiblity of purchasing one myself, however, as dennis stated earlier "all in all the XL2 will be a better camera than the DVX" I really don't think that is a true statement. Both have advantages and dissadvantages but I think in the end the Video quality will be very very close. -->>>

This is like saying that putting 35mm originating images to 720x480 DVD might as well of been shot with 3CCD 720x480 video cameras - which is simply not true. To master great video with high quality and visable detail on DVD the source must have high resolution or in this case higher pixel count.

With the XL2 true the difference is only a 30% increase in vertical resolution over the DVX100 but I would rather have the extra 30% because technically it is better/higher and for 35mm film blow up or large projection 30% is a big deal.

I just want to add that the same effect (resolution increase) is not achieved simply by sticking on an anamorphic lens.

I don't know anything about pixels but I do know about price and I dopn't think it's fair to say that you can get the same image from a camera 1500 bucks cheaper when you have to buy an 800 adapter for it to get a comparable image, and even then it fisheyes on the wide side.

So either say that the camera is only 700 cheaper then the xl2 or that it doesn't have the same quality, because one or the other maybe true but not both.

Now thats the most true and clear statement made yet!

Wow, I wasn't expecting all of that.
I'm not here to start a DVX-XL2 debate, but you guys can see what you want to see and avoid what you don't. I don't see anybody even touch the CCD size debate, how come? Again, I am not against the XL2, and don't want to start a heated debate, but as far as the me being an armchair quarterback, I guess you can say what you will, but Mitch Gross has had the chance to test it, and I believe what he says.

Moderator Note:Sorry, but it is illegal to copy copyrighted material. If you want to paraphrase what Mitch Gross said or provide a link to the thread, that is fine. But you can't copy the entire contents of several posts. Sorry.

Jeff Donald

"I don't know anything about pixels but I do know about price and I dopn't think it's fair to say that you can get the same image from a camera 1500 bucks cheaper when you have to buy an 800 adapter for it to get a comparable image, and even then it fisheyes on the wide side."

And with the canon you have to by another $1500 lense to even stand in the same room with someone. 50mm eq at the wide end to me is not "wide angle".

Stefan, you said, "I don't see anybody even touch the CCD size debate,..."

Evidently, you didn't read my post above. Allow me to state it one more time:

According to the Panasonic AG-DVX100A Owner's Manual, page 69, under "Specifications, General," the total (gross) number of pixels per CCD is 410,000. The number of effective pixels is 380,000.

On the XL2, the total number of pixels per CCD is 680,000. The effective number of pixels is 460,800 per CCD. So there is a combined increase of 1,268,400 effective pixels in the XL2 over the DVX100A.

Therefore, the DVX100A is *not* using the total number of pixels per CCD as earlier claimed in this thread. Hence, the XL2 is using more pixels per image than the DVX100A.

Jay

1,268,400?? how you doing your math?

"how you doing your math?"

Very poorly, Yang. Thanks for pointing that out! That would come to a total difference of only 242,400 pixels, rather than the million+.

I messed up. Sorry!

Still the XL2 is using more pixels than the DVX100 and neither is using the total number per CCD.

The only accurate way to compare the two would be in a test where both cameras shot the same subject and the video was then screened on matching monitors.

Jay

The pixel debate is rather fun to watch. For years XL1 users would say "who cares about the # of pixels" (because they only had 250,000). Now it's all "Hah, look, we have 680,000 pixels!"

The point is, using megapixel CCD's HURTS image quality. Using too few pixels hurts image quality (by giving a softer image). You want a CCD that has just enough pixels to cover the frame (in DV's case, you want at least 350,000 pixels). You want those pixels to be as big as possible. Fewer pixels means that they can be bigger, but you want enough of them to provide adequate resolution. Tiny pixels can't gather much light so latitude and low-light performance suffer. The PDX10 is about a stop less sensitive than the PD100 that it replaced, primarily because it has a megapixel CCD.

Megapixel CCD's are good for providing high-resolution still pictures, but not good for video. There's more to good video than the # of pixels on the CCD.

You'll never see a megapixel CCD in a broadcast camera. Broadcast cameras all have CCD's with enough pixels to cover the frame, and not much more. Even on a massive 2/3" 16:9 chip, you'll only find around 500,000 pixels: just enough to cover the frame.

But it's all fairly irrelevant until we get to see the two cameras side-by-side, shooting the same subject under the same conditions, each with a skilled operator who knows how to get the best from the camera. That's the only way to know whether one is superior to the other -- anything else is just speculation.

At first, sorry for my bad english...
I had a XL-1s for about two years and purchased a DVX a year ago. I know both cameras. I really would like to have kept the xl-1s, because I loved its design, thogh being heavy on the front, all the controls are well laid out. As one example, after one year of shooting with the DVX, I still have to seek the iriswheel, when shooting handheld.
I also bought the anamorphic of the DVX and was very disappointed because of its poor design. There was dust between the glasses and after opening the anamorphic for blowing the dust off I found that the glasses can be easily misaligned. They are only fixed by the pressure of the plastic cabinet. And while shooting you have to take care that there is no dust on the front glass, because the depth of field is so much inreased, of no filter holder for protecting it and the anamorphic loosens a bit after some time - feels like shooting 16mm, at least in regard in taking care for your equipment...
Before buying the DVX I tried two other cameras for replacing the Canon XL-1s, the JVC GY-DV500 and the PD-150. But the DVX offered the best image quality to my eye. And all three deliverd better Images than theXL-1s, sorry to say.
So, whilst speculating about buying the "AE" version of the DVX, I was excited about the fact, that Canon released the XL-2. And even simultaneously in the U.S and Europe!

BUT:
After loading down the natively coded DV-streams Simon Beer posted, and the Tiffs from PAL Material available on the net, I again had the impression, that Canon missed the goal, at least for the PAL-version:
The DVX has 450000 effective pixels.
The XL-2 has 410000 effective pixels (4:3 mode)
Both manufacturers use the Pixel-Shift technology. But still the DVX has more pixels to work with. And even though the pixel count of the
XL-2 is higher in 16:9 mode you can still can see the "blooming" of strong colours which was also typical for the XL-1s. In the review recently posted (07/21) the lawn shot at Pinewood has lost all details.
In the tiff of the clown Simon posted, you see heavy aliasing in the circles of the camera chart in the background (only horizontally, why? Is this an effect of downsamling 960 pixels to 720, which had to be done by the onboard electronics bevore delivering the image to tape?)
And in the 15sec. clip Simon also posted (clown25p.mov) the reds are artifacting. The dvx also tends to pixelate the reds, but not that much
And all images and clips I downloaded look a little bit greyish.
In the moment, it is like a déja vu from the days of the XL-1s:
Great camera in design and layout, not so good image quality compared to the competitors from Sony and Panasonic. I don´t think, an upcoming direct comparison between the DVX and the XL-2 will have another result.
This might be different for NTSC, because resolution in NTSC is not as high as in PAL. But from the first samples I got, I´d rather buy a DVX. (And hope that Century Optics releases a better anamorphic)
All the best,
Salar

As Barry and I both have said, "... it's all fairly irrelevant until we get to see the two cameras side-by-side..."

Anything else is a pissing contest. Therefore, I withdrawal from this "debate" (and I use the term loosely).

Jay

Sad to say, but, the amount of pixels, x low light level ability, does not equal an artistic brain acquiring an artistic image.

Over 40 years in the business, I have generally observed that most people have too much camera for there needs

yeah i share those sentiments robert, but i think those 'artist' need at least ONE cam to rule them all =^).

I don't agree. With an idear, any camera can do.

i think you mistook what i meant. i meant they should own @ least one themselves not that one brand/make should be above any of the others.