a recent interview with Tim Smith indicated 24 frames progressive will be added to the list of features however will not be released till next year... 04...currently i'm very happy with both of my xl1 and don't mind the wait...

Do you have a link to the interview?

i'm not a fan of this web site it is filled with pop up ads so please be aware if you have a slow connection...

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/canon_xl1s_replacement_04_07_03.htm


just as a side note in jan my sources at canon have told me xl2 was 18 months away, they have not indicated any spec though...

24p might be old hat in 18 months

from another forum

"Canon reps said that the XL2 is in developement right now. It will have true progressive scan and will also shoot at 24P. It will not be announced until NAB 2004 and most likely not released until september 2004. They were very honest in their replies and pretty much said that they do not want to bring a product out until they are sure it is ready"

The thing I'm most curious about is whether they will be keeping the same body style and lens mount.

I think the biggest issue will be the lens mount. As long as they can remain compatible with the previous lenses, they will have a winner.

I wonder how honest some of the people are being about rumored XL2? Most people in a position to know have signed NDAs.

At 2-pop, some guy at UPS (who also is a video head) alleged he saw an XL-2 box and lo and behold, it was a 24P camera with 3 ccd's and each ccd had 680,000 pixels, that's per ccd (had to say it twice). Wishful thinking? Lies? Said it looked like an XL-1. If it's true (or not), is 680,000 pixels HD?

heath

It's tough to sell products that aren't announced. Why not announce it at NAB and get all that free press. Canon is one of the shrewdest marketing companies out there. If they had it, they'd have shown it.

Now it might have been shown under glass to a select few. Camera companies have done this for years. A mock-up is shown in a glass case. It is just a shell, no electronics, nothing. But it looks like the real thing. This is meant to convince higher ups of their sincerity in actually building a new model and for the VIP's to keep Canon in mind when it comes time to order XL2's.

I would take Canon at their word and not expect a replacement to the XL1S until after the first of the year. It might be shown at PMA in 2004

The Panny DVX100 when shown at some shows was nothing but a mockup.

Most of the guesses about what an XL2 will have are probably pretty good because Canon wants to give them what they want. Besides since the XL1 is an established system it gives Canon the advantage of an installed customer base wanting to migrate to the XL2.

<<<-- Originally posted by Nathan Gifford : The Panny DVX100 when shown at some shows was nothing but a mockup.

Most of the guesses about what an XL2 will have are probably pretty good because Canon wants to give them what they want. Besides since the XL1 is an established system it gives Canon the advantage of an installed customer base wanting to migrate to the XL2. -->>>

If the XL2 really does have 680,000 pixels per CCD, does that make it HD? Do they work in tandem, producing a 2 megapixel image or not?

heath

This is interesting. I was just looking at the specs for the Sony PDX-10 which has 3 - one megapixel chips and states that the effective resolution for 4:3 video is 690,000 pixels. That camera can do "real" 16:9. I'm assuming however that this is written on videotape as anamorphically squeezed 720x480; the camera's stated horizontal resolution is 530 lines. What resolution do higher end DV cameras like the Sony 570 record to tape? Is it also anamorphic 720x480? I'm confused as to whether any camera that records in the DV or DVCAM format can offer higher resolution than this.

I've been doing some outdoor shooting of landscapes recently and am frustrated by the lack of detail afforded by the 720x480 image, especially after suffering from DV compression.

Boyd,

Go hi-def, man, that's where the future is and the resolution is KILLER! And the future, apparently, is now! I'm looking at the JVC mini-HD camera, but I'm thinking it's garbage for now. Go to the DVinfo.net page on the camera and read the reactions to it, not so good. But it's a start. And it may force Canon to do go 24 p hi-def with the XL-2.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : This is interesting. I was just looking at the specs for the Sony PDX-10 which has 3 - one megapixel chips and states that the effective resolution for 4:3 video is 690,000 pixels. That camera can do "real" 16:9. I'm assuming however that this is written on videotape as anamorphically squeezed 720x480; the camera's stated horizontal resolution is 530 lines. What resolution do higher end DV cameras like the Sony 570 record to tape? Is it also anamorphic 720x480? I'm confused as to whether any camera that records in the DV or DVCAM format can offer higher resolution than this.

I've been doing some outdoor shooting of landscapes recently and am frustrated by the lack of detail afforded by the 720x480 image, especially after suffering from DV compression. -->>>