XL1S discontinued?! Guess why... ;)

Zack Birlew · July 4th, 2004, 06:23 PM

Well, this thread certainly has been informative. I haven't checked back on the Gluskin's camera shop I went to yet, but I think I'll go tommorow to see if they have a more definite release date for this new camera, or perhaps have specs on it or somethin'. I guess I can't expect much, but a couple of weeks huh? Any trade shows coming up soon? I haven't really been paying much attention lately. But in any case, I'm VERY excited. =D

Steve McDonald · July 4th, 2004, 07:37 PM

I wasn't making any jokes about my grim predictions for the demise of the Canon semi-pro line. But, this is Area 51 and nothing here can be taken seriously, unless you're completely whacked and probably an Art Bell fan, to boot.

I can't agree at all about the XL1 not being a direct continuation of the VL line of camcorders. Look at them, handle them and use the controls and the family resemblance is undeniable. Even the weaknesses in picture quality between the two branches of the family are similar.

The video lenses for the L-1, LX100 and L-2 were (1) a standard 15X (2) a closeup, wider angle 3X (3) an optically-stabilized 10X. With the EOS lens adaptor, at the 1993 NCAA Track Meet, a Sports Illustrated photog of my acquaintance, put his 1,000mm Canon lens on my L-1. This is the equivalent of using a 5,400mm lens on a 35mm camera. Its value was about 10 times that of the L-1. We had to use two tripods for this and it took a couple of minutes to find and focus on any subject, but it was very interesting. You could actually do the same thing with an XL1 today. My friend was so much more impressed than I by the results, that the next morning, he drove to Portland and back, to buy himself a new L-1, 2X extender and EOS adaptor, at Camera World. I told him that if he'd just asked, he could have had mine and at a bargain price. I actually used my Canon original A-1 and ED-Beta cams for most of my serious shooting back then.

We used the 1,000mm lens during an afternoon prelim session and a pair of my friends was making-out in the empty upper corner of the Hayward Field stands. They were astounded later, at the closeups I showed them, that I'd taken from 300 yards away. I jokingly told them that my friend was going to put his own film picture of them in the next week's magazine article, as a local flavor shot. They were distraught, wondering what their spouses would say when they saw it, until I told them I was kidding and gave them the otherwise empty cassette.

If they ever made a semi-pro LX200, I never saw or heard about it. I asked a Canon Rep about such a model, who was in Texas, of all places, and he really thought I was joking when I asked if they were making a replacement for the LX100.

The LX100 and the stabilized lens were marketing flops. This lens cost more than the L-1 camcorder itself, was slow in response and drifted past its hoped-for stopping point in panning. I remember there being new L-2 models for sale until a few months before the XL1 was available. The L-2 price was about $1,000. above that of the L-1, until after the XL1 was announced, then their price plummeted.

I don't remember the L-2 having an improved CCD or being one whit better in picture quality than the L-1. Canon representatives repeatedly denied that it had a different CCD, despite widespread rumors to that effect. I've already told the unofficial story of the super L-2 prototype that was aborted before production.

The best part of these Hi-8 models' existence was in the 5-month long glory days between the introduction of the L-1 at a trade show and the start of its actual sales in the Summer of 1991. The excitement about it during that period and rumors of its capabilities, remind me of what's happening now, regarding speculations about its yet to be born, newest half-brother. I reiterate that I expect this vaporous, phantom camera to never be seen publicly, but again, I remind you that this is Area 51.

I have an original A-1, an A-1 Digital and an L-1 (but not an A-1 MarkII). It's my opinion that despite how great and revolutionary the first A-1 was, in 1989, that the video performance went down with each of those three successive models. Despite not having the RGB color-processing of the later models, the original A-1 helped me make better video than any of the others could. After 15 years, I still use the fully-playable tapes I made with it, for stock footage. Run through a Digital8 VCR with a TBC, they <almost> seamlessly tuck into new DV recordings.

The Canon Hi-8 models that followed gained more features and more control options with each newer edition and their audio capabilities became superb, with the A-1 Digital and L-1/L-2. Despite my opinion of their video performance, the A-1 Digital and L-1 are a lot of fun to use and are at least as complex in their control options as any pro camcorders.

Steve McDonald

Zack Birlew · July 4th, 2004, 08:16 PM

I dunno, I think we've kind of gone back in time with all this Canon L1/L2, talk.....

But I guess as long as you keep this thread alive until Canon releases the camera, we should definitely be in the know! ^_^

Mark Kubat · July 4th, 2004, 11:30 PM

Aha, this thread is starting to succumb to red-herring discussions along the VL-line variety, etc.

I think we should each post a thing we think the XL1s successor definitely will have/include/be capable of doing.

So here goes.

Granted, HDV would be a dream but this is less certain. So I won't offer that one.

But 99% certain am I that the new cam will definitely have:
A flip-out LCD screen.

Any other 99% predicitons, people? or 85% or 60%?

Come on folks, try to guess on things you feel fairly certain about and maybe state your case.

I just shot another wedding tonight with the XL1 after doing one on Friday with AGDVX100... and I can tell ya, the LCD allows you to walk and shoot more steadily because you can cradle the camera lower in both hands - very hard to have something up to your eye and walk and try to keep it steady. Having an LCD is an obvious advantage - I'd be surprised if it wasn't on the XL1 successor - that ENG old-school style is going the way of the dodo - the LCD easily allows to hold the camera up over your head and shoot from above - forget this "near" and "far" eyepiece-focus-while-looking-at-a-postage-stamp business.

Chris, looks like I'll be attending DV Expo east barring any last minute changes at work so will finally get to meet you and Don and whoever else is going to be there!

I'll be covering the event for the tv station I work for - it's a show about indie mini-dv filmmaking - so maybe I can interview you guys at the Canon booth and you can put the new HDV cam through the paces for us? Nudge nudge wink wink.

Nick Hiltgen · July 5th, 2004, 12:54 AM

<<I'll be covering the event for the tv station I work for - it's a show about indie mini-dv filmmaking - so maybe I can interview you guys at the Canon booth and you can put the new HDV cam through the paces for us? Nudge nudge wink wink.>>

I don't know how JVC would react to a couple of canon guys putting their camera through it's paces...

And I never felt old until now, I used the panasonic AJ-450 (I think... I can't remember... man I am old)

Personally I'm 99% sure the camera will have 16:9 chips just so no one uses their XL1 lenses on it.

OH and happy 4th of July everyone and here's to a happier bastille day!

Chris Hurd · July 5th, 2004, 05:41 AM

Nick -- last year I spent Bastille Day on Smith Street in Brooklyn, photographing the neighborhood folks playing bocci ball in sand lots out in the street. What a great time; wish I was there again.

Be sure to drop by and say hello at DV Expo, it's always a treat to meet fellow board members in person... although for an on-camera interview you'll have to talk to Canon's MarComm folks, that's what they're paid for!

Laurence Maher · July 6th, 2004, 07:01 AM

Hadn't thought about that.

Need new lenses for a 16 X 9 chip don't ya?

Rob Lohman · July 6th, 2004, 07:09 AM

That depends, Laurence. How large the chip is and how the lens
was made. If the chip stays just as wide as the current model,
but smaller in the vertical then you would not need a different
lens. It will change your field of view vertically, though.

Michael Struthers · July 6th, 2004, 09:37 AM

Hey this is Area 51, it shouldn't really be CENSORED should it?

HDV - well, even though the compression is extreme, it's still better than DV...of course it's good enough for the 16x9 TV sets all the manufacturers want to sell us, but how does it look blown up to a big screen? That's what the filmmakers want to know...

Pretty sure you'll have to buy new lenses for this camera.

I've calmed down, since even after they announce the new cam ext week I still can't buy it till September, and even then there might be a bit of price gouging for 30 days...

Daniel Broadway · July 6th, 2004, 12:27 PM

<<HDV - well, even though the compression is extreme, it's still better than DV...>>

Humm. Interesting. How well do you guys think HDV will work for chroma keying? Blue/greenscreening, ya know. I do visual effects in college, and we are probably going to get the next generation Canon HDV camera.

Luis Caffesse · July 6th, 2004, 12:38 PM

"Humm. Interesting. How well do you guys think HDV will work for chroma keying? Blue/greenscreening, ya know."

My guess, it will probably be no better, and possibly worse, than DV. Then again, that's just a guess.

The spec is 4:2:0, and although it is a 25mb/s format, the compression is higher than DV (if I'm not mistaken). I would also guess that the use of GOPs would make it more difficult to get clean edges on shots involving much motion. So there doesn't seem to be any reason to think it will be better than DV. But, we'll have to see some HDV footage to know for sure.

"I do visual effects in college, and we are probably going to get the next generation Canon HDV camera."

And how do you know the next generation Canon will be an HDV camera?
:)

-Luis

Laurence Maher · July 7th, 2004, 02:14 AM

No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film.

Scott Anderson · July 7th, 2004, 08:10 AM

Laurence, I have to disagree. With the right project, even lowly DV is "acceptable" for blowup to film. The footage that's come out of the HD-10 is frankly incredible for a $3,000 camera, and far superior to DV in terms of pure image quality. It's too bad that it was hobbled for professionals. If the HD-10 had indpendent control over shutter and iris, and a PAL version that could shoot at 25fps progressive, I'm willing to bet we would aready be seeing indie features being shot on that camera and shot well. Even 720p HDV would be similar to Super16 - not the best, but certainly acceptable. I'm not saying that HDV is equal to Super 16, just that the type of projects that would have shot Super 16 could now consider HDV as an alternative, and still be viable for commercial distribution.

Now, if Canon or Sony would dedicate the full 25Mb/s (or more) to a 1080, 24p HDV signal, then things would really get interesting. Sony has already stated the new cam will be 1080, 60i. It would only make sense that 1080 24p would actually require less raw data, and allow more headroom for MPEG compression. A nice, tight 6-frame GOP could allow for really stunning images. A camera with those specs could do for independent filmmaking what the VX-1000 did for independent video production.

As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.

Nick Hiltgen · July 7th, 2004, 09:02 AM

<<As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.>>

good news! sony already has that camera it's called the HDW-F900, and you're right it is a great camera, unfortunately it's out of most of our price ranges.
;)

Michael Struthers · July 7th, 2004, 10:06 AM

How about a 16x9 cam with 2/3 chips and 24p? We've got that too!

It's the sdx900 and it's 25 grand.

Any 5k cam is going to be hobbled in some respect, I imagine. Canon has no "high" line of video products to protect, but they do sell lenses. And they have to buy the same chips as everyone else, so if they were to come out with an ubercam for 5k they might piss off their chip suppliers.

July 4th, 2004, 06:23 PM	#241
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	Well, this thread certainly has been informative. I haven't checked back on the Gluskin's camera shop I went to yet, but I think I'll go tommorow to see if they have a more definite release date for this new camera, or perhaps have specs on it or somethin'. I guess I can't expect much, but a couple of weeks huh? Any trade shows coming up soon? I haven't really been paying much attention lately. But in any case, I'm VERY excited. =D __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

July 4th, 2004, 07:37 PM	#242
Steve McDonald Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 366	History Revisited or Revised? I wasn't making any jokes about my grim predictions for the demise of the Canon semi-pro line. But, this is Area 51 and nothing here can be taken seriously, unless you're completely whacked and probably an Art Bell fan, to boot. I can't agree at all about the XL1 not being a direct continuation of the VL line of camcorders. Look at them, handle them and use the controls and the family resemblance is undeniable. Even the weaknesses in picture quality between the two branches of the family are similar. The video lenses for the L-1, LX100 and L-2 were (1) a standard 15X (2) a closeup, wider angle 3X (3) an optically-stabilized 10X. With the EOS lens adaptor, at the 1993 NCAA Track Meet, a Sports Illustrated photog of my acquaintance, put his 1,000mm Canon lens on my L-1. This is the equivalent of using a 5,400mm lens on a 35mm camera. Its value was about 10 times that of the L-1. We had to use two tripods for this and it took a couple of minutes to find and focus on any subject, but it was very interesting. You could actually do the same thing with an XL1 today. My friend was so much more impressed than I by the results, that the next morning, he drove to Portland and back, to buy himself a new L-1, 2X extender and EOS adaptor, at Camera World. I told him that if he'd just asked, he could have had mine and at a bargain price. I actually used my Canon original A-1 and ED-Beta cams for most of my serious shooting back then. We used the 1,000mm lens during an afternoon prelim session and a pair of my friends was making-out in the empty upper corner of the Hayward Field stands. They were astounded later, at the closeups I showed them, that I'd taken from 300 yards away. I jokingly told them that my friend was going to put his own film picture of them in the next week's magazine article, as a local flavor shot. They were distraught, wondering what their spouses would say when they saw it, until I told them I was kidding and gave them the otherwise empty cassette. If they ever made a semi-pro LX200, I never saw or heard about it. I asked a Canon Rep about such a model, who was in Texas, of all places, and he really thought I was joking when I asked if they were making a replacement for the LX100. The LX100 and the stabilized lens were marketing flops. This lens cost more than the L-1 camcorder itself, was slow in response and drifted past its hoped-for stopping point in panning. I remember there being new L-2 models for sale until a few months before the XL1 was available. The L-2 price was about $1,000. above that of the L-1, until after the XL1 was announced, then their price plummeted. I don't remember the L-2 having an improved CCD or being one whit better in picture quality than the L-1. Canon representatives repeatedly denied that it had a different CCD, despite widespread rumors to that effect. I've already told the unofficial story of the super L-2 prototype that was aborted before production. The best part of these Hi-8 models' existence was in the 5-month long glory days between the introduction of the L-1 at a trade show and the start of its actual sales in the Summer of 1991. The excitement about it during that period and rumors of its capabilities, remind me of what's happening now, regarding speculations about its yet to be born, newest half-brother. I reiterate that I expect this vaporous, phantom camera to never be seen publicly, but again, I remind you that this is Area 51. I have an original A-1, an A-1 Digital and an L-1 (but not an A-1 MarkII). It's my opinion that despite how great and revolutionary the first A-1 was, in 1989, that the video performance went down with each of those three successive models. Despite not having the RGB color-processing of the later models, the original A-1 helped me make better video than any of the others could. After 15 years, I still use the fully-playable tapes I made with it, for stock footage. Run through a Digital8 VCR with a TBC, they <almost> seamlessly tuck into new DV recordings. The Canon Hi-8 models that followed gained more features and more control options with each newer edition and their audio capabilities became superb, with the A-1 Digital and L-1/L-2. Despite my opinion of their video performance, the A-1 Digital and L-1 are a lot of fun to use and are at least as complex in their control options as any pro camcorders. Steve McDonald

July 4th, 2004, 08:16 PM	#243
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	I dunno, I think we've kind of gone back in time with all this Canon L1/L2, talk..... But I guess as long as you keep this thread alive until Canon releases the camera, we should definitely be in the know! ^_^ __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

July 5th, 2004, 05:41 AM	#246
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Nick -- last year I spent Bastille Day on Smith Street in Brooklyn, photographing the neighborhood folks playing bocci ball in sand lots out in the street. What a great time; wish I was there again. Be sure to drop by and say hello at DV Expo, it's always a treat to meet fellow board members in person... although for an on-camera interview you'll have to talk to Canon's MarComm folks, that's what they're paid for! __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 6th, 2004, 07:09 AM	#248
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	That depends, Laurence. How large the chip is and how the lens was made. If the chip stays just as wide as the current model, but smaller in the vertical then you would not need a different lens. It will change your field of view vertically, though. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 4th, 2004, 11:30 PM	#244
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	Aha, this thread is starting to succumb to red-herring discussions along the VL-line variety, etc. I think we should each post a thing we think the XL1s successor definitely will have/include/be capable of doing. So here goes. Granted, HDV would be a dream but this is less certain. So I won't offer that one. But 99% certain am I that the new cam will definitely have: A flip-out LCD screen. Any other 99% predicitons, people? or 85% or 60%? Come on folks, try to guess on things you feel fairly certain about and maybe state your case. I just shot another wedding tonight with the XL1 after doing one on Friday with AGDVX100... and I can tell ya, the LCD allows you to walk and shoot more steadily because you can cradle the camera lower in both hands - very hard to have something up to your eye and walk and try to keep it steady. Having an LCD is an obvious advantage - I'd be surprised if it wasn't on the XL1 successor - that ENG old-school style is going the way of the dodo - the LCD easily allows to hold the camera up over your head and shoot from above - forget this "near" and "far" eyepiece-focus-while-looking-at-a-postage-stamp business. Chris, looks like I'll be attending DV Expo east barring any last minute changes at work so will finally get to meet you and Don and whoever else is going to be there! I'll be covering the event for the tv station I work for - it's a show about indie mini-dv filmmaking - so maybe I can interview you guys at the Canon booth and you can put the new HDV cam through the paces for us? Nudge nudge wink wink.

July 5th, 2004, 12:54 AM	#245
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	<<I'll be covering the event for the tv station I work for - it's a show about indie mini-dv filmmaking - so maybe I can interview you guys at the Canon booth and you can put the new HDV cam through the paces for us? Nudge nudge wink wink.>> I don't know how JVC would react to a couple of canon guys putting their camera through it's paces... And I never felt old until now, I used the panasonic AJ-450 (I think... I can't remember... man I am old) Personally I'm 99% sure the camera will have 16:9 chips just so no one uses their XL1 lenses on it. OH and happy 4th of July everyone and here's to a happier bastille day!

July 6th, 2004, 07:01 AM	#247
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	Hadn't thought about that. Need new lenses for a 16 X 9 chip don't ya?

July 6th, 2004, 09:37 AM	#249
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Hey this is Area 51, it shouldn't really be CENSORED should it? HDV - well, even though the compression is extreme, it's still better than DV...of course it's good enough for the 16x9 TV sets all the manufacturers want to sell us, but how does it look blown up to a big screen? That's what the filmmakers want to know... Pretty sure you'll have to buy new lenses for this camera. I've calmed down, since even after they announce the new cam ext week I still can't buy it till September, and even then there might be a bit of price gouging for 30 days... __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com

July 6th, 2004, 12:27 PM	#250
Daniel Broadway Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 165	<<HDV - well, even though the compression is extreme, it's still better than DV...>> Humm. Interesting. How well do you guys think HDV will work for chroma keying? Blue/greenscreening, ya know. I do visual effects in college, and we are probably going to get the next generation Canon HDV camera.

July 6th, 2004, 12:38 PM	#251
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"Humm. Interesting. How well do you guys think HDV will work for chroma keying? Blue/greenscreening, ya know." My guess, it will probably be no better, and possibly worse, than DV. Then again, that's just a guess. The spec is 4:2:0, and although it is a 25mb/s format, the compression is higher than DV (if I'm not mistaken). I would also guess that the use of GOPs would make it more difficult to get clean edges on shots involving much motion. So there doesn't seem to be any reason to think it will be better than DV. But, we'll have to see some HDV footage to know for sure. "I do visual effects in college, and we are probably going to get the next generation Canon HDV camera." And how do you know the next generation Canon will be an HDV camera? :) -Luis

July 7th, 2004, 02:14 AM	#252
Laurence Maher Join Date: May 2004 Location: denton, texas, usa Posts: 416	No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film.

July 7th, 2004, 08:10 AM	#253
Scott Anderson Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 327	Laurence, I have to disagree. With the right project, even lowly DV is "acceptable" for blowup to film. The footage that's come out of the HD-10 is frankly incredible for a $3,000 camera, and far superior to DV in terms of pure image quality. It's too bad that it was hobbled for professionals. If the HD-10 had indpendent control over shutter and iris, and a PAL version that could shoot at 25fps progressive, I'm willing to bet we would aready be seeing indie features being shot on that camera and shot well. Even 720p HDV would be similar to Super16 - not the best, but certainly acceptable. I'm not saying that HDV is equal to Super 16, just that the type of projects that would have shot Super 16 could now consider HDV as an alternative, and still be viable for commercial distribution. Now, if Canon or Sony would dedicate the full 25Mb/s (or more) to a 1080, 24p HDV signal, then things would really get interesting. Sony has already stated the new cam will be 1080, 60i. It would only make sense that 1080 24p would actually require less raw data, and allow more headroom for MPEG compression. A nice, tight 6-frame GOP could allow for really stunning images. A camera with those specs could do for independent filmmaking what the VX-1000 did for independent video production. As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.

July 7th, 2004, 09:02 AM	#254
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	<<As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.>> good news! sony already has that camera it's called the HDW-F900, and you're right it is a great camera, unfortunately it's out of most of our price ranges. ;)

July 7th, 2004, 10:06 AM	#255
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	How about a 16x9 cam with 2/3 chips and 24p? We've got that too! It's the sdx900 and it's 25 grand. Any 5k cam is going to be hobbled in some respect, I imagine. Canon has no "high" line of video products to protect, but they do sell lenses. And they have to buy the same chips as everyone else, so if they were to come out with an ubercam for 5k they might piss off their chip suppliers. __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com