XL1S discontinued?! Guess why... ;)

Paul Rickford · July 7th, 2004, 11:03 AM

Hello everyone, I'm new to this site, So let me kick off by letting you know that I tried to book a Seminar on the XL1s last month at Birns and Sawyer in Hollywood and had an e-mail back stating that they are not holding anymore until September when the replacement model will be available. I would say thats pretty much a confirmation?

Regards
Paul

Daniel Broadway · July 7th, 2004, 12:18 PM

Interesting information, Paul.

Josh Brusin · July 7th, 2004, 12:23 PM

aaaahhhhh... between apple's new product releases and Canon's "damn upgrade it already" I'm wearing thin...

Nick Hiltgen · July 7th, 2004, 10:39 PM

Birns and sawyer is also the major canon retailer out here as well, I would trust them pretty readily. (they told me the same thing)

Zack Birlew · July 7th, 2004, 11:10 PM

You know, I went to Gluskin's today and tried to see if they had any new info on the new camera. On display was a slightly altered GL2, a new revision I guess, which looked a little less round and more rugged. But besides the slightly altered version of the GL2 (which it was, I'm not saying it was the GL3 or anything, all it was was a more square GL2), I asked the guy about the new Canon videocamera coming in a few weeks and he said that all he knew was that it was supposed to be HD and that it was coming in a few weeks. Other than that, he said it was all supposed to be "big surprise" according to what the Canon guys told'em. So, I'm still in the dark, but anybody try this new revision of the GL2 or is that old news?

Ed Smith · July 8th, 2004, 02:52 AM

Hi Jack, thats probably the GL1 you saw, its a bit more boxy than the GL2... The GL1 came out before the GL2.

Did it look like this: http://www.gl1universe.com/images/gl1-ds.jpg

Zack Birlew · July 8th, 2004, 09:48 AM

No, no, no, no, you misuderstand. I should know what a GL1 looks like in comparison to the GL2, because I've got a GL1 ;). But no, this GL2 was SERIOUSLY different then the other GL2's I've seen. Like I said, it was physically less rounded than the regular GL2's. But yes, it was a GL2, NOT a rumored GL3 or anything. But who knows, I could be seeing things. Has anybody been to their local camera shops lately? Look at their GL2's if they got'em. But in any case, the GL2 is of little concern at the moment, I WANT MY XL2!!! =D

Jarred Land · July 8th, 2004, 09:55 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film. -->>>

Funny how the SD Dvx won the Cinematography award at Sundance.. blown up :)

Luis Caffesse · July 8th, 2004, 10:26 AM

I've seen a lot of stuff shot on DV, and I will agree that most of it is not acceptable for blow up to film. Of course, that has nothing to do with the quality of the format, but with the lack of quality in the content.

As far as I'm concerned, if we can finally get a DV camera that is not handicapped in some way, I'll be thrilled.
By not handicapped, I mean true 16X9, 24p, XLR inputs, and interchangable lenses all on one camera.

That camera would be more than good enough for most of the things I"ve seen people do with their DV cameras, myself included.
Good content can be made with any camera, and bad content shot in HD is just as unengaging as bad content shot in DV.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the format doesn't matter at all. I'm only saying that it's been incredibly rare for me to watch a short film or feature shot on DV and think, "wow, if that were only shot on HD I would have thought it was great."

-Luis

Chris Hurd · July 8th, 2004, 10:27 AM

Jarred is referring to Nancy Schreiber's Sundance entry, "November." Read about it at this page at Digital Producer Magazine. There are numerous examples of DV blown up to 35mm, among them is last year's "28 Days Later," shot on the aging XL1 (not XL1S). I think it's been clearly established that there are plenty of succesful case studies for DV to 35mm.

Jarred Land · July 8th, 2004, 10:31 AM

I agree Chris.. and like in 28 days later when they hit the limits of DV, they shot in 35mm. Alot of people couldnt tell when they switched from Digital to 35mm for the wide shots, even when they watched it in the theaters.

As long as you can make out what the hell is going on and you have a good story your audience wont complain too much, they will forget it was shot on DV pretty quickly if its a good script. Remember Blair Witch?

Charles Papert · July 8th, 2004, 10:36 AM

I haven't seen the DVD of "28 Days Later", perhaps there is more information in there than what I read when it was theatrically released, but I was under the impression that the only section that was 35mm were the scenes at the end out in the country. For the wide city shots earlier on, I understood that multiple XL1's were used and "stitched" together.

My feeling about "Blair Witch" was the degraded image and shakiness was appropriate because it was "real", and the audience was aware of the technology used. I do find it distracting to have bad handheld and video artifacts present in a most narrative films, however. Even some of the images in "28 Days" pulled me out of the movie when I saw it in the theatre, and I was very involved in that film.

I amit to being a tough customer. I've felt that way about watching HD features also, including ones I've worked on!

Jarred Land · July 8th, 2004, 10:39 AM

yeah there was alot of info floating around. Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35.

You can tell if not by resolution by the increased latitude in those scenes.

they didnt shoot on the XL1 to save money.. they had boatloads of that, it was an expirement in the director's artistic design to use a lower format for a lower point in life, when everything was flat and bleek.. and it kinda worked, however I dont think it was as big as a difference as he may of wished.

Luis Caffesse · July 8th, 2004, 11:08 AM

"Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35.

Are you saying that the opening was shot in 35?
That wasn't my understanding. Like Charles I understood that only the ending was 35mm, everything else was DV.

By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like "poo" they reach for the Canon XL1?

:)

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the camera.

Let's hope that isn't the case with the XL2 (or whatever it's called).

-Luis

Jarred Land · July 8th, 2004, 11:13 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : [i]"
By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like "poo" they reach for the Canon XL1?

-Luis -->>>

You are reading me wrong.. When I said everything going to poo I mean the virus was out and all hell breaks loose. Poo being a enviroment.

July 7th, 2004, 11:10 PM	#260
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	You know, I went to Gluskin's today and tried to see if they had any new info on the new camera. On display was a slightly altered GL2, a new revision I guess, which looked a little less round and more rugged. But besides the slightly altered version of the GL2 (which it was, I'm not saying it was the GL3 or anything, all it was was a more square GL2), I asked the guy about the new Canon videocamera coming in a few weeks and he said that all he knew was that it was supposed to be HD and that it was coming in a few weeks. Other than that, he said it was all supposed to be "big surprise" according to what the Canon guys told'em. So, I'm still in the dark, but anybody try this new revision of the GL2 or is that old news? __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

July 8th, 2004, 02:52 AM	#261
Ed Smith Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hampshire, England Posts: 1,545	Hi Jack, thats probably the GL1 you saw, its a bit more boxy than the GL2... The GL1 came out before the GL2. Did it look like this: http://www.gl1universe.com/images/gl1-ds.jpg __________________ Ed Smith Hampshire, UK Good things come to those who wait My Skiing web www.Frostytour.co.uk For quick answers Search dvinfo.net \| The best in the business: dvinfo.net Sponsors

July 8th, 2004, 09:48 AM	#262
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	No, no, no, no, you misuderstand. I should know what a GL1 looks like in comparison to the GL2, because I've got a GL1 ;). But no, this GL2 was SERIOUSLY different then the other GL2's I've seen. Like I said, it was physically less rounded than the regular GL2's. But yes, it was a GL2, NOT a rumored GL3 or anything. But who knows, I could be seeing things. Has anybody been to their local camera shops lately? Look at their GL2's if they got'em. But in any case, the GL2 is of little concern at the moment, I WANT MY XL2!!! =D __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

July 8th, 2004, 10:27 AM	#265
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Jarred is referring to Nancy Schreiber's Sundance entry, "November." Read about it at this page at Digital Producer Magazine. There are numerous examples of DV blown up to 35mm, among them is last year's "28 Days Later," shot on the aging XL1 (not XL1S). I think it's been clearly established that there are plenty of succesful case studies for DV to 35mm. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 8th, 2004, 10:36 AM	#267
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	I haven't seen the DVD of "28 Days Later", perhaps there is more information in there than what I read when it was theatrically released, but I was under the impression that the only section that was 35mm were the scenes at the end out in the country. For the wide city shots earlier on, I understood that multiple XL1's were used and "stitched" together. My feeling about "Blair Witch" was the degraded image and shakiness was appropriate because it was "real", and the audience was aware of the technology used. I do find it distracting to have bad handheld and video artifacts present in a most narrative films, however. Even some of the images in "28 Days" pulled me out of the movie when I saw it in the theatre, and I was very involved in that film. I amit to being a tough customer. I've felt that way about watching HD features also, including ones I've worked on! __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 7th, 2004, 11:03 AM	#256
Paul Rickford Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: POOLE, UK Posts: 158	Hello everyone, I'm new to this site, So let me kick off by letting you know that I tried to book a Seminar on the XL1s last month at Birns and Sawyer in Hollywood and had an e-mail back stating that they are not holding anymore until September when the replacement model will be available. I would say thats pretty much a confirmation? Regards Paul

July 7th, 2004, 12:18 PM	#257
Daniel Broadway Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 165	Interesting information, Paul.

July 7th, 2004, 12:23 PM	#258
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	aaaahhhhh... between apple's new product releases and Canon's "damn upgrade it already" I'm wearing thin...

July 7th, 2004, 10:39 PM	#259
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	Birns and sawyer is also the major canon retailer out here as well, I would trust them pretty readily. (they told me the same thing)

July 8th, 2004, 09:55 AM	#263
Jarred Land DVX User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 281	<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film. -->>> Funny how the SD Dvx won the Cinematography award at Sundance.. blown up :)

July 8th, 2004, 10:26 AM	#264
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	I've seen a lot of stuff shot on DV, and I will agree that most of it is not acceptable for blow up to film. Of course, that has nothing to do with the quality of the format, but with the lack of quality in the content. As far as I'm concerned, if we can finally get a DV camera that is not handicapped in some way, I'll be thrilled. By not handicapped, I mean true 16X9, 24p, XLR inputs, and interchangable lenses all on one camera. That camera would be more than good enough for most of the things I"ve seen people do with their DV cameras, myself included. Good content can be made with any camera, and bad content shot in HD is just as unengaging as bad content shot in DV. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the format doesn't matter at all. I'm only saying that it's been incredibly rare for me to watch a short film or feature shot on DV and think, "wow, if that were only shot on HD I would have thought it was great." -Luis

July 8th, 2004, 10:31 AM	#266
Jarred Land DVX User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 281	I agree Chris.. and like in 28 days later when they hit the limits of DV, they shot in 35mm. Alot of people couldnt tell when they switched from Digital to 35mm for the wide shots, even when they watched it in the theaters. As long as you can make out what the hell is going on and you have a good story your audience wont complain too much, they will forget it was shot on DV pretty quickly if its a good script. Remember Blair Witch?

July 8th, 2004, 10:39 AM	#268
Jarred Land DVX User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 281	yeah there was alot of info floating around. Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35. You can tell if not by resolution by the increased latitude in those scenes. they didnt shoot on the XL1 to save money.. they had boatloads of that, it was an expirement in the director's artistic design to use a lower format for a lower point in life, when everything was flat and bleek.. and it kinda worked, however I dont think it was as big as a difference as he may of wished.

July 8th, 2004, 11:08 AM	#269
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	"Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35. Are you saying that the opening was shot in 35? That wasn't my understanding. Like Charles I understood that only the ending was 35mm, everything else was DV. By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like "poo" they reach for the Canon XL1? :) Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the camera. Let's hope that isn't the case with the XL2 (or whatever it's called). -Luis

July 8th, 2004, 11:13 AM	#270
Jarred Land DVX User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 281	<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : [i]" By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like "poo" they reach for the Canon XL1? -Luis -->>> You are reading me wrong.. When I said everything going to poo I mean the virus was out and all hell breaks loose. Poo being a enviroment.