It's official: Canon XL2 announced

[Steve McDonald]

Peter, NTSC DV has an mbps rate of 25. It never occurred to me, but does PAL DV have a higher bit rate for recording and FireWire transfer? In any case and with either system, there's quite a bit of headroom in the amount of bits available and most DV video scenes would usually require somewhat less. Obviously, when the material that is shot in 16:9 mode is recorded, it is contained within the standard CoDec. It won't cause the tape to roll faster than it does ordinarily with each system. I'm curious how much a Pal XL2 will cost if you buy it from a U.S. dealer, such as B&H?

Steve McDonald

[Duncan Wilson]

>>I'm curious how much a Pal XL2 will cost if you buy it from a U.S. dealer, such as B&H?


I haven't seen prices quoted. Generally, it is significantly cheaper for me to buy high-value items from a large US supplier like B&H than to buy in the UK, even allowing for the higher shipping costs. I'm fortunate in living in the Channel Islands, which don't have VAT or sales tax, so it may be different for other potential buyers in PAL-land.

With cheap air fares, it may well make financial sense for European buyers to have a weekend in NY and take the credit card - assuming no warranty issues.

[Peter Koller]

This whole NTSC/PAL issue has been a miracle to me anyway...

PAL has a higher resolution but lower framerate but overall a 60 minute tape in PAL-country should have a different runtime when put into a NTSC camcorder and the tape in one of them must run faster.

Also NTSC uses 4:1:1 und PAL 4:2:0 sampling. As far as I know the output via firewire has the same bitrate.. do you mean with the headroom, that there will be 4-5mb/s instead of the 3,5mb/s we have now?

Cheers, Peter -confused

[Steve McDonald]

Duncan, you folks on Jerri do have the best of things. Warmer weather, big tax breaks and if anyone tries to invade you again, the Limeys will come running to help. A friend took one of the international ferries from Ireland and stopped there a few years ago and now wants to live there permanently. I understand the island has become a hotbed of computer-based activities. Have NLE and videomaking gotten popular there, as well? I know there's some great websites on the isle, as I've visited them a lot studying the native tongue of Jerriaise, an old Norman French dialect. If you're one of the few who can still speak it, that would be interesting. What do you do for TV programming? Is there satellite availability?

If you were to buy and have a shipment direct from the U.S., would there be any duties or taxes at all on it?

Steve McDonald

[Jeff Donald]

Let's stay on topic please.

[Chris Hurd]

Later this weekend I'm going to come in and split up this thread into its various topics. Too hard to follow as is and it's roaming all over the place. Please start a new thread if you have a specific statement to discuss. Many thanks,

[Laurence Maher]

This is why I think the camera sucks . . .

All the companies are far more cabable of putting out better technologies in their cameras, and they don't. They're claiming this is the new thing for indie filmmakers . . . my butt. It's not high enough quality to make REAL MOVIES (we're talking for big screen projection, a chance of limited to wide theatrical release images. Yet, they insist on saying this is the camera to revolutionize the indie film world.

The only way it will revolutionize the indy film world is by yet again expotentially increasing the number of sub standard films seeking distribution, and decreasing the chances of talented filmmakers shooting on somthing much better. The massive number of tapes coming into film acquisition offices will make it hard for anyone to get anything but a first glance at a title before it gets thrown into the trash can.

If this camera wanted to do something for the "indie community" it should have been at least 50 Mbps 3 full chip 720p (Really, 1080p) with 4:2:2 color separation. This is nothing more than a slightly better version of what is already out.

16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV, and isn't suitable for theater filmmaking.

Now if someone wants to shoot straight to video releases, maybe. Probably ok for that. But screens? No.

Why do I think the camera sucks? They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't becasue they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas. That's all. Personally, I think HDV is a joke medium, but they weren't even cool enough to offer that!

[Nick Hiltgen]

Laurence raises a good point many film makers will probably choose this format over a different one. I for one was seriously looking at renting an HD package for my next shoot, however for the cost of the equipment plus insurance I could buy an XL2.

I think that while 4:2:2 may have been an option (and still could be...) real HD was probably never a real option for this camera because HD glass is so expensive Cheap HD lenses are still in the 10's of thousands of dollars, and I think the only way for someone to make glass that would be HD quality would be for canon to throw away the interchangable lens function, which I think would not justify the switch to HD, but it would have been cool to have a vericam for 5k...

[Graham Bernard]

. . which makes me think .. have they got something wrong? . .

Grazie

[Jeff Donald]

They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't because they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas.

Couldn't be further from reality, Laurence. Canon doesn't have any big boy tools. No Digital Beta, no 50Mbps format, nothing, only mini DV. Canon does consumer and prosumer cameras, that's it. In fact you even said so yourself;

16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV,. . .

Don't expect Canon to suddenly produce a camera for a market that historically, they haven't produced cameras for. If your disappointed it's only because you let your fantasies get the best of you. Canon is an extremely well run company and they know their markets a little better than you do. They are the second largest US patient holder and the most consistently profitable Japanese camera producer.

SOOOOO please Laurence, study the facts and give your rhetoric a rest.

[Dave Croft]

Lets not forget that, love it or hate it '28 days later' was shot on the Pal XL1-s using frame mode. I bet Danny Boyle would have liked to have used a Pal XL2 with true 25p progressive and 16:9 (not forgetting higher resolution than NTSC ;) to shoot his movie.

Surely the techniques like lighting etc and actual content of any low budget movie are the key factors, and having true progressive and 16:9 just adds to the way the story can be told.

Maybe this camera wasn't ready for HD, maybe it was, who knows. Over the next year hopefully the XL2 will drop in price enough to make it a better buy.

HD is probably in the future of indie filmaking, but I don't think SD is finished yet. When an affordable pro-sumer HD 3CCD, 24p, 16:9 camera comes out it could be the final nail in the coffin for SD, we shall have to wait and see.

You only have to see what people have produced with the DVX to know what SD is capable of. Hopefully the XL2 will extend the boundaries even further to the limit. After this has happened HD should step in to extend them even more.

Dave.

[Bill Pryor]

Laurence, from what I read on the Canon web site, they never claimed they were revolutionizing indy filmmaking. Those claims come from people who think the Canon is the greatest camera ever made.

Many excellent films have been made with DV25 format cameras in the past few years, but for a higher quality image, obviously you need 2/3" chip HD cameras, or stick with film. Filmmakers choose DV because it is affordable and because the small size cameras allow them to get shots they might not otherwise. They don't choose DV because it is the best quality available. If Canon had made a DV50 2/3" chip camera, they would be putting themselves into a totally different market. Several of those cameras are already out there and have the market pretty much dominated. Canon video cameras are consumer products, not broadcast products.

Even so, look at what talented people have done with consumer cameras in the past few years: Vinterberg's "The Celebration" (shot with single chip Sony consumer cameras, Hal Hartley's amazing "The Book of Life" shot for French TV with a VX1000, "The King Is Alive," shot with PD150s and one of the best looking DV-to-film films I've ever seen, Agnes Varda's amazing documentary, "The Gleaners and I," much of which was shot with the 1/4" chip TRV900, "Tadpole," shot with PD150's, the Academy Award nominated documentary "Spellbound," shot with a plain old NTSC XL1 with standard lens, and of course "28 Days Later," shot mostly with PAL XL1's. Oh yeah, then there's all the music and dance sequences from Lars Von Trier's Palme d'Or winner, "Dancer in the Dark," shot with one hundred PAL PD100's.

Those are just a few films I can think of off the top of my head that used the DV25 format with consumer cameras. I also thought about "The Anniversary Party," shot with two PAL DSR500's, which have 2/3" 16:9 chips and starring Jennifer Jason Leigh. Interestingly, I thought "The King Is Alive" had a much better look, even though it was shot with the lowly PD150. While the technical quality of "Anniversary Party" was better, several of the other films I mentioned above had a better look. It's all about lighting.

Would all these films have looked better shot in HD or 35mm? Hell yes. But they wouldn't have got made.

[Dylan Couper]

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : This is why I think the camera sucks . . .

All the companies are far more cabable of putting out better technologies in their cameras, and they don't. They're claiming this is the new thing for indie filmmakers . . . my butt. It's not high enough quality to make REAL MOVIES >>>

Laurence, if you want to make movies for theatrical release, why don't you go pound the pavement, raise some money and shoot on 35mm? Or rent a Varicam? Most of the companies out there DO put better technology in their cameras, BUT THEY SELL THEM FOR TEN TIMES THE PRICE OF AN XL2.

<<< - The only way it will revolutionize the indy film world is by yet again expotentially increasing the number of sub standard films seeking distribution, and decreasing the chances of talented filmmakers shooting on somthing much better. The massive number of tapes coming into film acquisition offices will make it hard for anyone to get anything but a first glance at a title before it gets thrown into the trash can. -->>>

Now I know you are just pulling our legs. Thats possibly the more ridiculous statement I've read on this forum ever. Ever heard of content? It beats all. I cite Blair Witch Project and 28 Days Later as proof.

<<<-If this camera wanted to do something for the "indie community" it should have been at least 50 Mbps 3 full chip 720p (Really, 1080p) with 4:2:2 color separation. This is nothing more than a slightly better version of what is already out. -->>>

There are cameras like that on the market already, in the $50,000 price range. The lenses cost many times the price of the XL2. It would be completely naive to expect Canon to give you that setup for $5,000. That would be like me complaing that Ferrari doesn't make an F360 available for $20,000. If Canon really wanted to do something for the indie community, they would just give away free money to filmmakers....

<<<-16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV, and isn't suitable for theater filmmaking. -->>>

SO GO RENT A 35MM CAMERA SETUP AND SHOOT ON FILM. It isn't supposed to be a camera suitable for theatrical films....

<<<- Why do I think the camera sucks? They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't becasue they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas. That's all. Personally, I think HDV is a joke medium, but they weren't even cool enough to offer that! -->>>

How old are you? Canon is a business, in the business of making money. Sure they could offer more, hell, they could give them away for free. But that's not how the world works. For a measly $5,000 (chump change to any real indie film, compared to the cost of feeding a crew for a month) this is one hell of a butt kicking camera, and really a bargain for the money.

[Jacques Mersereau]

I think we should ease up on Larry, especially if he eases up on being a bit
brash/dreamy. He just wants it all at a price he can afford . . . so do I ;)

Yes Larry, I too am a bit disappointed that the XL2 is limited to
DV25, but OTOH, Canon has not left the XL1 customer base hanging
in the wind. Canon has made us an affordable upgrade that will work
with almost all the extras XL1 owners have afforded over the years.
There is a certain kind of loyalty there.

But, back to the XL2's short comings. In the XL2 wish list I outlined a bunch
of features that I wanted and two directions that Canon could go.
One was evolutionary and the other revolutionary.

This is the evolutionary track, NOT the revolutionary path (that could still happen).
But what is missing from my evolutionary model is the serial digital output
that I was really hoping Canon would include. HAD they put this feature
into the camera, we could at least "plug in" to uncompressed video 8 bit video
and do away with the macroblocks and mosquitoes.
That would be a clincher for me, but even so, unless something else
comes along soon, the XL2 is the MOST affordable solution out there with
true 16x9.

I also suspect that Canon is working hard on an HDV camcorder as we write.
The issue there is HDV is still ONLY 25mbps, but needs to produce an image
four times the size with only that same amount of bandwidth.
IMO, DV25 already walks the 'knife edge' of being too low res.

I hope to be proved wrong, but for what I do that isn't going to work.

What WOULD WORK is if Canon can put a 292M SDI jack on the XLHD camera.
Then you could plug into REAL HD video and bring along the NLE or
rent an HD VTR for capture. Yes, bringing along a cased
NLE capable of HD capture would be a pain, but _a lot_ less
money than a D5 deck @ $100K.

As has been mentioned, Canon makes the $100K HD lens that are used by
the big boys, so the chances of them coming out if a camcorder that
produces moving images as good as their 10D still camera is tiny. They aren't
going to hurt that side of the business by going too far and that's a shame
because there are companies like Olympus who are also working on HD
camcorders and have nothing to lose. Our best hope may be there.

Nikon are YOU listening?! Forget about the 'corder part of the camcorder,
just make us an inexpensive HD head.

[Michael Struthers]

What's improving are the conversion processes. They can make mini dv look pretty decent now, better than when Celebration came out. A film shot with an sdx 900 and blown up to 35mm movie would probably look great, especially the interiors. That's why I think a SD cam with 1/2 chips and 16/9 and 24p would be good enough.

That jVC gy 5000 has 1/2 chips for 5K, so you know it can be done.