It's official: Canon XL2 announced

[Shuf Shukur]

Hmmm...The LCD sits in the viewfinder, so one has to flip one part of the viewfinder to view from the LCD. I'm just wondering how many positions can this LCD be moved.

Most of my work are interviews and most times I shoot and interview myself. I'm using the PD170 now and the LCD on that is really helpful when I sit / stand beside the camera while interviewing the subject.

[Graham Bernard]

Get a separate external LCD monitor. I just constructed a system that uses a £99 TV/AV monitor. Works great! .. You can use it to show client work .. and if the filming is boring, you can always watch the latest football. . . . .

[Robin Davies-Rollinson]

Shuf.
The viewfinder can be rotated up and down, but it can't move laterally such as the XM2/GL2
I personaly didn't rate the viewfinder in its open position for checking focus, but it's ok for checking framing etc.

Robin.

[Laurence Maher]

Okay,

First things first. Jacques, I really appreciate the "ease up" thing, just so it's said.

Second things second. Been a while since I was on this thread, but I read it today and see I've got a few people looking to defend the XL-2 with various examples of various . . .

So I'm back to support my arguements.

Jeff . . .

Never said Canon wasn't a good company at what they chose to do. Never said they weren't good at business. But they are part of the big wigs that are all in bed and in bred. What they chose to do is squeeze as much as they can out of their paying customers. Being a good company and being good at business doesn't mean they always make sound decisions for their customers. Canon can afford to make the cameras better for cheaper and don't. Not even HDV. How blatant does it have to be before some of us accept things like that were a marketing choice that helped the Canon milk more cash from customers before providing an HDV model? What I say is not rhetoric, it's obvious fact that I just find a little insulting. By the way, I laugh that you suggest I expected much more. I didn't figure what I wanted would come out, but I did figure at least the balls for HDV. (Which should have been the bare minimum with current technologies). No, I should point out that I'm just having fun laughing at the sadness of how much was expected of the camera, and how little it delivered.

Believe it or not, I don't think it's a bad camera at all. I mean true 16:9 and more resolution etc. That's great. Better than it was. Most likely an excellent, excellent mini dv camera, and is impressive . . . but again . . . only for what it IS, not what it COULD OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

Back to general . . . .

I should point out that films like "Tadple" with Sigourney Weaver and "The Anniversary Party" with Jennifer Jason Leigh are far from examples of something that should be cherrished as little engines that could. Let's throw out all films that got into theaters on celebrity status, shall we?
Also on todays agenday . . .

Also, let's remember that "Celebration" really got bigger hype than it deserved, due to the fact that it was one of the first mini-dv features around. Again, more novilty than craftsmanship (in my opinion anyway . . . don't kick me too hard, but I really thought it was fairly lame, just IMHO. If nothing else, I remember seeing it in the theater and cringing at the quality blown up to 35.

I should point out that I'm not saying a film shot on dv isn't a great effort and that it should not make one proud. It should. It takes a lot to make a feature, even on DV. Not saying these films shouldn't be made. Not insisting it needs to be 35 or nothing. Hell, if that's your only option, or even your artistic choice, go for it. Kudos to you. Life is about "doing it". My points are directed more at the generalities so often made with all the mini-dv hype. The fact remains that what it takes to finish a project now requires less, and combination of technology and hype (promoted by sub-standard products) has made many wanna be filmmakers (often ones that claim to know some of the very distinct boundaries between amateur films and professional ones) believe that mini-dv is the entry point to filmmaking. For the most part, it is not. It is the entry point of experimentation that might later lead to filmmaking. Only the select few extremely lucky or extremely connected mini dv films will make it as a commercial product. While HD, on the other hand, is actually starting to blur the lines between video and film. It is much more a true option, and could be provided by the likes of Canon if the company wanted to do so. No doubt about it. You can try to tell me that Canon only makes "prosumer" stuff . . . but hey, their still cameras sure are pro, now aren't they? Are you suggesting they lack the connections? The funds? Please. It's choice. Pure, simple.

Dylan . . .

You really did nothing but prove my point more thouroughly. Yes, the products we'd like are the more expensive ones, but again, the big-wig companies sell their merchandise for exuberant amounts more than it costs to make. Yes, Canon is a business. Never said they weren't good at the business side. A good businessman buys for a little and sells for a lot. That's what Canon (and Sony and all the rest) are doing. Can they afford to make such a humungous profit by not gouging us with inferior profits? No. But that's not the issue. The issue is, did they make a product inferior to what they could have for a $5000 price tag, (which would still have made a comfortable profit and even better still satisfy a more professional crowd)? Answer: Most definitely. The big wigs are all in bed with each other, and make decisions based on what is the overall good for the big wigs. They increase their fatty bellies by handing us watered down products, and charging us a zillion bucks for the not so watered down products. It's always been that way. Always will. As for Blair Witch, it did well because it had a pretty cool gimmick, but more importantly it was picked up by a mini-major and then marketed to the hilt. Films with far better "content" as you call it never saw the light of day, becasue they weren't so LUCKY. 28 days later was made by an established filmaker. That's why it was a success. Not saying they weren't good films over all, but they were also no where near the "norm", and mini-dv movies have a basically a non-existent chance of the big screen (with a relatively large release) until some kind of power is attached to it.

[Jacques Mersereau]

From the previous post, one must remember that old saying that someone's junk
is someone else's treasure and that the XL2 camera for certain people is a
disappointment. As I have posted, had the XL2 been only native HDV, I would
have had NO interest in it. Larry might have jumped for joy. We are
different people with different wants (but we both want cheap REAL HD!).

Last night I was able to finally able to ONLINE our nature documentary
to digital betacam. It was shot on an XL1 w/ EF lens and VX2K.
My system takes DV25 and uncompresses it, after which the video
is sampled into an (now old) Avid at AVR77 (2:1 compression).
I took my drive to a suite with a DVW-A500 deck and same kind of Avid. I
hooked up our drive, fired up and pooped.

When you pump out SDI from the Avid to digital betacam and monitor
analog component, you wouldn't believe how good DV can look. I am
impressed, except for NTSC's "twittering" I am happy with the quality vs.
the price. (IMAX 70mm would have been better and made me happier,
and even more broke than I am after funding this project.) The fact is,
I have many more "free" pixels to work with @ 90mbps than HDV's
GOP at 25mbps .

The next step up the 'quality ladder' is to be able to shoot in progressive scan
which should get rid of NTSC line twitter.
(though it may add some strobing at 24 or 30fps).

Larry, the XL2 gives me a better image, works with all my XL1 accessories
and is really not that expensive when compared to a varicam or the Panasonic
SDX900. For me the XL2 is a good choice. YOU, you have to wait for the next
generation HDV version that I am SURE Canon is working on right now.
If that version has an REAL HD SDI uncompressed output for under $6K,
I will buy that too. If it is HDV only, pass.

[Don Donatello]

"USA: 4,999 USD which equals 3,996 EURO
EU: 5,499 EURO which equals 6,681 USD
So here in Europe we are very happy to pay an extra 1,500 EURO for nothing"

NOTHING - you get 100 more lines of resolution !!!! and 4:2:0 color space that has to be worth something ..remember NTSC nick name is Never the same Color ... PLUS you don't get the funky pull down cadence !!! that is worth some extra $$...

now isn't some of that price increase import/excise taxes because the camera records and anything that records gets those fine extra taxes in europe ???

[Andre De Clercq]

Yes, part of that higher price in Europe related to (video) recording devices is an historical "gift" from France. They were afraid several decades ago that cheap consumer VCR's from Japan would harm their own (expensive) VCR products and developments, so they convinced their European friends to block the situation by introducing extra taxes.

[Graham Bernard]

Another reason for staying outside the EC? Well outside the legislation ..

[Chris Hurd]

Congratulations, you guys are officially WAY off topic.

[Rob Lohman]

Just to add some clarification to the questions asked in this thread:

1) the reason they are NOT using the full 4:3 CCD is to give the 16:9 mode MORE resolution than 4:3. Otherwise they would NOT have had native 16:9. 4:3 still has more pixels than with the XL1S though!

2) DV is *ALWAYS* 25 mbps or around 3.5 MB/s. The reason they can store both PAL (higher res) and NTSC (lower res) in this is due to the DIFFERENT FRAMERATES! 720x480x30 = 720x576x25

3) anamorphic signal is ALWAYS stored at 720x480 or 720x576. The difference with DV is in the pixel aspect ration and increase vertical resolution (not horizontal as everyone always thinks). See my explenation in the other XL2 threads.

[Andre De Clercq]

At first view they could have used the full CCD area and have still better resolution and/or sensitivity in 4/3 without compromising 16/9.
Maybe they used an existing design, or didn't want to change the vertical readout between the two formats, or got too much vignetting in full 4/3 mode (image field limits), or the screened-off parts of these chips are being needed for additional buffer memory when in progressive mode (like FT CCD's)

[Jeff Donald]

Canon wanted to maintain compatibility with their existing line of XL mount lenses. The Circle of Illumination would have been insufficient and severe vignetting would have occurred.

[Rob Lohman]

Jeff: are you sure about that? The FULL CCD is the same size as
with the XL1S. It just has more pixels. They are using less space
(change in DOF and the crop thing you mentioned earlier) then
is available, in both modes.

Andre: in my opinion that would be fully possible indeed. BUT,
you will loose the edge of 16:9. Why? Because it will not GAIN
resolution but again LOOSE it. Yes, it will be the same as 16:9
is now, but it will not have more resolution than the 4:3 mode
would've had.

Now keep in mind that his is a challenging issue mentally. Make
sure you really think about this.

[Aaron Koolen]

Yeah, but who cares if you gain or lose resolution between 4:3 and 16:9. All you want is high res on both. I don't care if I have 12 Megapixels in 4:3 but oh, only 10 megapixels in 16:9. The best thing would be to have an anamorphic lens no? That will automatically use the whole 4:3 chip but place a 16:9 image in it.

I guess it doesn't matter which way you look at it. It's all relative anyway.


Aaron

[Rob Lohman]

It's certainly relative, but everybody DOES seem to care. Look at
how the XL1S was bashed for this. Keep in mind that 4:3 on the
XL2 still has a better pixel count than on the the XL1S, so you
are getting a higher resolution when sampling. As you know it
will always end up being 720x480 or 720x576.