It's official: Canon XL2 announced

Scott Balkum · July 13th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Man Chris, you have been busy this morning.

Peter Moore · July 13th, 2004, 09:24 AM

Well fortunately I can't afford a new camera now :) So I'll have the luxury of waiting to see what Sony comes up with in the HDV realm and see if Canon brings an XL2-HD next year.

Andre De Clercq · July 13th, 2004, 09:28 AM

The "super range OIS"is the same as used on the XL1s. It has OIS driven by gyro sensors and actuators and it interprets the motion vector on the CCD's, not for correcting the CCD read-out like EIS does, but for generating extra correction info on the OIS system for "slow"shakes which are difficult to be detected by gyro's

Hannu Honkela · July 13th, 2004, 09:39 AM

Really great work on the new XL2 Watchdog Chris!

A hell lot of information.... and pictures... whoa... but the greatest of all: It is all up and running on the day the cam was announced!!!

Chris Hurd · July 13th, 2004, 09:40 AM

Andre is quite right. There are several flavors of OIS, and the Super-Range VAP type in the Canon XL series is the best.

Zack Birlew · July 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM

Well shoot guys, now your making me all paranoid about Canon coming out with an HD version in a few months or next year! <=D

I dunno, I could stick with my GL1 for awhile longer I guess. It should be good enough for college projects.

Dino Reyes · July 13th, 2004, 10:13 AM

great work chris for putting together ALL the info on xl2, i'm not into hdv editing yet, and i'm not sure who is out there and/or who is familiar with editing issues in hd, but i doubt half the complainers would not be able to afford an hd version if it did come out... the features look slick but still the price is pretty steep, i'm glad though because my xl1s will still keep it's value for a while longer... i may just have to go out and pick up the new pana gs400 to hold me over for a while...

-dr

Boyd Ostroff · July 13th, 2004, 10:31 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Balkum : Let's not forget, there are no 1/3" 3-ccd HDV cameras out there. -->>>

For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...

Tommy Haupfear · July 13th, 2004, 10:48 AM

Quote:

For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...

I've been waiting forever for a 1/3" 3CCD with HQ Widescreen but ouch on the price.

How long did it take before the XL1S prices started dropping "legitimately" below $4000?

Robert Knecht Schmidt · July 13th, 2004, 10:51 AM

The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope?

Jarred Land · July 13th, 2004, 10:55 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The XL2 isnt native 16:9... its a 4:3 chip that is chopped.

Rob Lohman · July 13th, 2004, 11:16 AM

Native 16:9 seems to have a lot of confusion, let's add some facts
in here, okay?

1) the CCD chips in the XL2 are NOT widescreen in ratio, they are 4:3 indeed (as Jarred says)

2) however, the 16:9 mode DOES USE MORE resolution than the 4:3 (which is also better than the XL1S 4:3 mode)

So in this case it IS native 16:9 since it is not made from electronic
stretching in which you LOOSE resolution. So the chips do not
have an actual 16:9 aspect, but they will produce native 16:9.

Perhaps true 16:9 is a better word than native 16:9 in this
regard. The XL2 does actually GAINS resolution in regards to it's
4:3 mode.

So it is simply not using it's full VERTICAL height of the CCD's.
Is this a problem? Not really since it still uses more pixels in its
16:9 mode than any of the competition.

It's just a bit less suited as a 4:3 camera, perhaps (due to
increase focal lengths and shortened DoF). It still has more
resolution in 4:3 mode than the XL1S does, however!

Steven-Marc Couchouron · July 13th, 2004, 11:18 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope? -->>>

It's still DV, there are no extra pixels written to tape, only extra pixels sampled on the CCD. The signal from the sensors is then converted to regular DV.

Steven-Marc Couchouron · July 13th, 2004, 11:28 AM

Rob, it seems the only element we are still missing is how this all translates in regards to the XL2's low-light capabilites. It would seem not to be a strong selling point for the XL2, since it is never mentionned as such by Canon.

However, for most indies, I believe higher resolution is much more important than higher low-light capabilities. You can always add some lighting...

Oh, and the GS400 claims to make use of 1156x646 pixels in 16:9 mode, which is a bit more than the XL2. Not that you could really compare both cameras...

Michael Struthers · July 13th, 2004, 11:33 AM

Hmmmm. Not a home run Canon, but a double.

I think I would buy a dvx100a and add a anamorphic lens instead.

Still waiting on HD. Sharp, where are you?

July 13th, 2004, 09:40 AM	#65
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Andre is quite right. There are several flavors of OIS, and the Super-Range VAP type in the Canon XL series is the best. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM	#66
Zack Birlew Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 613	Well shoot guys, now your making me all paranoid about Canon coming out with an HD version in a few months or next year! <=D I dunno, I could stick with my GL1 for awhile longer I guess. It should be good enough for college projects. __________________ "Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew www.BabsDoProductions.com

July 13th, 2004, 10:13 AM	#67
Dino Reyes Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: brooklyn Posts: 66	nice.... great work chris for putting together ALL the info on xl2, i'm not into hdv editing yet, and i'm not sure who is out there and/or who is familiar with editing issues in hd, but i doubt half the complainers would not be able to afford an hd version if it did come out... the features look slick but still the price is pretty steep, i'm glad though because my xl1s will still keep it's value for a while longer... i may just have to go out and pick up the new pana gs400 to hold me over for a while... -dr

July 13th, 2004, 10:51 AM	#70
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope? __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 13th, 2004, 11:16 AM	#72
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Native 16:9 seems to have a lot of confusion, let's add some facts in here, okay? 1) the CCD chips in the XL2 are NOT widescreen in ratio, they are 4:3 indeed (as Jarred says) 2) however, the 16:9 mode DOES USE MORE resolution than the 4:3 (which is also better than the XL1S 4:3 mode) So in this case it IS native 16:9 since it is not made from electronic stretching in which you LOOSE resolution. So the chips do not have an actual 16:9 aspect, but they will produce native 16:9. Perhaps true 16:9 is a better word than native 16:9 in this regard. The XL2 does actually GAINS resolution in regards to it's 4:3 mode. So it is simply not using it's full VERTICAL height of the CCD's. Is this a problem? Not really since it still uses more pixels in its 16:9 mode than any of the competition. It's just a bit less suited as a 4:3 camera, perhaps (due to increase focal lengths and shortened DoF). It still has more resolution in 4:3 mode than the XL1S does, however! __________________ 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 13th, 2004, 09:21 AM	#61
Scott Balkum Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 67	Man Chris, you have been busy this morning.

July 13th, 2004, 09:24 AM	#62
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	Well fortunately I can't afford a new camera now :) So I'll have the luxury of waiting to see what Sony comes up with in the HDV realm and see if Canon brings an XL2-HD next year.

July 13th, 2004, 09:28 AM	#63
Andre De Clercq Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Belgium Posts: 804	The "super range OIS"is the same as used on the XL1s. It has OIS driven by gyro sensors and actuators and it interprets the motion vector on the CCD's, not for correcting the CCD read-out like EIS does, but for generating extra correction info on the OIS system for "slow"shakes which are difficult to be detected by gyro's

July 13th, 2004, 09:39 AM	#64
Hannu Honkela Tourist Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Switzerland Posts: 4	Really great work on the new XL2 Watchdog Chris! A hell lot of information.... and pictures... whoa... but the greatest of all: It is all up and running on the day the cam was announced!!!

July 13th, 2004, 10:31 AM	#68
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,801	<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Balkum : Let's not forget, there are no 1/3" 3-ccd HDV cameras out there. -->>> For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...

July 13th, 2004, 10:55 AM	#71
Jarred Land DVX User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Vancouver Posts: 281	quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The XL2 isnt native 16:9... its a 4:3 chip that is chopped.

July 13th, 2004, 11:18 AM	#73
Steven-Marc Couchouron Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 110 Images: 5	<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope? -->>> It's still DV, there are no extra pixels written to tape, only extra pixels sampled on the CCD. The signal from the sensors is then converted to regular DV. __________________ SMCproductions.com

July 13th, 2004, 11:28 AM	#74
Steven-Marc Couchouron Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 110 Images: 5	Rob, it seems the only element we are still missing is how this all translates in regards to the XL2's low-light capabilites. It would seem not to be a strong selling point for the XL2, since it is never mentionned as such by Canon. However, for most indies, I believe higher resolution is much more important than higher low-light capabilities. You can always add some lighting... Oh, and the GS400 claims to make use of 1156x646 pixels in 16:9 mode, which is a bit more than the XL2. Not that you could really compare both cameras... __________________ SMCproductions.com

July 13th, 2004, 11:33 AM	#75
Michael Struthers Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: SF, Ca Posts: 421	Hmmmm. Not a home run Canon, but a double. I think I would buy a dvx100a and add a anamorphic lens instead. Still waiting on HD. Sharp, where are you? __________________ Michael Struthers www.buzzdigital.com