|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 13th, 2004, 12:48 AM
|
#1 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 1,427
|
Whooooo Doggie!!!!
Hooray, I thought I was going to have to suffer through another 24 hours of waiting, of course now I have to wait for a picture...
What are everyone's immidiate thoughts? I'm certainly excited that I can use my manual lens on this new camera, though I'm interested to see if the 16:9 function will work. The camera seemed to have everything (ligitmate) in the wish list forum minus HDV but it certainly will be a killer SD camera. Is anyone else ready to hook up a Juan mod or Agus 35 to see what this thing can really do? Built in BNC's Who would've thought! 680k pixel's sounds like a lot, how does tha compare to the dvx or the xl1s? Anyone know off hand? |
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 01:46 AM
|
#2 |
|
ChorizoSmells
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 424
|
the DVX100A has 410,000 and the XL-1s has 270,00 pixels per ccd. just looked it up on the camera specs on their websites.
__________________
ChorizoSmells Video Barrio Tamatsukuri, Osaka, JAPAN |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 02:26 AM
|
#3 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
410,000 and the XL-1s has 270,00
Higher for both if ur in PAL land... hmm.. just htinkin of the degredation of image when it comes to blowing this image up on a big screen.. the DVX has issues with that count as it is.. i dont wnt to think about the XL.... seems to me though that the only advantage is the modular aspect of it.. everything else is pretty much identical to the DVX (spec wise)... I was hoping for something a lil more original.. but it should be a good cam regardless.. I think canon are tryin to make it backwards compatible..... |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 02:51 AM
|
#4 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,727
|
Peter, it's early days yet so who knows what people will find with it once they get their hands on one. I've always thought, if anything, the XL2 would be just evolutionary and nothing really ground breaking - Canon seem to not be in that game. That said, it's probably going to be the best out there for a short while. And hey, it looks damned nice!
Aaron |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 04:33 AM
|
#5 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
Posts: 41
|
If I understand correctly, the XL2's CCDs are 680,000 pixels each, and the DVX100's are 410,000 each. That equates to a 66% increase in pixel density over the DVX, which will presumably translate to significantly higher resolution.
I'm therefore puzzled by the statement that the XL2 is pretty much identical to the DVX other than its modular design. Along with apparently true 16:9, doesn't this make it (on paper) a significantly better camera than the Panasonic? |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 04:39 AM
|
#6 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 1,727
|
Duncan, if you look at the specs it look slike the effective pixels for 16:9 mode are 460,000 in 16:9 and 350,000 in 4:3. So for some reason the whole thing isn't being used, or because of some other conversion factor resolution is being lost a bit.
Aaron |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 05:16 AM
|
#7 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
Posts: 41
|
Aaron, thanks for the explanation. So what is the "effective" resolution of the DVX? All I could find quoted on the Panasonic website etc was the figure of 410,000 pixels. Does the DVX use more of its available resolution (if that's the right way to put it)than the XL2?
Cheers Duncan |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 07:04 AM
|
#8 |
|
Inner Circle
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 3,884
|
who knows??
who cares?? Its another great toy to play with we should all be happy :) On thing i am intrigued with is that mega freaky OIS and i mean, dont get me wrong.. my comments on pixel were based on the readin of the spec as being a combined pixel count, not per ccd.. Ive never been a canon basher and im not about to start :) 5k US.. is alot of money.. its almost twice the price as a DVX here in Oz.. then u have lenses.. here in Oz for adecent one, ur lookin at least 2 grand.. but i love this setup.. hmmmmmm..... http://www.canon-sales.co.jp/dv/line...nt01_lens4.jpg |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 07:18 AM
|
#9 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Jersey, Channel Islands
Posts: 41
|
>>Its another great toy to play with we should all be happy :)
That would be against the rules of this site - we can't ever be truly happy with any camera, regardless of its specs. There's always got to be something to grouch about - even if it's only the missing drinks holder ;) |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 07:27 AM
|
#10 |
|
Rextilleon
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Pleasantville, NY
Posts: 520
|
It appears to come with a lens--I think its that so-called "L"series---I doubt its built to true L specs--those babies are very expensive---I am concerned with the 5.5 lumens stat--not very sensitive in low light---I guess this is not the documentarians camera but more of the indy features camera.
|
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 08:21 AM
|
#11 |
|
New Boot
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7
|
viewfinder/ xlr/ SDK
The XLR inputs certaintly welcome. I don't know about the viewfinder, in specific the fact that you flip it in half to look at the lcd screen seems both ingenious and chintzy. The SDK seems to open up some very interesting doors though. Nice to see them back in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 08:34 AM
|
#12 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 439
|
let me just say that I'm DANG glad I don't have to ditch my xl1 accessories...
|
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 08:48 AM
|
#13 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,195
|
<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Koolen : Duncan, if you look at the specs it look slike the effective pixels for 16:9 mode are 460,000 in 16:9 and 350,000 in 4:3. So for some reason the whole thing isn't being used, or because of some other conversion factor resolution is being lost a bit.
The way this is described in the specs its a bit confusing. The difference between the chip resolution and the"output" resolution is typical of higher end dv format cameras. The camera is essentially "oversampling" the image at the effective pixels listed, applying its algorithms, and adjustments and then "outputting" to the DV specs for a given aspect ration. So yes it is using the entire 680k chips. I'm not sure I can explain all the reasons why you would want to do this...but for anyone interested...this is a very good thing. I'm very wowed by the native, real, true, pure, phat 16:9 feature of this camera...this caught me off-guard. My DVX looks pretty good on my HD set at home, and that's blown up from the 4:3. The true 16:9 on the xl2 is an HDV killer as far as I'm concerned. Barry |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 08:51 AM
|
#14 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Barry,
See my article, XL2 CCD Block Overview, for an explanation and a graphic about what's going on with the CCD target areas. |
|
|
|
|
July 13th, 2004, 09:00 AM
|
#15 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,195
|
Thanks, chris...I was just doing exactly that...realizing that I had just stuck my foot deeply in my mouth...But now I'm not sure I'm as happy as I was when I was ignorant of the facts!!
Barry |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
