Poll: Will you buy the XL2?

David Warrilow · July 14th, 2004, 05:44 PM

Hi,

I have to say - as nice as it sounds -this would have been a killer tool 2 years ago.

Things have changed so much in that time that I think the XL2 - again - nice as it is - is a pale version of what most of us expected from Canon.

Progressive scan, 'true' 16x9 (Hmmm...) and some image tweaks -but still SD, 25mb/s DV. I dunno - sounds like the PD-170 issue again - 'same thing - only a bit better'. Perhaps some of our expectations from Canon to produce another revolutionary camera for the market were a little inflated. Except for the PS, there's really nothing here that I can't get from my (admittedly ageing) DSR-500.

Clearly we're in a 'bridgeing' time right now - HD is the new kid on the block but it isn't the standard yet - SD is the standard but its days are definitely numbered. It must be difficult to decide exactly where to place a product in this changing scheme of things.

Great Camera - and certainly an improvement on the XL1 - but I won't be selling my car to buy one anytime soon.

Best,

DW

Aaron Koolen · July 14th, 2004, 06:09 PM

Yeah it would be hard to place a product in the changing market, but hey why not change the market yourself? Take a risk why don't they? Panasonic did and it worked for them. I guess you could say they are changing the market with this HDV bollocks, but oh well.

Aaron

Rob Moreno · July 14th, 2004, 06:44 PM

Jacques, you have a very valid point. I thought HD was set to be based on H.264, not MPEG-2. I too think MPEG-2 sucks. The world deserves better. I guess I should have read up more on the subject before posting. Maybe I will get the XL2 after all. That is, IF the image quality is _much_ better than the XL1s.

Rick Bravo · July 14th, 2004, 08:50 PM

NO

Aaron Koolen · July 15th, 2004, 12:46 AM

I'm interested to see what this Canon SDK is. Now it's all major speculation but if they could give us access to graphic processing, I'd say it'd be a bloody interesting piece of equipment. Imagine being able to apply film looks and other things in real time to the image.

Aaron

David Mesloh · July 15th, 2004, 01:48 AM

I've lost more jobs over the past year because the aspiring filmmaker wanted to shoot 24P and my "XL-1S wouldn't do that". I shoot mostly independent shorts and features on DV. I am usually the DP and I bring a boatload of equipment to the table. Jibs, dollies,track,lighting, sound, specail effects...the works. Seems like everyone wants 24P lately because it is the new buzz word in the DV arena. Funny thing is 99% of my clients will never transfer their projects to film. Hell, they'll be lucky if they provide their crews with copies on DVD or video. Festivals are projecting direct from DVD, MiniDV, and BetaSP regularly.

I'll buy it as soon as it becomes available.

I like the interchangable lenses because I have an AC to pull focus when I shoot. I like all the in-camera settings. BNC-good. XLR-good. New, bigger, viewfinder- definatly good.

I'm sold.

Steve McDonald · July 15th, 2004, 02:33 AM

With all the discussion about HDV here, I will point out a few things about the origin of the DV format and its relationship with high-definition video.

The beginning point for what was first called "DVC" and later shortened to "DV",
is interesting. The DVC Consortium of numerous electronics companies, that joined together to develop the format, had high-definition in mind, from the
first. In fact, it was intended to be a miniature high-definition format and the standard-definition version of it was a secondary function. After spending a few years doing little with what they'd designed, market realities led them to realize that the SD version had an immediate and practical app;lication.

So, the Consortium polished up the SD version of the format and put it on the market. Sony was one of the key players in this and wanted to use their established 8mm cassette for DV. But, the other members felt that this would give Sony too much of an advantage and they wanted to minimize the carry-over popularity of the Sony 8mm HandyCams, to DV.

After negotiations, they made a deal to develop a new and smaller cassette and Sony agreed to wait for a certain time before they'd use their 8mm cassette for a digital format. Hence, the delayed introduction of Sony's Digital8 format. The main purpose of Digital8 was to provide a backwardly-compatible means for transition from analog to digital, for the HandyCam owners. If Sony had been able to dominate the Consortium more, we'd be using the larger 8mm cassette for DV today and Digital8 would never have existed by that name. Personally, I think the larger cassette would have had advantages.

The main point is that DV was first intended to be used for HD and the specifications for that were written into those for the entire format. The original HD version for DV called for the recording frequency to be raised from the SD level of 13.5 MHz, to 23 MHz and for the SD tape speed to be doubled. They didn't have an M-PEG2 compression scheme in mind.

I'm sure that the lower compression of the original CoDec would have produced better high-definition recordings than what now comes from HDV.

Someone else will have to explain why the tape speed was slowed and the compression level raised, for HDV. I'm guessing it was to allow for a full hour of HDV recording on a mini-DV cassette. The main broadcast format for the past 20 years, BetaCam and BetaCam SP, have only gotten 30 min. from their portable camcorders, so it would seem an acceptable limitation, in order to get higher quality. Another possibility is so the HDV bitstream would be compatible with that of D-VHS, which is now used for high-definition. The JVC HDV camcorders can send their output by wire for re-recording, into the newer type of D-VHS HD recorders. I wonder if the original HD CoDec for DV will ever be used?

Steve McDonald

Jim Giberti · July 15th, 2004, 10:45 AM

<<I really really dislike it being MPEG2. That is just wrong to me.
MJPEG would've been far better as a format, but perhaps not
at 25 mbps. Keep in mind that this whole HDV is 5-gop MPEG2
to boot. I understand why they did it (try to decrease the effect
of compression) and why they probably went with MPEG2 in the
first place (try to stay as compatible as possible within the DV
standard so less changes are needed throughout the process).

It just feels plain wrong.>>

This really bugs me as well Rob. The other thing that bugs me in the "I'm waiting for the HDV camera" logic is how exactly do people expect to distribute their work in HDV?? I mean MPEG2 is DVD and DVD ain't HD. In the real world A camera as seriously evolved as the XL line with the new big Three: native 16:9, high res and 24/30p is amazing to me. At 5k it's pretty much perfect for most real world applications.

Most anxious to see full res tests. I think Don Berube and I should offer to do a comparison for Canon. We could use the XL1 and XL2 with and without the Mini35 for an A/B comparison. I'm really itching to see 16:9 24p through 35mm glass and DOF...yes, I'm ready to test it.

Elie Zakaria · July 15th, 2004, 04:15 PM

Personally, I like the new features of the XL-2 however it will probably have the same focus issue as well as it be front heavy, which turns me off from buying another XL camera.

My current XL-1 should be fine for another year or so until I decide to buy what ever camera is available then.

Cheers,
Elie

Jim Giberti · July 15th, 2004, 06:12 PM

<<Personally, I like the new features of the XL-2 however it will probably have the same focus issue as well as it be front heavy>>

no focus issue if you use the manual lens.

Aaron Koolen · July 15th, 2004, 06:24 PM

OK, what is this focus issue?

Aaron

Mark Grgurev · July 15th, 2004, 07:02 PM

yes, I will buy the Xl2.

Jeff Chandler · July 15th, 2004, 08:09 PM

Depends upon the low light capability. Thats been the disappointing thing about my XL.

Chris Hurd · July 15th, 2004, 10:46 PM

<< what is this focus issue >>

There is no focus issue. Those who suspect a focus issue are those who have not actually used this lens yet. Supposing is not the same as knowing.

Aaron Koolen · July 15th, 2004, 10:50 PM

Chris, that's what I was thinking. How can anyone who hasn't even used the camera, go on saying there is a focus issue. Was there one with the Xl1s (Not xl1)?

Aaron

July 14th, 2004, 06:09 PM	#32
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Yeah it would be hard to place a product in the changing market, but hey why not change the market yourself? Take a risk why don't they? Panasonic did and it worked for them. I guess you could say they are changing the market with this HDV bollocks, but oh well. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

July 14th, 2004, 06:44 PM	#33
Rob Moreno Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 102	Jacques, you have a very valid point. I thought HD was set to be based on H.264, not MPEG-2. I too think MPEG-2 sucks. The world deserves better. I guess I should have read up more on the subject before posting. Maybe I will get the XL2 after all. That is, IF the image quality is _much_ better than the XL1s. __________________ Media Kobo Japan

July 14th, 2004, 08:50 PM	#34
Rick Bravo Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 574	NO __________________ "The future ain't what it used to be." Yogi Berra. www.rbravo.com

July 15th, 2004, 12:46 AM	#35
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	I'm interested to see what this Canon SDK is. Now it's all major speculation but if they could give us access to graphic processing, I'd say it'd be a bloody interesting piece of equipment. Imagine being able to apply film looks and other things in real time to the image. Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

July 15th, 2004, 01:48 AM	#36
David Mesloh Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 94	I can't sleep... I'll try counting XL-2's I've lost more jobs over the past year because the aspiring filmmaker wanted to shoot 24P and my "XL-1S wouldn't do that". I shoot mostly independent shorts and features on DV. I am usually the DP and I bring a boatload of equipment to the table. Jibs, dollies,track,lighting, sound, specail effects...the works. Seems like everyone wants 24P lately because it is the new buzz word in the DV arena. Funny thing is 99% of my clients will never transfer their projects to film. Hell, they'll be lucky if they provide their crews with copies on DVD or video. Festivals are projecting direct from DVD, MiniDV, and BetaSP regularly. I'll buy it as soon as it becomes available. I like the interchangable lenses because I have an AC to pull focus when I shoot. I like all the in-camera settings. BNC-good. XLR-good. New, bigger, viewfinder- definatly good. I'm sold.

July 14th, 2004, 05:44 PM	#31
David Warrilow Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 106	Hi, I have to say - as nice as it sounds -this would have been a killer tool 2 years ago. Things have changed so much in that time that I think the XL2 - again - nice as it is - is a pale version of what most of us expected from Canon. Progressive scan, 'true' 16x9 (Hmmm...) and some image tweaks -but still SD, 25mb/s DV. I dunno - sounds like the PD-170 issue again - 'same thing - only a bit better'. Perhaps some of our expectations from Canon to produce another revolutionary camera for the market were a little inflated. Except for the PS, there's really nothing here that I can't get from my (admittedly ageing) DSR-500. Clearly we're in a 'bridgeing' time right now - HD is the new kid on the block but it isn't the standard yet - SD is the standard but its days are definitely numbered. It must be difficult to decide exactly where to place a product in this changing scheme of things. Great Camera - and certainly an improvement on the XL1 - but I won't be selling my car to buy one anytime soon. Best, DW

July 15th, 2004, 02:33 AM	#37
Steve McDonald Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Eugene, Oregon Posts: 366	HDV and DV High-definition History With all the discussion about HDV here, I will point out a few things about the origin of the DV format and its relationship with high-definition video. The beginning point for what was first called "DVC" and later shortened to "DV", is interesting. The DVC Consortium of numerous electronics companies, that joined together to develop the format, had high-definition in mind, from the first. In fact, it was intended to be a miniature high-definition format and the standard-definition version of it was a secondary function. After spending a few years doing little with what they'd designed, market realities led them to realize that the SD version had an immediate and practical app;lication. So, the Consortium polished up the SD version of the format and put it on the market. Sony was one of the key players in this and wanted to use their established 8mm cassette for DV. But, the other members felt that this would give Sony too much of an advantage and they wanted to minimize the carry-over popularity of the Sony 8mm HandyCams, to DV. After negotiations, they made a deal to develop a new and smaller cassette and Sony agreed to wait for a certain time before they'd use their 8mm cassette for a digital format. Hence, the delayed introduction of Sony's Digital8 format. The main purpose of Digital8 was to provide a backwardly-compatible means for transition from analog to digital, for the HandyCam owners. If Sony had been able to dominate the Consortium more, we'd be using the larger 8mm cassette for DV today and Digital8 would never have existed by that name. Personally, I think the larger cassette would have had advantages. The main point is that DV was first intended to be used for HD and the specifications for that were written into those for the entire format. The original HD version for DV called for the recording frequency to be raised from the SD level of 13.5 MHz, to 23 MHz and for the SD tape speed to be doubled. They didn't have an M-PEG2 compression scheme in mind. I'm sure that the lower compression of the original CoDec would have produced better high-definition recordings than what now comes from HDV. Someone else will have to explain why the tape speed was slowed and the compression level raised, for HDV. I'm guessing it was to allow for a full hour of HDV recording on a mini-DV cassette. The main broadcast format for the past 20 years, BetaCam and BetaCam SP, have only gotten 30 min. from their portable camcorders, so it would seem an acceptable limitation, in order to get higher quality. Another possibility is so the HDV bitstream would be compatible with that of D-VHS, which is now used for high-definition. The JVC HDV camcorders can send their output by wire for re-recording, into the newer type of D-VHS HD recorders. I wonder if the original HD CoDec for DV will ever be used? Steve McDonald

July 15th, 2004, 10:45 AM	#38
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<I really really dislike it being MPEG2. That is just wrong to me. MJPEG would've been far better as a format, but perhaps not at 25 mbps. Keep in mind that this whole HDV is 5-gop MPEG2 to boot. I understand why they did it (try to decrease the effect of compression) and why they probably went with MPEG2 in the first place (try to stay as compatible as possible within the DV standard so less changes are needed throughout the process). It just feels plain wrong.>> This really bugs me as well Rob. The other thing that bugs me in the "I'm waiting for the HDV camera" logic is how exactly do people expect to distribute their work in HDV?? I mean MPEG2 is DVD and DVD ain't HD. In the real world A camera as seriously evolved as the XL line with the new big Three: native 16:9, high res and 24/30p is amazing to me. At 5k it's pretty much perfect for most real world applications. Most anxious to see full res tests. I think Don Berube and I should offer to do a comparison for Canon. We could use the XL1 and XL2 with and without the Mini35 for an A/B comparison. I'm really itching to see 16:9 24p through 35mm glass and DOF...yes, I'm ready to test it.

July 15th, 2004, 04:15 PM	#39
Elie Zakaria Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 38	Personally, I like the new features of the XL-2 however it will probably have the same focus issue as well as it be front heavy, which turns me off from buying another XL camera. My current XL-1 should be fine for another year or so until I decide to buy what ever camera is available then. Cheers, Elie

July 15th, 2004, 06:12 PM	#40
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	<<Personally, I like the new features of the XL-2 however it will probably have the same focus issue as well as it be front heavy>> no focus issue if you use the manual lens.

July 15th, 2004, 06:24 PM	#41
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	OK, what is this focus issue? Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media

July 15th, 2004, 07:02 PM	#42
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	yes, I will buy the Xl2.

July 15th, 2004, 08:09 PM	#43
Jeff Chandler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Mesa, Az. Posts: 167	Depends upon the low light capability. Thats been the disappointing thing about my XL. __________________ Jeff Chandler

July 15th, 2004, 10:46 PM	#44
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	<< what is this focus issue >> There is no focus issue. Those who suspect a focus issue are those who have not actually used this lens yet. Supposing is not the same as knowing. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 15th, 2004, 10:50 PM	#45
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Chris, that's what I was thinking. How can anyone who hasn't even used the camera, go on saying there is a focus issue. Was there one with the Xl1s (Not xl1)? Aaron __________________ My Website Meat Free Media