Since Miike and Kelley resurrected this list I'll throw in a nit or two.

Scene Match / Continuity
The ability to use an onboard flash card to store a snapshot of a scene and then to overlay an onion-skin of that snapshot onto the viewfinder image. This is a feature available on the Sony DSR570 (and perhaps other pro camera) and is extremely useful for ensuring continuity between shots.

Given that the GL2 already has a flash card facility I would think that this might not be a painful stretch for Canon.

Storage of Settings
The ability to store all of the camera's programmable settings on a flash card and to then recall those settings later. This is also a feature on some of the pro cameras. It would also be a far more useful feature than the current custom buttons which can only invoke one of a limited number of features.

For Kelly, re: the B&W viewfinder... the current B&W viewfinder, adapted from an existing Ikegami EVF, is no more or less expensive than any other B&W CRT viewfinder in its class. In other words, it shouldn't be considered as expensive, since it's priced just like any other B&W CRT viewfinder. Hope this helps,

Harddisk based recording instead of tape! And high quality
flipout LCD screen that shows the ENTIRE picture and is switchable
to different widescreen aspects...

Higher resolution and variable framerates would be in my top
5 too!! Definitely

1. flipout LCD
2. true progressive scan
3. variable framerate
4. higher resolution
5. harddisk based recording

that's my top 5! Perhaps we can turn this into a poll....

Maybe I am wrong, but:
Everyone is saying they want higher resolution. This would be better for crisper pictures, however, wouldn't decrease low-light performance? I guess if they made the CCDs bigger and also increased resolution that would be better. But if the CCDs stayed the same size or only got slightly larger it would do more harm than good. Am I right here? Thanks.

I would defiantely vote against a LCD. I think they are misleading in composing a shot and they take a lot of camera resources. It's also the hallmark of a hobby camera. I would rather the XL1s stay center or move toward pro, then move backward toward consumer toy.

I would like the battery monitor to work with the B&W viewfinder.

I might be reaching here (please have pitty on me). In camera keying. That would be cool to setup a blue/green screen with an actor. Then select a "key mode" to shoot in. And be able to shoot bg footage right onto already shot footage of the actor.

John,

I think an LCD is very handy in the case off running around with
the camera and trying to keep someone framed. Or when your
shooting handheld. Don't forget that even the big boys put a
monitor on their steadicams!

And why would it look like a "hobby" camera? I think that
depends on how you make it. Ofcourse I would NOT want to
get RID of the viewfinder. Lets have both....

Scott,

Can you explain why a bigger LCD block would lead to a decrease
in low-light performance? It does have an advantage in that you
can mount some more lenses without conversion adapters
(hopefully -> because of the 35 mm vs. CCD size etc.). Ofcourse
the mount itself might still need an adaptor.

I for one would love an lcd and/or bigger crt...
more camera weight shift to shoulder,
full frame in frame mode ala new panny 24p...
built in phantom power and xlr
in screen uv levels...a must
on tape recorded full settings so you can see on playback ala sony (i know xl1s already does something like this)
16:9 borders
real manual switch, no servo...for times when there is no time to switch lenses...
bigger ccd would be great, lets get rid of pixel shift and just get 1/2 ccds or 2/3

is this asking too much, maybe maybe not, most of what i want is already in a combination panny/pd150

**ohh i almost forgot one of the most important features, NO MORE AUDIO SAMPLING at anything but 48kHz, lets keep it in sync**

I now want high defenition with bigger CCDs.
Don't care about anything else like 24p or true progressive scan.

Although I like the idea of the flash card to save levels in. That's great!

The one other thing I want is a switch from video mode to film mode, where a magic genie inside waves a wand and makes your footage look like it was shot on 35mm film.


FWIW, some of the higher end Sony DSR series of pro camera come with external LCD monitors built in.

Dylan: "FWIW, some of the higher end Sony DSR series of pro camera come with external LCD monitors built in."

Indeed they do, as does the new JVC GY-DV5000U, which is a real honey of a SD camera. Small LCD's place very little drain on the battery, probably much less than a servo zoom motor.

Rob,
The reason I believe that higher resolution would decrease low light performance is because you are increasing the number of pixels on the CCD meaning you have to fit more in the same amount of space (assuming they kept the CCDs the same size). More pixels in the same amount of space means the pixels have to be smaller. Smaller pixels means each pixel can absorb less light. I don't know if this is right or not. I think it was brought up in another thread somewhere on this forum...

Scott

You are right in your explanation of the phenomenon of "more pixels equals lowered sensitivity"...it's similar in photography, as big grain makes a faster film than fine grain for exactly the same reason. On the other hand...I think progress in ccd technology would most likely negate any reduction in sensitivity...ie the smaller chipped, higher res gl2 has much smaller pixels than the xl1s, and is nearly equal in terms of sensitivity, at least in lower light situations (it is about 1 to 1.5 stops less sensitive at normal daylight levels).

BG

Hmm... I never understood the term fast vs. slow in film terms.
Can someone enlighten me on this?

If I think about it I'm thinking they choose it for the reason that
if you want the same exposure on the different films one would
need a faster or slower shutter??? (big gamble here)

Explain this please... Thanks.

Rob, it confuses me too sometimes.
As far as I know... :)

Faster film is a film that absorbs more light, so you can use a faster shutter speed at the same aperture.

A faster lens is a lens with a bigger aperture, which means you can open the lens up more to let more light in, and in turn use a faster shutter speed to obtain the same exposure.

I think film/photography guys like to make up all these terms so they can secretly laugh at us video guys while we try and figure it out.

And slow is just the opposite.

Dylan,

You got it. The only slight correction is faster film does not absorb more light. The faster film (i.e. 800 is faster than 100) is more sensitive to the same amount of light. When the light strikes the faster film more chemical reaction takes place.

Given a certain amount of light the faster film will require less light for proper exposure. This results in letting less light hit the film (larger F#=less light, more DOF) or light hits film for less time (faster shutter speed, less blur, less shake from hand holding).

Faster film (more sensitive to light) is not as sharp, and the colors are less saturated and less accurate. These are generalities and should help you get the concepts.


Jeff