OT: THE Canon XL2 !!!

mark2929 wrote on 7/14/2004, 3:19 PM

Some good points there ! Perhaps as an Amatuer I and many people Might say its not fair.. I cant make a proper Film... Excusing Myself and Blaming the Big Companies for making the equipment I percieve as Professional ...As unreachable.... Even if it is only perception After all how much would we be prepared to pay for a car ect.. Perhaps you are right to a certain extent a Good well made Film will always be in demand and even if it Isent your Potential may well be seen.... However even though I agree with your thoughts... I still feel to Optimise the Picture quality is" For me " Better...

MUTTLEY wrote on 7/14/2004, 3:19 PM

Why the XL1 ( or 2 ) over DVX100 ? Don't like the style of the DVX100. Hate the foldable LCD screens, to me they look armature and I suspect they do to clients as well. When I bust out the XL1 it always impresses the client. Interchangeable lenses, and I do have the wide angle. Optional BLK/White CRT viewfinder, which I have. That's the reasons I went with XL1, others have already listed the reasons to go with the XL2.

And to me HD just isn't ready for primetime IMHO. I'm with ya in that I do look forward to the format going mainstream, but its just not. Most stations aren't HD, most TV's aren't HD, most DVD players aren't HD. Not a whole lot of selection in cameras in the prosumer price range either. Not to mention the added expense of tapes and the need to upgrade my system to handle the format when editing. Now don't get me wrong, I have an HDTV and the box and the stations that are HD are frigging phenomenal. But for cryin out loud, the fact that I would have to make so many adjustments and couldn't even give my clients a copy on DVD that they could watch just makes it pointless for me at this time.

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Jay Gladwell wrote on 7/14/2004, 3:21 PM

Maybe I should just wait a while but I could do a lot of stuff meanwhile with the JVC even though it gets the badmouth.

James, as I said to Mark, I don't think the camera matters, for the most part. Just like some drive Chevy's and others drive Fords, some shoot with Panasonics and others shoot with Canon's. My clients, for example, don't really care what I use to shoot their projects with, so long as it tells their story or illustrates their concept.

I think too much press is given to "technology" and not enough to content. Ansel Adams proved years and years ago the very thing I'm talking about. When I was in college, all of us photography majors thought, "This 35mm camera sucks. If I could only use an 8x10 view camera like Ansel Adams..." and you know the rest. Fact is it's not what's in the hands, but what is between the ears and in the heart that really matters! To prove his point, Adams took a shoe box and built a simple, crude, pinhole camera. With that camera and a single sheet of 4x5 negative film, he created a stunning photograph--a real work of art--that only Ansel Adams could make! Yes, tools are important, but talent is an absolute necessity.

Getting into pissing contests over cameras and formats is really pointless, in my opinion. You didn't do that, I'm just making a statement.

Jay

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/14/2004, 8:36 PM

The Canon XL2 manages 24p quite nicely. They have 2 modes;
2-3 and 2-3-3-2. Captured a buncha vid into my laptop here at DV Expo, quite impressed with this camera.

Grazie wrote on 7/14/2004, 9:27 PM

. . Spot, you need anybody to carry your luggae at any time . . I'm yer man! - I'd do it for free too! . .. Now where did I put my "Swag" bag?

Grazie

MUTTLEY wrote on 7/14/2004, 9:51 PM

For those who are interested:

Review Of Canon XL2

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Spot|DSE wrote on 7/14/2004, 10:05 PM

Here is a quickie image I captured into Vegas from the XL2.
The woman is about 50' away, using stock lens. All manual settings, set to 24p, 2-3-3-2 mode. Captured into Vegas, native 16:9

http://www.vasst.com/images/Canon 2-3-3-2 mode.jpg

Grazie wrote on 7/14/2004, 10:25 PM

yeah yeah yeah . .that's me just right of the lady . .can you see me . .I'm there waving!

Neat 16:9 . .. looks as sharp as my XM2 . . How come you got one on YOUR lap!?! Spot .. How DO you do that? . ..

Spot is on the Ball again! . . Thanks

Grazie

Grazie wrote on 7/14/2004, 10:27 PM

That IS the first I've seen .. .

Grazie wrote on 7/14/2004, 10:39 PM

Hey PALlies, just seen this over on the DVinfo site from Jim Nicholls, "The PAL version has 960X576 pixels which is pretty good. This means it will acquire at higher resolution at 25P than NTSC at 24P. I wonder if the Indie filmakers will rush the PAL model." . .. coooo .. . interesting, n'est pas?!?!

Grazie

farss wrote on 7/14/2004, 10:56 PM

Grazie,
me thinks that doesn't make much sense. DV25 in PAL either 16x9 or 4:3 is still 720x576. Now for certain its good that it doesn't use less pixels in the vertical direction in 16:9 than it does in 4:3. That puts it ahead of say the PD170. Then again there's plenty of single CCD cameras that seem to use many more pixels than the XL2 but at the end of the day it all gets interpolated down to 720x576.
The other good thing with this camera is being able to shoot 25p, that does give you a boost in vertical res as there's no line averaging, only downside is more noise / less gain.

Bob.

farss wrote on 7/14/2004, 11:00 PM

Given that it boasts cine gamma that seems very odd.
Guess they had to leave something for the DVX100A.

MUTTLEY wrote on 7/14/2004, 11:03 PM

Jez Grazie, could you have been a little more specific ? Gave myself a headache trying to findja in the pic. Worse than a " Where's Waldo " book.

For those who couldn't find Grazie on their own :

FOUND GRAZIE

Thanks for the original Spot, only served to confirm what I already suspected ... I need an XL2. Anyone who wants to make a donation can do so through Paypal !!!

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Grazie wrote on 7/14/2004, 11:04 PM

Here yah go Bob, see what he says to your observations ..

Grazie

farss wrote on 7/14/2004, 11:32 PM

Grazie,
at the end of the day I'm certain there'll be millions of heated words exchanged on various forums around the planet about this and every other new camera that comes onto the market.
As I've said many times it's not what you shoot it with that matters it's what you shoot. Outside of controlled test environments all prosummer cameras take video of remarkably similar quality, I think at the end of the day you should just pick the camera you like the feel of. They're all so good now it's a bit like buying a new car, the market is so competitive no ones building lemons.

Grazie wrote on 7/14/2004, 11:50 PM

Understood .. . .

I'm just putting together some ideas which include some of my artwork - from PsP - combined with some Roalyty free GoTrax .. . none of this stuff has sen the inside of a miniDV cassette! HAH!

.. .But yeah, I liked the feel of the XM2, right price, had a set of extras I could spend my money on. I 've completed several projects that have paid off the cost of the kit. The finished products have been taken and applauded by the clients .. 'suppose it don't get any beter than - yeah?

.. However ,,, I'm looking for a "mate" to my XM2 . ..

Grazie

MUTTLEY wrote on 7/14/2004, 11:51 PM

Grazie, you skipped right the hell over my last post didnt you ? =P

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

Grazie wrote on 7/14/2004, 11:56 PM

Forum=Open Discussion ... . er . .. what did I do this time?

Grazie

edit . . don't be so bleeding defensive Grazie!

Grazie wrote on 7/15/2004, 12:00 AM

MUTTS you ARE the B E S T . . .I am not WORTHY . .

.. . LOL lol lol lol lol . . .. .. .. E x c e l l e n t . . ..

doah .. . I'm touched .. love it too much!!

. .g

MUTTLEY wrote on 7/15/2004, 12:00 AM

whew, thought I did that for nuttin !
Glad ya liked it buddy. =P

- Ray

www.undergroundplanet.com

mark2929 wrote on 7/15/2004, 1:18 AM

But The Canon has the widescreen Mode... With the Panny you still have to buy the Anamorphic lens..Bringing the Price right up.. Even with this the widescreen mode on the Cannon IMHO IS Going to trump the Panny by some considerable degree... IT was a shame the Quantization Is only 8 Bits Though... I would have thought this would be a priority in the Film Look....

farss wrote on 7/15/2004, 1:57 AM

Not that I own either of them BUT the Panny will shoot 16:9 out of the box. Downside is, like say the PD170 etc you'll loose vertical res, but you'll pick it back up again if you shoot in progressive scan. Plus for the XL2, you can get both happening.

mark2929 wrote on 7/15/2004, 2:11 AM

farrs Am I missing something ?

http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html#16x9

Edit
Yep its called a Brain... Sorry must be getting tired the Later version adds Anamorphic..

mark2929 wrote on 7/15/2004, 2:34 AM

This is my take so far

So both have XLR 48 Volt Phantom powered sound Both have 24p And both could be adapted for the Mini35 Both have extensive Onboard Adjustments ect So all thats left is

Canon has A Higher Pixel Count and better wide chip Although Im not sure this is usable when its Downloaded to the Hard Drive/Vegas ...Certainly wouldent If transferred to DV Would it be Usefull If transferred to Betacam ?

The Panny has 10 bit Quantization Smaller Size and Lower Price...