XL2 Finally Released! , Looks like it was worth the wait Options

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

>20 Mbps at 24p

Yerm... okay, you're using the same figuring that got 40mpbs for the Varicam at 24p, if you extract the frames. There is or should be some duplication of information in a 25 megabit NTSC stream containing 24p material, although the DV codec is not field-based so there may be some differences depending how you extract the fields. I suspect in most circumstances this will be correct though.

Use the PAL version!

> But theoretically speaking, where would 720p 19 Mbps HDV, with 960x720 pixels
> fit? Would it be closer to the XL2, SDX?

You are making the common mistake of confusing tape formats with cameras. You can shoot 16:9 25 megabit DV on an XL2, or you can do it on an SDX-900. The pictures from the SDX-900 will piss all over the pictures from the XL2. There are concrete reasons for this - mainly better CCDs, in that the XL probably has about 500 lines resolution, below that which the tape format is capable of recording, whereas the SDX-900 undoubtedly advertises 750 or 800, meaning the DV image gets slightly supersampled.

So, it's impossible to answer where "720p 19mpbs HDV" would be in relation to the SDX-900 or XL-2, since HDV is a tape format and the SDX-900 is a camera.

Now if you actually want to consider where -a specific HDV camera- would come in the lineup, you can do that. Generally a HDV camera will have at least the potential to record finer detail in some parts of the frame than the SDX-900 would, although the signal is so compressed as to mitigate this a lot - plus, the SDX-900 is an absolutely superb standard-def camera with excellent CCDs, and most of the existing HDV range are either handycams or bargain-basedment, let's-shoot-this-and-call-it-hi-def-news ENG cameras. Personally I'd shoot with the SDX.

But just to reiterate, you can't just say "XL2 is a 16:9 25-megabit standard def camera and so is a DSR-570, so they're capable of the same level of quality."

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

It's a tough call these days in NTSC-land: shooting 24P-to-60i or 25P-to-50i. You get another 100 lines of picture with PAL but you have to deal with the 25 fps rate, which affects audio, and you have to work with PAL equipment in an NTSC land. The convenience of shooting NTSC may outweigh those 100 extra lines of resolution.

I have a future project that may involve the Sony 25P IMX camcorder, but now Sony has a 24P-to-60i XDCAM version.

Don't have an answer. In an ideal world, you'd shoot both, transfer both to 35mm, project the results, and pick which camera to buy.

Currently, it's still not guaranteed that you can distribute a film digitally even to just Los Angeles and NYC. I've shot some small HD films (New Suit, A Foreign Affair) that tried to do that and the deals never came through and they were forced to do a transfer to 35mm anyway. But certainly you can hold digital screenings yourself and go to film festivals and project digitally there. Anyway, it's sort of moot because should you find a distributor, they'd probably give you the money for the film transfer (taking the costs out of what they are paying you unfortunately.)

Don't get too caught up in technical hair-splitting. You have a great script, a good cast, direct it well, light and compose and edit it well, etc. it really won't matter if it is 576/25P or 480/24P or 4:1:1 or 4:2:0. Don't wait for future HDV technology to come out if you are ready to make a movie now.

Something better ALWAYS comes along later. You can't let that freeze your decisions. On the other hand, you don't need to buy everything to make a movie until it is time to make the movie. Then again, I don't recommend anyone invest in a bunch of gear and then try and make a feature film without making a bunch of shorts and taking them through the whole chain. I also don't recommend buying everything necessarily, not if you live in a major city and have the money upfront to make the feature. It may make more sense to rent the camera and do the shoot in one short intense period rather than stretch it out over months of weekends. In other words, get a DVX100A or XL2, make some shorts to learn, and then when it comes time to make the feature, rent an SDX900 or Varicam or F900, etc.

[Guest_Pete Wright_*]

Hey guys,

Thanks a lot for the input.

I just found out that the 8 bit processing info on XL2 is erroneous. It is unknown at this point how many bits it is.

How do you change the audio pitch of a film shot at 25p? Is there some cheap software to do it easily? It seems that in our digital age all you would need would be to click on a 24p pitch change icon and the NLE will do it for you in no time. Or is it more complicated?

To tell you the truth, if I was shooting my film and I had a choice between PAL XL2 and NTSC SDX, at the same cost, I'd take the Canon. I would have to get a DP for the SDX. It would certainly scare me. It just looks too complicated.

I can learn with the XL2, make shorts, just like Dave said. Then sometimes in the future, after my first film, I would just shoot Super 16, if I had the money. I would not even bother with HD. But then again, in the future HD may cost what DV costs today and it may be just as easy to use.

How about a $5,000 lightly compressed 10 bit 1080p camera with a 35 mm chip, Nikon mount, image stabilization, auto focus, slow motion, 4-channel sound, wireless diversity receiver for microphones? Can anyone predict how long would that take to happen? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? My guess is 10.

Pete.

[David Mullen ASC]

I actually find pro camcorders a lot easier and simpler to use the consumer cameras. They are laid out more like a movie camera -- i.e. a manual lens with an f-stop ring, a focus ring, zoom ring. A manual filter wheel that puts in ND or the 85-ish filter. You can take any pro camcorder and turn it and and be shooting within minutes without reading the manual since they are all so similarly laid-out, unlike a consumer camera which vary wildly by manufacturer. I spent ten minutes once just looking for the friggin tape eject button on one palmcorder...

Just because a pro camera comes with a 100 pages of menus doesn't mean you have to USE all of those options. To tell you the truth, I don't even know what the settings were on the F900 I used to shoot my fist 24P HD feature, "Jackpot", were. I just used the set-up that the rental house had put into the camera. I basically turned it on, shot some quick lighting tests, transferred it to film, saw that it looked fine, and shot the movie.

On the other hand, my attempts to use consumer cameras for infomercials and short films have been a nightmare just trying to do basic filmmaking, like a slow dolly into a close-up with a continuous manual focus adjustment. Those cameras are really designed for running around handheld with them like a tourist, not for classical narrative filmmaking styles. A pro camcorder also has problems in this regard but nothing like a consumer camcorder.

Actually I don't see 35mm-sized chips being popular for consumers, whether in a digital still camera or a camcorder. The average consumer doesn't want 35mm-style depth of field - they want small and lightweight and easy to focus more than anything else. It's only the semi-pros and serious amateurs that want that and they'll pay more for it. Any consumer 1080P camcorder that comes out will probably have small CCD's. The large CCD's will be for the pro cameras. The functions you describe, except for auto-focus, are more for professionals so the cameras made for that market will be priced more than $5000 probably.

[Mitch Gross]

Just checked out the XL2 at the DV Expo in NYC, and I must say that I'm severely UNimpressed. It has alias issues like crazy and the color space seemed very poor, with faces mushing into flat pink or orange fields. I didn't see much in the way of solid blacks with the contrast looking very compressed in general. There wasn't any video noise, but I could easily see gridding from the small pixels. And Canon's "pixel-shift" technology gave it that "nothing's really sharp" look, at least to my eye. They had a demo running that really didn't do them any favors. Some 30p arial shots of NYC aliased so bad that it was very distracting. And a sequence with a police car at night had obvious vertical smear on the flashing lights of the squad car -- how eighties!

I could really see what I'm guessing were some of the issues of an 8-bit sampling v. the DVX100A's 12-bit. I walked over to the Panasonic booth and Jan Crittenden had a fun time telling me all about why her product was better (and I wouldn't expect anything else from her). According to Jan, the way that Canon uses their chip, the 16:9 area they utilize is almost the exact same size as the DVX100A's 16:9 when letterboxing. And when the Canon switches to 4:3 the image area is smaller than a 1/4" sensor.

But forgetting sensor size, I simply saw so many DSP issues that I'd seen solved so long ago in other cameras that I was quite stunned. The DVX100A looks so much better IMHO. Canon has improved on the XL-1s, but not by much. Certainly not enough to interest me.

[Mitch Gross]

Oh, and the story coming out of Canon now where they're backtracking on the 8-bit and saying it's "third-generation technology" so they don't really KNOW what bit rate it rworks at is utter BULLSHIT. There's no way anyone could have written any code for that camera if they didn't know the bitrate. Nothing would function. Note to the Canon reps at the DV Expo: Everyone else was laughing at you over this one!

I will say that the new color LCD viewfinder was a big improvement over the old one, but that's not really saying much now is it? And the image lagged like crazy when I panned or zoomed. The new 20x zoom appeared okay but I didn't really get a chance to properly put it through its paces. I could tell that it lost at least a full stop if not two on the telephoto end.

Again, I was NOT impressed with this camera. I'd sooner buy the DVX100A even if it were priced more, instead of $1500 less. Resolution is not the only measure of performance, not by a long shot.

[Guest_Pete Wright_*]

Mitch,

Thanks. You saved me again from getting serious about getting some BS camera. The first time it was one of the independent HD cameras being created. So what should I buy? I guess I'll wait for some new improved HDV model. I don't want the DVX and can't afford the SDX.


David,

Thanks for the lesson. Expensive cameras look scary. But like you say, the consumer camera are so unlogical to operate that the pro cameras are probably just as easy to learn, unless you want to learn all the functions, which is not necessary. I would still learn them though.

Pete

[Guest_Pete Wright_*]

I have a question about the DVX. Is there any good anamprphic adapter available for it? I read somewhere that the ones by Panasonic and Century Optics either don't focus close enough or don't zoom wide enough without vigneting. What is the story on it, please? How much better performance do you get with the anamorphic than with the DVX letterbox mode?

Thanks,

Pete

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

As far as I know all of the optical widescreen adapters affect the wide end of the zoom and close focus, it's just a case of degree. This will get worse as the size of the front lens element increases.

Phil

[Jason Rodriguez]

The DVX mod (dvinfo.net) uprezzed in a program like S-Spline looks very good IMHO. You might want to wait for that, as it'll give you 12-bit information to do all you CC'ing on, etc. Much more information and latitude that HDV.

[David Mullen ASC]

I haven't tested the anamorphic adaptor for the DVX100, but assuming one can stand all the workarounds on the shoot in regards to what parts of the zoom range you can use, I would think that an anamorphic adaptor always in theory would be worse optically than using the zoom without it. However, you gain vertical pixel resolution over cropping and stretching (whether in post or in-camera as with the DVX100A.)

So I would guess that the look of the anamorphic adaptor footage would be "smoother" (more pixels) but not necessarily "sharper". So it just depends on your tastes as to which picture you preferred.

[Guest_Pete Wright_*]

Hi Jason and Phil,

I was following a little that DVinfo stuff but don't post there. It's too technical for me. It's all computers. The problem with the DVX is that you need an amamorphic adapter and the ones available for it are supposedly bad.

What may be more interesting is Juan making the modification to the XL2. The 960x720 chips may be OK but Canon somehow screwed up the image with their processing. Since Juan gets the image before processing, it may be a nice camera, when he's finished. But it too will need an anamorphic lens to get all the pixels, otherwise he can use only 960x540, when he wants to get out 16x9 picture. But uncompressed 960x540 may look as well as compressed 960x720 that Varicam puts out.

I just realize that 960x540 is 1/2 of 1920x1080 resolution. If he used the PAL model for modification, he would use 960x648 pixels in 16x9 aspect ratio. The PAL chips have more pixels. F900 records 1440x1080 pixels, which is about 1.6x higher resoltion. The PAL XL2 mod would be nearly as good as Varicam.

What do you think of the coming up cameras with the Altasans chip? Will they be able to create a nice workable model? $5,000 for 1080p is not bad. Hope someone figures out how to make an HD 35 mm adapter for it.


Mitch,

Could it be possible that the XL2 you were testing had maladjusted settings? During a show like that everything is possible. Before you handled the camera, so did 1000's of others. There is a sharpness control and if it's up, it may give you aliasing, I think. The color setting could have been off too.

Pete

[Guest_Pete Wright_*]

David, Thanks. I just noticed your post. Pete

Jason, I just realize that if Juan did the mod on a PAL DVX, he would get better resolution in the wide mode. Do you think that his mod can be used with the PAL camera? Pete

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

I'm rather impressed with the electronics hyper-nutball who's extracted the pre-decimation 12-bit RGB out of his DVX100. That's a rather impressive feat (although actually maybe it isn't, since he's just sucking it into an Adlink PCI test card, which isn't really a very practical way to work in the field!.)

'course, what we really need is for Ms. Crittenden to encourage her employers to release the source code for their AT90S microcontroller implementation which runs the DVX-100, but I imagine the likelihood of that happening ranks alongside that of Michael Moore voting Republican.

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

Pete,

I played with three different XL2 cameras at the show and grilled some of the staff there (some are just hired camera ops or editors working the booth so you have to know or learn who to ask). I went through all the settings on the cameras and knew exactly what was happening and where. I also saw many of these issues watching Canon's own presentation tape, which one would think would be designed to put their best face forward. Don't show me aliasing and vertical streaking here guys!

Canon had a "test studio" set up with a lit manniquin in a little dressed set. But it was lit very carefully to perhaps a three stop range--of course the picture will look okay there! First thing I did was spin the camera around to point up the escalator and out the window of the convention hall to judge how it handled mixed color and highlights. You should have seen how quickly the Canon rep tried to stand in my way! Move it lady!

Again, tech specs are one thing and actual performance is another. You would be surprised how well the DVX100A does simply letterboxed to 16:9. I've seen footage shot this way then uprezzed to HD and the results were very impressive, far more than I ever thought they deserved to be. Nancy Schreiber shot "November" this way. Should I ever do a 35mm filmout from this camera I would look into the adaptors but I would seriously consider the simple letterbox as well. You may be quite pleasantly surprised with the image quality.

Remember, resolution isn't everything. I'd take a really well-performing SD camera over a poorly performing HDV camera any day.

[Guest_Pete Wright_*]

Mitch,

Thank you. That's what I needed to know. I think Canon should stick with making lenses and still cameras. I never thought much of their cameras but then this new camera was supposed to use DVX technology.

So the best way to go would be the DVX, probably the PAL version, and hopefully with Juan's conversion, unless Juan converts the XL2 any time soon, which he won't, or Sony comes out with a decent prosumer progressive camera, which they won't, or JVC comes out with a 720p 3-chip camera and Juan converts it, which will not happen soon at all or they screw up the insides so no one will be able to convert it.

What happened to the law of supply and demand that I learned in college? You have bunch of guys making their own cameras, converting cameras, making adapters to get more shallow DOF. The damand is there. The supply does not care. It does not sound like free market economy to me.

Unfortunately your tests Mitch, which are the most valid, will not make it to any magazines, so people will be buying the Canon based on some tests that will favor the Canon, because Canon will pay for ads in those magazines, or will sneak a free camera to the reviewer that they already know.

Conclusion: Camera manufacturers are making cameras we don't want and then make us believe that they are something that they are not. Can't wait to see all the great reviews of the future Sony 1080i 25 Mbps HDV camera, and the JVC $40,000 (with lens) HDV camera. I hope the Kinetta works better than Sony F900 and Sony will not sell any after the Kinetta comes out. I hope that those $5,000 cameras that the independent manufacturers are working on will work great and JVC will not sell any of their $40,000 HDV cameras. I hope Juan's DVX and XL2 conversion works and Sony will not sell any of their $7,000 1080i HDV cameras. That would wake them up -- no demand for $40,000 HDV and $130,000 (with lens)8 bit cameras.

Pete

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

Bear in mind that the F900 is really intended to be an ENG camera, to shoot NHK's hi-def news. I'm sure they'll sell a bunch of them - or at least the slightly cheaper F750 - to that market irrespective of what motion picture production does.

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

Pete--

You need to remember that the people who add various adpters and alterations to the existing cameras represent a very small portion of the market. Sony sold Hundreds of thousands of PD150 cameras. That's an awesome number when you step back from it. Just how big do you think these markets are? To compare, Sony has so far sold around 500 F900 cameras (yes, that's five HUNDRED). After 30 years manufacturing and selling various 16mm cameras, Aaton is I believe just approaching their 5000 unit. So 200,000 PD150 cameras is one hell of a good run. And I'm sure that the XL1 and XL1s have sold similar numbers for Canon. So while for you and me the camera may be inferior and not worth the investment, Canon is going to sell plenty of the XL2 to those looking to upgrade from the XL1s. There's your law of supply and demand. If there were more people like us in the market level that we describe then there would be more product for us in that market. Manufacturers are competing with one another and doing it as fast as they can to make the most profit. This is what canon could do and you know what I think of it.

[Guest_Pete Wright_*]

The following was posted at the 100% pro-Canon forum, where Canon is being costantly pushed and promoted by the "independent" forum operators as the best:

Very interested in seeing the real world tests of the 12 bit vs. the 8 bit.

Cinamtography.com's forums have some pretty negative statements about the camera, especially dealing with this issue;
http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...opic=1611&st=30 Check out Mitch Gross's post.

It also makes me wonder why people want HDV so badly, considering that is a 4 bit color space. And with side by side comparisons that I have shot with a PD170 and anamorphic adapter next to the JVC HDV camera, and with the DV being blown up to HD and with zero color correction, the PD170 blew away the JVC in color fidelity. The skies actually looked kind of pink with the JVC.
__________________
-Jonah Lee


Mitch came out with the fact that Canon XL2 1/3" chips are actually less then 1/4" chips in 4x3 mode.

I guess more peple noticed, so in another forum someone started defending Canon. They gave examples of other cameras being even less than what's claimed by Canon.

I supose it goes like this. The Canon is advertised as 1/3" camera but less than 1/3 is used for 16:9 and less than 1/4" of the sensor is used for 4x3. The Canon has optical image stabilization. If electronic stabilization was used, then the ratio of advertised and actual image used would be even bigger, on a more dense chip.

There are some new 1/5" and 1/6" cameras. So maybe they are more like 1/10 and 1/12" cameras. I wounder if they need autofocus at all. If they do, then maybe 2 steps would be enough: One step from 5' to 10' and another from 10' to infinity.

Pete

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

Pete Wright wrote:
> The following was posted at the 100% pro-Canon forum, where
> Canon is being costantly pushed and promoted by the "independent"
> forum operators as the best

I own that site. Show me one single post I have written out of my 5700+ history where I am pushing and promoting Canon as the best. The most consistent advice I have ever given to any of our members there, is to always try before they buy, and that the right camera for them is the one which feels best in their hands.

I would not have spent the time and effort creating the single largest Sony PD 150 / 170 message board on the planet, or the world's second largest DVX100 / 100A community, if my goal was to simply promote Canon. My site grew out of its original form, the XL1 Watchdog from over six years ago, to encompass now the entire range of prosumer or semi-professional DV production and post production areas of interest. Since it has its roots in my old XL1 site, it tends to attract more XL1 (and now XL2) folks, which is only natural. Please explain to me, using examples of my posting history there, exactly how I am constantly pushing and promoting Canon. I have looked through my consumer-level Panasonic DV/MX series forum, the largest in the world, and can't seem to find any instance where I'm talking people out of Panasonic and into Canon.

My site does not pretend to compete with the clearly higher professional level of discussions here; I don't attract cinematographers of David Mullen's caliber nor am I intending to. But I would not expect to find someone here talking trash about my boards or how I run them, when this person has never met me, does not know me, and makes sweeping assumptions about what I do without substantiating them, especially when the most cursory glance through my boards reveals that even at our shameful little prosumer/semi-pro level, we would never tolerate such garbage from our members about other similar communities on the web.

Canon USA will be the first to admit their chagrin about how neutral my XL2 Watchdog site is. If you'd read it for yourself instead of bashing it, then you could see how true that is. I'm an accessible guy and I'm at just about every major trade show and event in this industry, so if someone has a problem with what I'm doing on the web, I sure wish they'd come up and talk to me in person and tell me. That hasn't happened yet after years and years of doing this, so I'm having a hard time understanding Pete Wright's point of view. Many thanks,

Chris Hurd
DV Info Net
www.dvinfo.net
San Marcos, TX