Canon XL-1

I do not want to shoot Trouble in HD.

I know that the XL-1 shoots in 29.97 fps. Is there any other reason not to shoot Trouble using this camera? Since most of the scenes take place outdoors, I know I can get some degree of DOF. What are the cons?

Thanks.
 
Cons: Limited color space, reduced resolution if shooting 16:9 (XL2 is native 16:9), poor manual controls with the stock lens, no true progressive mode (just simulated), no built-in LCD monitor (just the viewfinder)

Pros: interchangeable lenses (even taking professional lenses with the right adapters), good clarity compared to consumer camcorders, looks cool on set, plenty of aftermarket accessories since they've been around awhile

Do you already have the camera? Get the XL1s if you're set on the XL1. If I had it to do over, I'd have saved more and gone straight to the XL2.

You can limit your depth of field by using ND filters.
 
Last edited:
I own the XL-1 already. I shot my first movie with it. But, I had a distributor tell me to get a 24 fps camera.

I think my movie looks fine. People who've enjoyed it, don't seem to mind at all. They realize it's micro-budget. But, people who hate it can't stand the way it looks.

Thanks for the input.
 
I own the XL-1 already. I shot my first movie with it. But, I had a distributor tell me to get a 24 fps camera.

I think my movie looks fine. People who've enjoyed it, don't seem to mind at all. They realize it's micro-budget. But, people who hate it can't stand the way it looks.

Thanks for the input.

Not surprising. I mentioned in another thread that I was actually considering selling my XL1s because it's fast becoming obsolete. But I am still using it as a learning tool, and for that it works very well. The biggest thing that bugs me about standard definition (and these XL1 cameras in general) is the lack of contrast and limited color fidelity. It's much easier to remove details and compress the image than it is to add more detail. And having to sacrifice resolution when shooting 16:9 also bugs me.

I guess it depends on your editing and post production software. Is your previous movie online? What lens(es) did you use?

One thing about these NTSC XL1 cameras, the raw image definitely looks like "video" and not film. It takes a considerable amount of post processing to get anything close to a film look. But there's no way I can justify a film budget in these early stages of my skills development. I have more time than money. A PAL version would be better since it's running closer to 24fps where you don't have to drop as many frames when converting.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top