Greetings!

Just thought I would create a new thread as canon released the specs for the XL2 today. Here are some useful links for those interested:

http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20040713_xl2.html

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=10350#f11

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=10350

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=10350#f11

Looks like it is a direct challenge to the Panasonic AG-DVX100A with interchangable lenses, higher res, and some extra pro features.

Nice, i dont see a price tag on it.

*cough*5k*cough*

Most likely going to cost a lot, but it cant be too high if it wants to compete with the Panasonic. I personally love my panasonic (i'm probably biased). I'd like to see some captured images with it (unless im missing them).

I like the panasonic better as well and 5K just seems like far too much for what I see as marginal improvements. The shots I have seen from the camera look a lot like the XL1s - not a bad thing but it isn't a great leap forward like many were expecting. It also seems to utilize a smaller area of the CCD than the XL1 (except in 16:9 mode)!

Yes Zen, I went on the site an hour or so after I posted this.

Panasonic has a huge price range for cameras that seem to be simular.

I still want to know if the home version that was 699 with the 3CCD and claims to have 16:9 ratio is decent for someone starting off.

is it true 16:9 or is it just going to squish your basic 4:3 (720x480?) to a letterbox or even crop it to simulate it.

My guess is that in about 5 years all video cameras sold in your basic video store will be HD 16:9 since the 4:3 is on the way out.

I was watching QVC today because my wife loves to buy crap off of it and we were looking at a HDTV projector and a 9 foot screen (I forgot the name of the screen type but they claim its the top of the line) anyways it would be nice to view home movies in a true theatre atmosphere.

I presume you mean $699 3chip panasonic? If so then I think you must be talking about the PV-GS70. It's a good camera for the price but it doesn't have true 16:9 (no camera in this price range will).

The Sony DCR85 has true 16:9 widescreen... not sure about a USD retail price on that guy, though.

The XL2 looks promising, but until it's roadtested, I'd go with the dvx100a.

On amazon, it is listed at $4,999.99 USD

Yeah it seems to be priced that way everywhere. Seems a little high to me but I'm waiting to get my hands on some good footage before writing it off :)

lowest i've seen is $4500

Where at Indie?

oops, i was wrong.

No worries :) I do that all the time ;)

If I were to get this AG-DVC7

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/images/models/ag-dvc7.jpg


even though it doesnt have 24P built in, it does have 680,000 pixels vs the 450,000 the more expenisve cameras have, Im wondering could you post edit the scenes and crop them to a 16:9 ratio since its a higher pixelation? high pixels means larger resolutuion doesnt it? if not then please explain.

Also it has a lower min LUX it says 1 vs the 3 the other cameras have more expensive. doesnt this mean candle light? so the lower the number the lower the light?

I watched something about Lucas films wanting to digitalize all theatres so that higher end cameras that record in 2 million pixelations can replace more expensive 35mm film. But they said its still sometime away before the required 8 million pixels can be comparable to the 12 million particals found in true film.


anyways my question is is this any good? I dont know if there is a 35mm wide angle but i did see a 44mm one for it for 180 bucks.


this camera is listed in the proline catagory. But its designed for 4:3 but says it has a cinema (letterbox) mode. but I dont know if this means it squeezes it down.

Can someone tell me the difference between 16:9 letterbox, 16:9 digital squeeze.

Wow I was under the impression that the DVC7 was a VHS cam for some reason. Guess not!

More pixels should mean you have room to crop. LUX is indeed a measurement of candlelight. The lower the better :)

Having 24p capabilities isn't a necessity (thankfully). If you like the 24p motion signature you can always mimick it by using a "posterize time" filter. While this won't give you as nice of results it's not bad and is certainly an alternative to deinterlacing.

I'm not entirely sure how 16:9 squeeze mode works. Supposedly it's better than letterbox (which just crops the image).

...don't all 16:9 modes technically crop the top and bottom?

There is no true 16x9 mode for NTSC, since all NTSC is 4x3. But some cameras squeeze the resolution from the black areas into the picture, so you are not wasting resolution on dead space (black bars). If it is a simple crop, then your image area is a lower resolution then if you were to use 4x3.

Oh...but doesn't that actually end up looking worse because everything would be short and wide (ex: people would look fatter and shorter and unproportioned)?

No, the ratio doesn't change. The image just borrows resolution from the black areas. I'm sure someone can answer this better than me. I'm not a video guy ;)

Logan, yes it would be fat like you mention. It is necessary (I believe) to strectch the shot out in post just as you would with an anamorphic adaptor lense.

What I'm not certain about is how it borrows from the black areas... that seems to defy logic.

I agree...if that happened....God would explode.

If you wanted to fit 2.35:1 (Panavision) onto 35mm film, you would shoot with an anamorphic lens, and project with an anamorphic lens. With video, I'm sure it's similar, but Shaw, Sonnyboo, or directorik will know exactly how it's done. Maybe they will chime in. ;)

I have a Canon XL2 question to ask. I've been looking at lenses for my camera. since I have that zoom lens it came with it makes it quite difficult shooting in tight places. It looks like there is a ton of lenses to choose from. I have seen the wide angle lens that screws on the current lens, but I don't know if should just hold out and save money for one of the canon lenses. I can't afford to go out and get one anyways, but it would be nice to know what is recommended if I some how win the lotto next wednesday ;) (hahaha wishful thinking) thanks!

hit up ebay for canon xl lenses the 3x wide is a great lens to widen out the shot a bit. I'm not sure if there are any drawbacks to using the addon lens compared to the replacement lens other than that it adds more glass which eats more light.

It's also usually a bit more likely to get vignetting, but in some cases that's not strictly a bad thing..

I know for still cameras there is a a huge difference between modestly priced wide angles and the uber-spendy ones -- specifically in regard to the speed of the lens, and amount of vignetting. (the more expensive models being faster and having less respectively)

I'm sure it's quite the same for lenses that work with the various video cameras. But, a lot can be done on a shoe-string budget, and a lucky ebay find or two. ;)