Howdy from Texas,
Pete Wright wrote...
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I take your word for everything
> you're saying. I appologise if I said something that was
> incorrect. I believe you now that both you and your site
> does not push one brand over another. How about if we drop
> that subject and get back to the business of this thread.
That sounds like a great idea to me, Pete.
> The XL2 shown at the Nwe York Expo is a pre-production model.
> Mitch found some serious problems with the image. The problems
> were vertical streaking, aliasing, and poor color performance.
> The aliasing is absolutely the most serious problem. He also
> found out that the image quality is in no way close to the DVX
> image quality. Would you please be so very kind and rather than
> telling us how great the image is, would you please find out if
> these problems, particularly the aliasing, would get adressed
> in the production models to be sold in both the US and Europe?
In my opinion Mitch Gross has no reason to mis-report or
exaggerate anything he saw. So let's take everything he
said at face value. Let me tell you right now that I have
nowhere near his experience or technical expertise. And
at no point anywhere on the web have I said anything
one way or the other about how great the image is. Also,
I am not an apologist for Canon nor do I speak for them
in any capacity whatsoever. That said, I'll address
everything you've brought up as best I can.
There were two XL2's at the shooting gallery with the set,
and a number of others on the counter. I think the most
important issue regarding the experience Mitch had, was
what were the exact image adjustment settings in the ones
he tried.
There are pages and pages of image adjustments in the XL2 menu.
For example among many other options you can get down to the
Master R, G and B levels and play with them and many other
parameters to your heart's content until the image is something
you'd never want to use. The shooting set and the counter were
very crowded and who knows how many people were cycling
through the menus and adjusting things before Mitch got there.
My question for Mitch is, did he return everything to default before
checking out the camera. Or was it already set to default (everything
set to center) when he got there. Or not. At one point I saw on one
of the set monitors some pretty ugly combinations of adjustments
which no pro shooter would ever do that some teenagers had dialed
in. Those cameras were attended by reps pretty much all the time
but it was so packed there was no way for them to clear the camera
after each person had played with it. So I want to know if Mitch saw
somebody's weirdly dialed settings as they played around, or if he
went through any of those settings himself.
With regard to aliasing, I wasn't right there to see exactly what he
saw so I don't know. The vertical height is 480 pixels. I've seen some
stair-stepping before in other DV images so maybe it's related to the
limitations of the DV format? Again I didn't see it so I have no idea.
> Were the past lenses used with this camcorder overdesigned
> for higher resolution? ... Do the old lenses have enough
> resolving power for the new pixel density?
The original 1997 product brochure for the XL1 indicates that
the first 16x auto lens resolved over 600 lines. There's no
reason why subsequent lenses would be any less than that.
I believe the black 16x manual lens (comes from the broadcast
video lens division) is even higher, but I can't prove it at
the moment.
> Progressive mode too gives about 50% better subjective
> resolution so lens performance is more important.
The key word there is subjective, not phyisical. I don't
think there's an actual difference but I could be wrong.
> Were the lenses designed for a lot higher resolution than
> 500 lines of the XL1s? Were they for instance designed for
> 1000 lines? If not, then for how many lines? The new camera
> is rated 540 lines horizontal resolution. That is 8% increase.
> The PAL version, as I already mentioned, has 20% higher pixel
> density vertically. The old chip had about 40% longer frame
> diagonal in 4:3. If the lenses were not designed for lets
> say 1000 line resolution, then will there be any new lenses
> introduced when this camera comes out.
Answered above -- 600 lines -- but maybe (slightly) higher
on the black 16x manual, I'll have to find out.
> I'm in particularly interested in a wide angle lens.
Me too. I'd like to see a wide 5x manual-focus lens.
> Will Canon and your site inform potential customers that
> the existing lenses are inadequate for the new camera?
You mean IF they are inadequate. I don't speak for Canon
so you'll have to ask them. If this is borne out to be a
fact on the Watchdog, then of course. My site has a long,
well-documented six-year history of exposing issues.
Real ones, that is.
> The old Fuji 1/3" lenses that you mention on your site; do
> they have sufficient resolution for this camera? If you're
> not sure, could you either find out their resolution,
> or have them tested, before endorsing them?
I used to own that lens. The documentation I had went with
it when I sold it. I do not recall its resolving power but
I thought it was over 500 lines, maybe 650. The model number
was the Fujinon T14x5.5 BRM4 adapted from the Panasonic AJ-D200.
I don't "endorse" anything on my site. There is no stamp
of approval or a seal or anything. A shooter sends in a
review of a lens or something and he's got his bio, his
contact info, photos and a nice article. It reads right,
makes sense, sounds good and I put it on the site. People
take it for face value. They read it and say that's cool
or they pass on it. I'm not running Consumer Reports. It's
just a user-to-user resource where people contribute material.
> Is there going to be a wider angle lens than the 3x one?
I sure hope so!
> Can you get us some actual optical tests on these lenses?
> Can you get us also the T-stops.
The strength of my site lies in the content that people submit.
I would love to have data like this. I don't own all of this gear;
I had a '98 XL1 that I sold awhile back, nobody is just giving me
lenses, and I don't have a bench to test 'em on and I'm not an
engineer. I'm a guy who likes to collects interesting data about
this stuff and share it online. If some engineer or somebody like
that has this info and gets it to me, I'll happily put it up. This is
the type data that people can use. So I'll ask for it, I'll look for it,
but I'm not qualified or equipped to perform for such tests and
besides, I have to work for a living.
> It seems pretty obvious that the older lenses were not designed for HD.
Neither was the XL2.
> Is the new 20x lens designed for a future HD model? For 720p, or what?
I have no idea. That's a question for Canon.
> The original DVX had serious sound synch problems. How good is sound synch on the XL2?
I haven't recorded anything with the camera so I can't answer to this.
> How noisy is the camera and the lens mechanism, compared to the DVX?
I have not compared the DVX and XL2 side by side yet. So I have no answer.
> What is the veiwfinder pixel count? How many by how many pixels?
The EVF is 200,000 pixels. Somebody can do the math and figure out
the vert. by horz. count. It is a 4x3 display which letterboxes 16x9.
> Is the processing 8 bit or higher? How many bits? If it is 8 bits
> and Canon feels it is on par with, or close to in quality to the DVX,
> could you please explain us the logic?
Hey, I wish I knew! This is a question you need to address directly to Canon.
I have said everything I'm gonna say about this topic, in my post at
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?...15&pagenumber=2
> Is Canon addressing reliability issues better with this new camera?
I don't speak for Canon, so ask them yourself. Without a direct
answer, I'd say it's hard to get a feeling for that until it
starts shipping.
> Why do you think that anyone should be buying this
> camcorder if the DVX seems to be significantly better?
The XL2 was clearly designed for XL1 and XL1S owners. If someone
is invested in a system built around the XL1 or XL1S, it would
make more sense for them to move up to the XL2 because the lenses,
batteries, etc. are the same as before and therefore forward
compatible with the new camera. That's what I think. Of course
there will be some XL1 or XL1S owners who will transition to
something completely different, be it a DVX or whatever. But the
XL2 is pitched to all the folks who were or are XL1 customers.
Only to them? No, to anybody... but especially to them.
Anybody who knows me will tell you that my advice to anyone
looking to buy a 3-chip DV camcorder is to try before you buy.
Do you like the pictures it makes? How does it feel in your
hands? That's what's most important. For some folks that
camera is a DVX, for some an XL2, for others it's something
entirely different.
> You are a member of this forum. Please be so extremely kind
> and answer our questions.
I have done so to the best of my admittedly limited knowledge.
> You have the Canon connections and there is no
> one who could get the answers easier than you.
Actually I do not have the Canon connections like you think
I might. I have no dialog with them regarding the sorts of
questions you have asked here. You will have an easier time
of getting something out of the product manager than I would.
My connection with them is when they ask me if I'd like to
come to a trade show and that's it. It is a one-way deal.
They call me, not vice versa.
> I'd really appreciate your reply, even if
> it is in bits and pieces over period of time.
Here it is all at once. Hope this helps,
Chris Hurd
DV Info Net
www.dvinfo.net
San Marcos, TX
