Jay Gladwell

Visit this site for loads of information on the XL2. It should help. www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/index.php Jay

What you do in post will have a far greater impact than what you do while shooting. What NLE will you be using? Jay

Ben, yes that will certainly provide the shallow DOF, but it, like the mini35, would be impossible to use for handheld work. Now the Guerilla 35 is another story! Jay

Sid, I'm not sure I understand what your question is. Are you asking about sync? If so, that will not be a problem. The sound will be recorded in sync with whatever frame rate you use. Jay

Perhaps not at first glance, but, Dave, all I can do is describe what I see. True as that may be, that's not the issue of discussion here. I couldn't agree with you more. Frankly, I don't understand why more don't embrace the medium and accept it for what it is. Well shot video, in my opinion, has a beauty all its own. Jay

Hi, Dan! Yes, you were able to achieve a shallow depth of field, but there are certain tell-tail traits that tell me it's video. First of all is the ever-present "dingy-film" over the entire image that all DV seems to have. This flattens the image. It lacks what I call "the sparkle" that film has. This can be corrected by adjusting the color curves ever so slightly. On my monitor, the image looks too green. This could be caused by any number of things--camera, lens, lack of proper w/b, etc. Then again, maybe that was your intention. The image appears to be incredibly soft (too much ProMist?). The angle of his nose reveals what appear to me to be scan lines. Nice as it is, it is obviously a video image. Jay

Yeah, Charlie, I think I could. Not to be critical of you or your work, but all of those images you posted are "soft" and they lack the resolution of film. Too, the lack latitude is obvious, especially in the shot of the girls sitting next to the water. Oh, what the heck. I'll take your challenge, not because I have "golden eyeballs," but because I think there is a difference and it would show in a side by side comparison between video and a 35mm still. In fact, I'll contribute an example myself--we both can! I'll shoot some object around the house here, no need to go downtown, with video. I'll be using an Canon XL2, 16:9, 24p (2:3:3:2), unless you'd rather I use some other setting. Then I will shoot a still of the same object using a Nikon 35mm camera and Kodacolor negative film. This might even be fun! Jay

Stephen, what brand of 500 speed film do you use in your XL2? ;) Jay

I stand corrected. It's been over 25 years since I read the article in A.C. magazine. So forgive my bad memory. Still, I have serious dobuts that the same can be accomplished with the XL2 under the same conditions. But I could be wrong, as Dave has proven! Jay

The lenses were not limited to 35mm, but used on an Arri 35mm camera. Those lenses were especially designed for the film, with a T-stop of 1! Very fast, very, very expensive! They also used a fast film. Too, they had more candles than you could imagine to light the set. Shooting with video, you will have to create the "illusion" of shooting in candle-light. Jay

Actually, the best thing to do would be to play the tape on one XL2 and recording it onto a second XL2 using the same 24p setting. Jay

Just checked... The deck needs to support 24p as well.

Just a guess, but could it be because the deck isn't capable of recording in 24p? Or is the general thought that the deck is simply recording 0s and 1s?

The rain slicker will not keep out the sand and grit. You'd do better with an underwater housing--but that will be very awkward. Your lens is not going to be near the issue your tape transport will be! THAT is where you're going to run into trouble. The lens is sealed, whereas the tape transport area is wide open--literally! Keeping the sand out of there will be your biggest single challenge. If it were me, I'd rent a camera. I would not subject my XL2 to that kind of environment!!! Jay

Paul-- Here's another one you might consider. I own one, don't use it much, though. www.dvcaddie.com/index.htm Interested in buying one, let me know! Jay

Hi, Matt-- You ask ten guys, you'll get ten different opinions. Rather than talk about it, I "tweaked" your image to my preferences, had I shot this. Jay

Without having read the other replies and at the risk of repeating what's been said... First of all th FX1 isn't true HD, it's HDV and that carries with it a fairly high compression. Too, there is no way to deliver HDV--no HD DVDs yet, and when they are available, they will be very expensive! So what's the big deal? I would argue the point about the XL2 being "outdated." Nothing stays new or cutting edge for ever--not even HDV! By the time HD is the "standard," like SD has been, I'm confident that the format and/or how the HD image is achieved will have changed for the better, hence, rendering the FX1 and like cameras "outdated." Jay www.gooddogproductions.com

Bob, is right. Luckily, the XL series allows you to turn off the "auto" and shoot in a "manual" mode where you can control each element--speed and f-stop. Jay

Wow, a voice of reason in a wilderness of useless prattle. Thank you Mr. Mullen! Jay