XL2 Finally Released!

[Paul Smith]

Give it a rest Mr. Hurd. We don't want to hear it here. We are industry professionals here and we have seen it before. These are our forums, not yours. We have the right to express our opinions here as we see it. We all know who you are and what you do. You work for Canon. You get paid by Canon. Don't insult our intelligence by attempting to make us think that Canon did not assist you to create the XL2 Watchdog or that Canon does not or has never sponsored your site in any shape or form. We know marketing when we see it. Go back to the dog house.

[Guest Pete Wright]

DV Info used to have Steve Mullen, PhD, who writes for Video Systems to moderate their HDV Forum. People like Chris Hurd basically chased Steve away, after using him.

 

So Mr. Hurd, if you have something to write to me or if you want me to remind you how biased your board is, feel free to email me, or leave me a message at this board.

 

You get to other boards and make totally unquailified statements how beautiful picture JVC HDV camera has. You are not doing any service to people who need help, not hype about your sponsors', or potential sponsors' products.

 

Your name says it all "DV Info" and you bragged about buying couple domain names with HDV in it. We don't like either of these formats here. Although I check your site occasionally, I would not even care about becoming a member or post there ever.

 

Pete

[Chris Hurd]

Pete Wright:

>

> DV Info used to have Steve Mullen, PhD, who writes for Video

> Systems to moderate their HDV Forum. People like Chris Hurd

> basically chased Steve away, after using him.

 

You don't know the full story. There are two sides to everything. Why don't you ask our HDV forum members for their take on it. To this day I push people to Steve's site and he's named in our Top HDV Resources section. Most of his customers probably come from us. He left us on his own terms and is welcome back at any time.

 

> You get to other boards and make totally unquailified

> statements how beautiful picture JVC HDV camera has.

 

When and where have I ever done that. Quote one single instance with an exact reference please, like I asked you before. Wait a minute... am I constantly pushing and promoting JVC or was it Canon? You haven't brought up my surreptitious Panasonic activities yet. Is that next?

 

> You are not doing any service to people who need help, not

> hype about your sponsors', or potential sponsors' products.

 

It would seem that about 10,880 people (as of today) would disagree with you there.

 

> Although I check your site occasionally, I would not even

> care about becoming a member or post there ever.

 

I'll just have to struggle along without you then.

 

Paul Smith:

 

That's a pretty ugly attitude. I am owned and operated exclusively by myself. Canon ran an ad on my site from June through December of 2003 just like they did on DMN, Creative Cow, 2-pop and ten other web-based publications. So what. Cinematography.com has a sponsors link at http://www.cinematography.com/advertising/ -- how is that any different. I would never assume Google Ads owns this board. Your hostility towards me is baffling. You're invited to my accountant's office at any time to review my books, if that's what it takes to clear your understanding.

 

Chris Hurd

San Marcos, TX

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't see what was in Chris' post to get so upset about. I've met the guy and he's a decent chap. He's never been exclusively about promoting only Canon and I've read fairly detailed criticism of Canon's products by him. If you are interested in Canon's cameras, he's definitely one guy to talk to about the details.

 

One cannot work for long in any industry and remain product or manufacturer agnostic. I try... but look at the fact that I've only shot Sony HD, not Panasonic's. Look at how much more Panavision I have shot than Arri. Look how many DP's only shoot Kodak, not Fuji. Look how much Fuji I have shot instead. It's something that just happens because people like some consistency in their lives.

 

Chris formed an early connection with the Canon XL1, which is not surprising -- we all remember the hype and excitement among indie people over this camera. It's still the only consumer video camera I believe with interchangeable lenses. Chris made the effort to start a Canon user website so now his name is associated with Canon. Canon knows this and has him out there at some expos to talk about their cameras. If Sony asked me to be on a panel to discuss using the F900, I'd oblige. If I were an F900 owner, perhaps I'd start a website with advice on using it. That wouldn't necessarily make me Sony's puppet, not if I said whatever I wanted to say about the equipment.

 

I check out Chris' site now and then when I'm curious about details regarding new DV cameras. Since I don't own a DV camera, I'm less involved in the DV user forums other than occasionally at DV.Com, and that's only because it's small and slow enough that I can glance at it quickly and jump in if I feel like saying something. Same as with 2-Pop. DVInfo.Net is just one too many DV sites for me, a non-DV user, to hang out in!

 

I'm just amazed at the instant hostility towards Chris. His connections to Canon seem pretty upfront and obvious. It's a little different when an owner/operator goes out and talks about the product, even does some promotion for the company by talking about it, versus a paid employee.

[Stas Tagios]

I agree with David. Why all the hostility toward Chris and his forum? As an occasional poster to the dvinfo.net's DVX-100 board, I find Chris's forums to be educational and low on hype.

 

So what if there's pro Canon material in the forum? A lot of people like the XL1. The XL1 Watchdog began as an informational site about the XL-1 and a forum for users of the camera. And when I'm interested in info about the XL1 or its successors, that's where I go, just as I post regularly at DVXuser.com because the DVX is the camera I use. It's not like Chris is taking pot-shots at any non-Canon cameras or claiming anything non-Canon is worthless.

[Chris Hurd]

Thank you, David and Stas, I really appreciate that. David, I hope to see you again at some future event, perhaps DV Expo West in December if you're there.

 

Panasonic brings in Noah Kadner to help out at trade shows because he knows their camera line and can talk about it to people on a user to user level. Canon USA was smart enough to have me come in and do the same thing. I don't "work for" Canon any more than Noah works for Panasonic. Often these marketing departments just don't have the proper perspective of how to effectively communicate with their potential customers. There are only a few very rare exceptions such as Jan Crittenden with Panasonic, there are far too few industry people like her. In Canon's case, they flesh out the booth with filmmakers, videographers etc. who can speak about the gear in user's terms, warts and all. That's why Mitch Gross said above that he had to find a "real Canon employee." A lot of those shirts are just brought in for the day.

 

I've done the same thing at trade shows for Canopus, who makes good use of that kind of "temp help" program -- users talking to users -- and I've done it for VariZoom Lens Controls, Professional Tape and Communication Supply, and others. It's a great way to meet people, which is the best part of any trade show.

 

Chris Hurd

San Marcos, TX

[Guest Pete Wright]

Chris,

 

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.

 

Would you please be so extremely kind and would get us answers to the following questions. I'd really appreciate it, and so would other members of this forum, whose member you are.

 

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?

 

Were the past lenses used with this camcorder overdesigned for higher resolution? The reason I ask is that the older chips were 1/3". The new ones are less than 1/4" of effective pixels, in 4:3 aspect ratio. When it comes to 16:9, the pixels are just as crowded. In the PAL model, the vertical pixels are crowded additional 20% vertically.

 

The PAL chips are about 800 K pixels; the older NTSC, and possibly also the PAL ones (I'm not sure), were about 300 K pixels, I think, for the same surface area. Do the old lenses have enough resolving power for the new pixel density?

 

Progressive mode too gives about 50% better subjective resolution so lens performance is more important.

 

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. I'm in particularly interested in a wide angle lens.

 

Will Canon and your site inform potential customers that the existing lenses are inadequate for the new camera?

 

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?

 

Is there going to be a wider angle lens than the 3x one?

 

Can you get us some actual optical tests on these lenses? Can you get us also the T-stops.

 

It seems pretty obvious that the older lenses were not designed for HD. Is the new 20x lens designed for a future HD model? For 720p, or what?

 

The original DVX had serious sound synch problems. How good is sound synch on the XL2?

 

How noisy is the camera and the lens mechanism, compared to the DVX?

 

What is the veiwfinder pixel count? How many by how many pixels?

 

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?

 

Is Canon addressing reliability issues better with this new camera?

 

Why do you think that anyone should be buying this camcorder if the DVX seems to be significantly better?

 

You are a member of this forum. Please be so extremely kind and answer our questions. You have the Canon connections and there is no one who could get the answers easier than you.

 

I'd really appreciate your reply, even if it is in bits and pieces over period of time.

 

Thank you very much,

 

Pete

[Chris Hurd]

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

[nykvist_fan]

I can vouch for chris; his site is top-shelf.

[Guest Pete Wright]

Chris,

 

Thank you very much.

 

My conclusion is that only the new 20x lens is sharp enough for the new camcorder, with its a lot more dense CCD's and progressive scan. The lens is not wide enough. It has a normal through extreme telephoto range. It does not have true mnaual focus or zoom rings with markings.

 

The XL2 is good mainly as a replacement for XL1s. If someone already has a bunch of accessories. For anyone else the DVX is the camera of choice. It is less expensive, has a wide angle zoom range and better picture than XL2.

 

If Canon fixes the aliasing picture defect and comes out woth a new wide angle lens, then this camera would be better than the DVX. If someone could test the existing 3x wide angle zoom, it would be nice to know if it is sharp enough for the new camera.

 

The PAL DVX is the way to go, especially if someone wants to shoot wide format. The reason is that there is not a good enough anamorphic adapter available for the camera.

 

Juan made a conversion of the DVX with uncompressed output. This conversion should be commercially available soon. Anyone buying the DVX for indies should consider this conversion; The significant image improvement has already been documented.

 

I hope Juan makes the conversion on the PAL model, and also on the new Canon. If he succeds on the new PAL Canon, we'll have near HD uncompressed quality, although from 1/3" CCDs. If the Canon lenses are not good enough, maybe the 35 mm adapter and 35 mm lenses would give better results.

 

All this helps me better understand what camera I want. Hope it helps to others.

 

Thanks again to Mitch for checking the camera at the expo and to Chris for answering my questions.

 

Pete

[Guest Pete Wright]

The old lenses are not sharp enough for the XL2.

 

The old lenses supposedly resolve 600-650 lines.

 

XL1s resolves 500 lines. PAL version needs min. 600 line lenses. This is the limit of the old lenses.

 

The new Canon XL2 resolves 540 lines. There is also extra roughly 40% factor for the smaller effective CCD area/higher pixel density. There is another 20% factor for the PAL model, again because of higher vertical pixel density. So the new lenses must resolve min. 900 lines, for the PAL camcorder, throughout the zoom and T-stop range.

 

900 lines is the bottom limit. Better resolving lenses would naturally be better.

 

Pete

[Jeff Donald]

Pete, I don't think you can just add 40% plus 20% and multiply by 540 lines to determine the needed resolution. It just doesn't work that way.

 

American Cinematographer reviewed the XL1s and did several lens tests with resolution charts etc. They determined that several lenses had superior resolution (the two manual lenses, if I recall correctly). I think it may be safe to say the two manual lenses should be adequate for the XL2. They are what an idie would wnat to use anyway, for the extra control. The 16x stock lens (white lens that came with XL1) is weak on the new chips, hence the new 20X. The 3X wide angle show the limitations of the DV format. Detailed WA shots (landscape) are not very crisp. But it is a fairly well corrected lens and if used close shows suitable resolution on the old chips. Until the new camera ships I'll reserve judgment. Wide angle is particularly troublesome on the DV format. The Leica lens on the DVX shows too much barrel distortion at the wide end when used on interiors (at least my clients say so). I would go so far to say that there isn't a good wide solution on for the DV format, except wide primes on the P + S Technik mini 35.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The new Canon XL2 resolves 540 lines. There is also extra roughly 40% factor

> for the smaller effective CCD area/higher pixel density. There is another 20%

> factor for the PAL model, again because of higher vertical pixel density. So the

> new lenses must resolve min. 900 lines

 

How do you figure? The image is not 900 lines in either dimension - on the PAL model it's probably higher vertically than horizontally, and it's only 576 lines vertically. I'm sure it'd be nice to have good sharp glass, but I'm not sure how relevant your figures are even if your maths were correct, which it isn't.

 

Phil

[Guest Pete Wright]

Hey guys,

 

Here are the PAL calcs explained better:

 

800 KP 1/3" chips, 415 effective KP in 4X3 (720x575 pixels)

 

Nearly half the area of the CCD is wasted. The lens has to resolve more in this small area than it had to in a larger area of XL1s chips. Why more? Because full 720x576 pixels are available. The old chips did not have full format resolution.

 

The camera resolves 540 lines horizontally. In PAL the vertical pixels are 1.2x denser, so you need 540 x 1.2= 648 lines resolution. You have to add 40% to that resolution because you no longer cover 1/3" chip, but a significantly smaller area. 648x1.4=907 lines resolution is needed.

 

This does not mean that the camcorder resolves 907 lines; it means that the lens needs to resolve that much on a 1/3" chip. The smaller effective area of the chip will cover 648 lines, which is needed because of denser vertical lenses in PAL. For NTSC lower resolution would be sufficient.

 

Now, just because a camcorder resolves 500 or 1000 lines does not mean that 500 or 1000 line lens would be sufficient. 2x resolution would be even better. That's why you get sharper picture if you use HD lenses on SD cameras.

 

So I say, 900 lines is the absolute minimum. Would Canon 600-650 line lenses cut it? Of course not.

 

Now what Jeff Donald tells us is that the 3:1 wide angle zoom lens is not sharp even on XL1s. What that means that there is no wide angle lens available for the system. If that lens was not sharp on a 1/3" chip, it will be a lot less sharp on a smaller effective area chip.

 

The new 20x zoom has widest setting 42 mm in 16:9 and 52 mm in 4:3. I believe that these are 35 mm still camera lens equivalents.

 

You have a camera that has a normal through extreme telephoto lens. Period. Nothing for wide angle. Can you shoot a movie with such a system? Of course not.

 

During the calculations you have to go by vertical effective pixels, which are denser, and especially so in the PAL model.

 

Pete

[Jeff Donald]

Pete, don't put words in my mouth, please. I did not say the 3X lens is not sharp on the XL1. I said detailed landscapes are soft. And I said this is true of all wide angles on DV cameras. The 3X WA is fine on interior shots and close-up. I will reserve judgment on the 3X lens and the XL2 until I can shoot with it and can determine if it is suitable for my needs and the needs of my clients. I would think you would want to do the same.

 

Your method of determining needed resolution is flawed. You might want to search Google for Nyquist theorem and DV resolution and you'll find some excellent articles and discussions that should aid your understanding.

[Guest Pete Wright]

The 3X wide angle show the limitations of the DV format.  Detailed WA shots (landscape) are not very crisp.  But it is a fairly well corrected lens and if used close shows suitable resolution on the old chips.

Jeff,

 

Are you the Jeff from DV info, the neutral and impartial board of Mr. Hurd?

 

Here's a simple explanation. The old camera actually resolves only 460 lines, when tested. It uses 1/3" chips. Let's say the lens has adequate resolution for the old camera. I am aware that you are talking about the NTSC model.

 

Now, with PAL model you need 20% better resolving lens bacause of denser vertical pixels.

 

The new camera is using less than 1/4" effective pixel area of the chip, so, as I said, you need 40% more resolving lens.

 

Th horizontal resolution of the new camera is 540 lines. The vertical pixels are denser on the PAL model by a factor of 1.2.

 

The lens needs to resolve 540x1.2x1.4=907 lines.

 

Now a lens that is OK for 460 lines line resolution will not cut it for 907 lines.

 

In addition to that a lens that would resolve 2x as much (1,800 lines) would give you a better picture, naturally.

 

So again, the only lens that may be suitable for this camera does not have wide angle range.

 

I think it's enough that DV Info is misinforming members that the old lenses are OK for the new camera. Please, Jef, Chris, and whoever else, keep that type of information to that board.

 

I'm done talking to you about this. If you can't do the math, don't tell me to look up how to do it elsewhere.

 

Instead of misinformation od DV info that the old lenses are fine on the new camera, why don't you post on that board that they are not.

 

Pete

[Chris Hurd]

Pete Wright:

>

> I think it's enough that DV Info is misinforming members that

> the old lenses are OK for the new camera. Please, Jef, Chris,

> and whoever else, keep that type of information to that board.

 

The information I have posted so far is that the XL2 is backward compatible with all previous XL lenses. They fit. They work. I have provided field-of-view equivalents and other data. As to how they actually perform, that will bear itself out as the camera is used and I, like any other intelligent interested party, will wait to see what the real-world results are before passing judgement.

 

> I'm done talking to you about this. If you can't do the math,

> don't tell me to look up how to do it elsewhere.

 

I am finished with you as well, which I'm sure will be a relief to this board's readers.

 

> Instead of misinformation od DV info that the old lenses are fine

> on the new camera, why don't you post on that board that they are not.

 

Because I don't know that to be true, that's why. Real-world empirical experiences are the only final arbiter, not confused math proferred by someone who has not touched the camera. Because I do run a neutral and impartial board, I am waiting for real evidence one way or another before making any such proclamations. Thankfully, unbiased and inquisitive persons not shrouded with a hidden agenda will do the same. I look forward to hearing from them.

 

Chris Hurd

DV Info Net

www.dvinfo.net

San Marcos, TX

[David Mullen ASC]

As a cinematographer, I've never had much use for a lot of this sort of data, like MTF, RMS granularity, etc. I put a lens on a camera and look at the results and see if I like it. If it has to go to 35mm, I transfer it to 35mm and look at it projected and see if I like it. These numbers games can only take you so far unless you want to become an engineer, not a filmmaker.

 

Cinematographers make choices all the time that technically "lower" quality, like use a diffusion filter, use an older lens, shoot wide-open, shoot through smoke and dust, play with extreme exposures, use softer, grainier film stocks, use smaller negatives, etc. Sometimes we start with the best possible tools and degrade to taste and other times we deliberately (or have no choice) work with inferior tools and work to make them seem better than they are, or use their lower qualities for artistic effect.

 

All this to say that I don't really know the numbers for any lens because all I care about is how it looks when I put it on a camera and start shooting with it and I can't tell that by studying a chart. If you want to know if the lens on the Canon XL2 is better than the one on the DVX100, then shoot a comparison test. Shoot some real world examples too.

[Guest Frank Miller]

Hi,

 

I'm a long time reader, and today first time poster.

 

Pete, you should get your hands on the camera before making these statements. How can you compare this little consumer camera to Varicam?

 

I don't know if any of you here, besides Mr. Gross, had a chance to check the camera at the DV Expo. I went there and spent couple hours checking the camera. I own Panasonic DVX100A and Canon XL1s and I did bring with me the Canon wide angle zoom and manual 16x zoom.

 

This is what I found:

 

Mr. Gross is correct of the serious aliasing in the demo footage and when I tested the camera itself. Panasonic DVX100A is a better camera and does have better picture quality. It also has better low light performance, better controls, handles better, has a sharp lens with nice wide angle range.

 

When it comes to Varicam, I used it once to shoot a music video and I must tell you that there is a big difference between DVX and Varicam picture quality. No one should even try to compare these two cameras.

 

XL2 picture improvement over XL1s? It exists, but it's nothing spectacular.

 

This is what I found out:

 

The new zoom lens is very nice and very sharp, but does not have wide angle range.

 

The two existing Canon lenses don't seem to be sharp enough. I did check the camera in both wide screen and normal modes. Actaually the sharpness was a little worse in the normal mode. Still, even in the wide mode, the new zoom gives you sharper picture.

 

I disagree with Mr. Gross about the color. It's well adjustable.

 

Would I recommend this camera to anyone? NO!

 

Pete, you can't do some theoretical comparison going by specs and formats, and try to do some wierd calculations. You need to put a camera and lenses through actual testing. It's the only way to check their performance.

 

Pete, sorry if I'm harsh, but this is reality that you gain with experience. Could you please tell me what is this Juan's DVX modification you're talking about, where can I read something about it, and where can I get it done? Does it void warranty?

 

Have a nice day,

 

Frank Miller

[Guest Pete Wright]

Frank,

 

The DVX modification is done by some engineer, Juan something. He discusses it on the dvinfo forum. He is close to finishing up the project. He somehow gets into the A/D converter and gets out 12 bit 4:4:4 signal.

 

I don't know if it would void the warranty. He does it cleverly so you can probably detach it and Panasonic will most likely never find out about the mod, should you send the camera for service.

 

Pete

[ranichols]

I recently joined this forum, and find the discussion very useful. I'm in the market for a 24P camcorder; main interest is "filmlook" dramatic productions, but also interested in other commercial uses for survival.

 

The Panasonic DVX and Canon XL2 discussion is particularly interesting since they seem closest to the tool I can afford.

 

The issues raised are in line with areas I'm concerned with when choosing this equipment. From what I've read here, my comments are:

 

I feel Pete Wright has a valid point about lens resolution, but also agree with David Mullen's advice (that the proof is in the pudding, i.e. the end result).

 

Numbers aside, Pete's argument rings true from a relative standpoint. It would seem inevitable that the same lens projecting on a smaller, denser CCD is going to have its resolving power sorely tested. It also will behave as a more "telephoto" lens since less of its field will be mapped onto the imaging device. Generally speaking, smaller CCDs would be more prone to noise (all other things being equal), which can translate to poorer low-light performance.

 

But if for some reason the difference is unnoticeable or unobjectionable (for instance, if video compression is the limiting factor), then it doesn't really matter, David Mullen's point. These systems are so complex that sometimes integration engineering can get improved results where the components would lead you to believe otherwise.

 

That being said, the Canon configuration with a smaller, denser CCD would make me think twice, and I would look very hard in the area of resolution and low-light performance. You almost wonder if it was done just to get the "native 16:9" label.

 

To me the "math" is useful in making you look harder at the subjective results. The math may be telling the truth but you just don't see it until you hit that one situation where the theoretically compromised design lets you down.

 

A particularly subtle area is low-light performance. Resolution charts should be used to compare products in the low-light range, because so many electronic tricks can be used to suppress noise, sometimes at the expense of resolution (pixel combining, for instance).

 

Then again, maybe you never shoot in these borderline cases, and that last dot of resolution is not important compared to getting the story, lighting, sound, etc. right. If one camera helps you get the big picture easier than another, that may pay off more than some small technical advantage. Personally, though, I'd rather add my own distortion, rather than have it forced on me.

 

 

Just from the comments posted here, the Panasonic DVX seems attractive in the areas of:

 

- cost

- wider angle zoom

- maybe low light performance

- maybe video "quality" in certain circumstances

 

The killer feature of the Canon seems to be:

 

- interchangeable lens (if you can afford the extra lenses).

 

 

That's from a movie-making perspective. A news gatherer would probably much prefer the more telephoto Canon.

 

 

On Juan's DVX modification -- I'd be interested in what kind of hardware is required to capture that video stream.

 

 

-RAN

[David Mullen ASC]

It would interesting to couple the XL2 with the P&S Technik Mini-35. I've heard you can use it with the DVX100 but I assume it requires pointing the permanent zoom lens into the apparatus. I would think this would be less sharp than removing the lens and focusing the image onto the CCD, but I don't know. Not that I think that the P&S Technik will get you a sharper picture, but it's an interesting toy for DV shooting to create more of that shallow-focus look, and it may work better on the XL2 than the DVX100.

[Guest Pete Wright]

Hey guys,

 

Juan's modification. I am not sure what hardware would you need. Maybe a hard drive or a laptop.

 

The Canon image has serious aliasing. Both Mitch Gross and Frank Miller said it.

 

35 mm adapter for the Canon is the same as the one for XL1s. There is a macro lens between the adpter and the camera. This macro lens may not be sharp enough for the new camera with its smaller CCD's. In Panasonic's case the Panasonic's own lens is used and it is sharp.

 

The Canon will cost you about the same as 2 DVX's, because you need to buy the wide angle zoom lens, which may not even be sharp enough.

 

I would not buy the Canon.

 

Pete

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I have closely examined and worked with both the Pro35 and the mini35, in the "aim the existing zoom at it" mode. The kind of almost-complete-transparency you get with the Pro35 simply does not exist with the mini version; it's horribly soft and flarey. I'm just rather pleased that my first experience focus-pulling in a 35mm-alike situation, remote for Steadicam no less, was on a very low resolution format!

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

Pete--

 

I think you should really reserve your judgement on the XL2 until you test it for yourself. Comments posted on internet forums and spec sheet stats are like trying to decide if you like a recipe by watching someone else make the food on a cooking show. It may seem a good idea and you may believe that you're getting a complete picture, but there's nothing like trying something out yourself and deciding how you feel about it. I've been told that my comments have been reposted to various boards across the Net, and I'm rather surprised. I'm just one guy, and there had to be thousands of people who checked out the XL2 and the demo at the Canon booth during the three days of the DV Expo last week. Don't take one man's opinion and check it out yourself.

 

Please take this the best way, but I think you tend to jump to conclusions a little hastily. You were so up on the XL2 and now you're so against it. You posted comments about another forum and some other instances where I think you might be typing before considering what you're saying. Again, please don't take offense, but I think you should take the time to gather more information to properly evaluate concepts before rushing to a conclusion.