You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Wow, Xl2

Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 2:51am

Post 1 of 39

Clapter

Force: 0 | Joined: 17th Aug 2004 | Posts: 48

Windows User

Member

Wow today I was at the store and they had an XL2. I played with it for 1 and a half hours. Oh my god, that camera is incredible. As soon as i saw it I fell in love. I wish it werent 5 grand but phew! If anyone is lucky enough to own one of these, I'd love to see the results.
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 3:00am

Post 2 of 39

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

OK, and.......?
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 3:28am

Post 3 of 39

wdy

Force: 1700 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1258

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

He's basically giving his a opinion on the camera... as well as seeing if anyone else has seen or had the oppertunity to use it...

I have not held a Canon XL2, but i'm hearing many great things about it over at DVtalk forums. If there are dissapointments about the camera from purchasers it would have to be the HD feature... too bad it wasn't something included. I hope to try and test out an XL2 as I may consider one for my Spring project, although 5 grand... sound a little much for it in my opinion. I might look towards the new Sony HD.
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 3:29am

Post 4 of 39

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Is the Xl2 the US equiv of the UK XM2?

If so... that's what er-no has and uses for our films, very nice camera indeed.
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 3:37am

Post 5 of 39

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

No that would be the GL2 I believe.
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 4:03am

Post 6 of 39

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I just purchased my XL2 today. I purchased it at a Best Buy in Dayton Ohio, and they don't keep cameras that expensive in the store so I will be recieving it in the mail within a few days straight from Canon. Plus, it being the day after Thanksgiving I got 500$ off. I would encourange everyone to buy theirs from Best Buy, their support is amazing and it's not too pricey especially when you are dealing with taking care of a 5,000 dollar camera. I will post a small review of the camera when It get's here if anyone is interested.
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 4:08am

Post 7 of 39

wdy

Force: 1700 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1258

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

pooky wrote:

No that would be the GL2 I believe.
Correct.

feelthapain wrote:

I will post a small review of the camera when It get's here if anyone is interested.
Post some footage too smile
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 4:17am

Post 8 of 39

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

wdy wrote:

Post some footage too smile
Will Do. smile
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 12:24pm

Post 9 of 39

Klut

Force: 2120 | Joined: 16th Apr 2004 | Posts: 1585

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The Xl2 looks ..... can't find a word for it, though as said, very expensive. Whould rather go for the Xm2 or mabye the Xl1, aint' that pretty much the same?
Posted: Sat, 27th Nov 2004, 8:53pm

Post 10 of 39

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I guess it just depends what you are looking to get out of the camera. Im mainly getting it for the quality of the picture, the 24fps, and the cinelook customization. It may not do it all, but it does quite a bit to take some of the load off of you in post production. I was told about the new HD camera that was 3,400 (I believe) and although it's HD it only has a single CCD. The salesperson I spoke to at the Best Buy works in video production and he uses 3 XL2's for his work. He had an internship on the film "Traffic" and he was explaining how some of the shots in that movie were shot on digital. He approved the XL2 over the HDV. Theres no comparison with the price. If I wanted a good HDV it's going to cost me a little more then what I am willing to put out. Which at the time was 5 grand. So, If your stuck on HDV and have a limit close to or around 5,000. You couldn't really purchase a HDV camera better then the XL2 for that price. That's just my 2 cents.
Posted: Sun, 28th Nov 2004, 8:59pm

Post 11 of 39

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You'll have to compress the footage. Which completely defeats the purpose of us seeing it...


I'd love to see footage... but it won't be great if it's compressed. That looks like a NICE camera....
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 1:43am

Post 12 of 39

MovieGuy334

Force: 560 | Joined: 18th May 2003 | Posts: 172

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

he could post full res tiff pictures of frames that he has captured and maybe a five second (compressed to a zip file version) clip of full res video. That would be awesome


Ps. Could you post a picture of ONE thing shot with both the 4:3 standard ratio mode and the 16:9 mode so we can see the difference

thanks
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 1:44am

Post 13 of 39

Mr Anderson

Force: 230 | Joined: 17th Dec 2003 | Posts: 57

Windows User

Gold Member

Best Buy, hmmm?

I've been looking for a place to buy an XL2. I'll definately check that out.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 4:21am

Post 14 of 39

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Would still prefer an XM2 for filming with.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 4:35am

Post 15 of 39

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Screw the XL2 and screw buying new MiniDV Cameras. Go out and get yourself a new Sony HDV (pro/con)sumer camera, they have the best resolution available for the money and cost 2000 less than the XL2 in the case of the Sony FX1. I will never buy another MiniDV camera, and neither should you. Like er-no said if you are looking for a cheap solution to your needs get a GL2/XM2 until you get enough money for an HDV camera

Canta unsure
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 7:41am

Post 16 of 39

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Hmm...canta...gl2 definately isnt the best minidv cam for the money...HOwever..the fx1 is damn sweet. 3ccd Highdef pretty much smokes any minidv camera ever made...the JVC hd1 feelthepain is speaking of sucks, and the lux rating is 25. The lux on the sony high def is 2. Needless to say, i cant imagine why someone would buy an xl2 when, like canta said, the sony could be bought for 2 grand less..
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 7:45am

Post 17 of 39

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryce I'm glad that you agree with me, but could you please show me a MiniDV camera as good as the GL2 for 1700 bux which is what I bought mine for.

Canta unsure
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 8:06am

Post 18 of 39

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Holy crap...
thats a good deal. last time i checked about a month ago, gl2's were around the sony vx2100's price range. If 1700 is the price, then nevermind
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 1:57pm

Post 19 of 39

Klut

Force: 2120 | Joined: 16th Apr 2004 | Posts: 1585

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Not sure what HDV is, this is the first thing I found http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-hdv-prototype-camcorder-03_17_04.htm

That camera looks sweet.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 2:01pm

Post 20 of 39

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

HDV is ok, but its still not a great editing format. It needs to move to a medium with more bandwidth than DV. The XL2 is a great camera with a fantastic set of features and a great CCD - better than all these consumer HDV cameras so far.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 2:06pm

Post 21 of 39

ssjaaron

Force: 1545 | Joined: 11th Jan 2003 | Posts: 1115

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

well personally i am in love with the xl2. becuase i have a first hand account of using it. let me exlpain. my uncles friend was over and he is a really rich guy, and he bought an xl2 for family videos. lol. but any way, he brought it over during thanks giving. and i held the beast and i dont know what you guys are takling about that camera is amazing. the quality, the depth perseption. i really did fall in love. now i will be saving my money for 8 mounths as a janator at foot hill elementry. i really want that camera
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 3:14pm

Post 22 of 39

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Schwar you must not have read up on the new Sony HDV cams. They kill the XL2 in every way imaginable.

Consumer Sony HDV
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=27823

Prosumer Sony HDV
http://www.creativemac.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=29230

25MB/second is a lot higher bandwidth than MiniDV, and the XL2 doesn't shoot in 1080i, only 720p.

Somebody argue for the XL2 after reading about the new HDV's.

PS: I'm not talking about that crappy JVC HD Camera

Canta unsure
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 3:37pm

Post 23 of 39

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

I suggest you read up on MiniDV then Canta... 25mb per second is the data rate of MiniDV and HDV (this is megabits per second not MB or megabytes as you put in your post) wink .

The new HDV cameras uses MiniDV tapes and storage (then even say this in the reviews you've pointed us at) but uses a different codec - although its a good codec they have to use loads of compression to store the image data of much the larger image (4 times the pixel data) in the same amount of space as regular NTSC footage. This is why HDV (which isn't real HD which uses 50mbps for 720p and 100mbps for 1080) isn't that good for editing and multiple recompression. I think even the Microsoft super compressed HD codec needs about 40mbps to get DVD results. This is the main reason the images coming off these cameras at the moment aren't that great.

The XL2 on the other hand has more custom controls than any of the consumer HDV cameras at the moment and a better quality CCD setup (even if it doesn't have the same massive resolution). If you want a good broadcast quality HD camera it needs to be DVCPRO50 (50mbps) minimum. The XL2 gets much nearer to broadcast quality NTSC/PAL than the HDV camera gets to broadcast quality HD and even when interpolated down to NTSC/PAL the HDV footage will still suffer in many ways compared to the XL2. This is why many smaller TV stations are running out to buy XL2s and not HDV cameras (and because of the XL2's extensive professional features).

The more professional Sony camera looks pretty interesting and I expect the 720p results are pretty fantastic - will have to find one and take a look next year some time. Until then the HD stuff I've seen about and the footage I've been sent off these cameras (got some off the JVCs and the sony fx1) hasn't really convinced me - unless I was filming strictly for HD viewers I would go with the XL2 for now. What I'm waiting for is to get to a point where we can get 50mbps on a consumer deck then maybe HDV could start getting the quality it really needs.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 4:23pm

Post 24 of 39

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I think the main problem is that since most consumers nowadays use minidv, people don't want to try to throw a new format at them when they've already been used to that.

I would be very interested in using one of Sony's new HDV cameras, but I'd worry about disk space more than anything. It's obviously going to be a lot larger than average minidv footage.

I think it'd be worth a shot to rent one of these things, test it out, and see how well it performs. What bothers me is that all the footage from these cameras that they have online are all handheld "look at my home video footage!" stuff. I'd like to see some more cinematic stuff with real lighting and all that.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 4:25pm

Post 25 of 39

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

The footage would be the same size as DV footage unless you change its codec.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 6:10pm

Post 26 of 39

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I've seen full quality video off of Sony's new HD cam. There is no comparison to the XL2. It simply blows it, and any other NTSC or PAL camera, out of the water.

These days, the ccd chips in nice cameras ALL put out nice pictures. picture quality is no longer an issue. Richness of color, or quality of contrast aren't different enough between something like a GL1 and an XL2 to warrant paying the extra couple grand. What we have to deal with now is resolution, and that's where the HD camera (obviously) wins out.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 6:50pm

Post 27 of 39

Crawford

Force: 260 | Joined: 5th Oct 2003 | Posts: 162

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

I would be very interested in using one of Sony's new HDV cameras, but I'd worry about disk space more than anything. It's obviously going to be a lot larger than average minidv footage.
At least one package for capturing HDV (HDConnect?) can capture down-converted SD video for editing. Once you have everything the way you like it, you can recapture the HDV and apply the same edits to it.

Still, the temporary files and output are likely to be HUGE, and the rendering SLOW.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 7:10pm

Post 28 of 39

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

but the picture quality makes up for it.
Posted: Mon, 29th Nov 2004, 9:11pm

Post 29 of 39

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Again, i dont really understand why anyone with experience with video and has used sonys new HD would say that the xl2 is superior....

I suppose its because alot of people on here are canon-whores
biggrin
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 2:53am

Post 30 of 39

Godfather

Force: 0 | Joined: 24th Nov 2004 | Posts: 13

Member

schwar wrote:

The footage would be the same size as DV footage unless you change its codec.
Don't these HD cameras operate on proprietary formats that only select software can read anyway? If that's the case then you'd have the change the codec in order to manipulate the video.
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 5:19am

Post 31 of 39

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

... What would you edit the FX1 footage on?
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 10:46am

Post 32 of 39

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

You can edit it on lots of software now (FCP would be the way I would go), but its slow and doesn't react well to recompression. The HDV stuff i've experiment with so far isn't that great for compositing either.

I'm all for the move to real HD and high resolution but it don't like the idea of the massive compression which HDV uses - seems like a half measure. What we need is a new standard to replace MiniDV (which will happen sooner rather than later) at which point all these HDV camera will look a bit poor. HDV seems a bit like Digital8 to me really.
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 11:29am

Post 33 of 39

tmaynard

Force: 450 | Joined: 15th Aug 2003 | Posts: 164

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

It seems to me if I am wanting to edit the footage on my comp and have the ease to know that I wont have any problems with software. I would have to stick with the XL2. This will be the very first MiniDV camera I own. My previous camera was a Digital8.

In my case and probably many others, I don't see a problem with the XL2 at all. It has been said it is the only MiniDV cam that looks good on HiDef widescreen TV's so the quality has to be pretty good. It may not be HDV, but it's still a good camera.

How I see it, Is by the time my XL2 gets old, HDV will be more popular and will have some better compatibility with editing software and what not. Then I will purchase a HDV. Until then I need a camera... and I can't really wait for the HDV, unfortunately.
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 4:46pm

Post 34 of 39

Underdog Productions

Force: 1235 | Joined: 1st Dec 2003 | Posts: 106

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Does anyone know what Once Upon a Time in Mexico was shot on? Been reading this debate so i re-watched it. there's no mention on the commentary which actual camer it is
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 4:53pm

Post 35 of 39

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Its real HD, not HDV.

The cameras where DVCPRO100 (or similar) as far as i know (like Star Wars uses but not Lucas modified) - thats 4 times the bandwidth of HDV to store the same information. The difference between the quality of HDV and real HD is much greater than the difference between DVCPRO broadcast cameras and a semi-pro MiniDV camera.
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 5:04pm

Post 36 of 39

billy3d

Force: 2678 | Joined: 3rd Jan 2002 | Posts: 1273

Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I keep saying this but...
Why does not someone just make a "capture direct to harddisk" solution? It'd be great to capture all the video onto a portable firewire harddisk, plus we can capture HDV well in the firewire benchmarks.
Posted: Tue, 30th Nov 2004, 5:13pm

Post 37 of 39

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Yep, as long as people used some nice shock resistant drives it could be sweet - we've just been *designing* such a camera in chat. It had 1GB of memory as well giving you time to swap your 200GB drives if you needed to keep filming (the drives sits on your belt). For consumer cameras they could use a 100GB iPod sized drive allowing them to make cameras even smaller than they do now (not that I would want a small one).

200GB would give you like 16hour filming time at DV or HDV quality and 4-8 hours are pro HD qualities. You should be able to pick your bandwidth depending on what your filming. It would rule.

But think of all the money they wouldn't make from tape sales...
Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004, 12:38am

Post 38 of 39

Godfather

Force: 0 | Joined: 24th Nov 2004 | Posts: 13

Member

Yep, as long as people used some nice shock resistant drives it could be sweet - we've just been *designing* such a camera in chat. It had 1GB of memory as well giving you time to swap your 200GB drives if you needed to keep filming (the drives sits on your belt). For consumer cameras they could use a 100GB iPod sized drive allowing them to make cameras even smaller than they do now (not that I would want a small one).

200GB would give you like 16hour filming time at DV or HDV quality and 4-8 hours are pro HD qualities. You should be able to pick your bandwidth depending on what your filming. It would rule.

But think of all the money they wouldn't make from tape sales...
I doubt tape sales is what's holding them back. After all, this (or a similar technology) is bound to replace miniDV - companies are not willing to be caught at the pack of the pack in terms for product development simply because they had a sentimental attachement to tapes.

I see compact, interchangable hard drives being a big thing in video. They're cheap, easy on power, robust, durable, and have plenty of storage.

Of course you also have to look at solid state media, 5 years from now solid state will have huge capacity, at a very low price. It uses less energy, and has no moving parts - so this is something to watch for as well.

I'm all for the move to real HD and high resolution but it don't like the idea of the massive compression which HDV uses - seems like a half measure. What we need is a new standard to replace MiniDV (which will happen sooner rather than later) at which point all these HDV camera will look a bit poor. HDV seems a bit like Digital8 to me really.
I agree, HDV is only a stepping stone but still an important one.

How I see it, Is by the time my XL2 gets old, HDV will be more popular and will have some better compatibility with editing software and what not. Then I will purchase a HDV. Until then I need a camera... and I can't really wait for the HDV, unfortunately.
I don't think it's a bad choice to go with HDV, nor do I think it's a bad choice to go with standard DV. Obviously you are going to have more immediate practicality with standard DV, but HDV (and other likewise technologies) will probobly begin shining soon.

I have to say that I think $5,000 is too much for Canon to be asking for the XL2 at this stage in the game (although it made sense for the XL1 when it was released). At $3500, the camera would be much more attractive.
Posted: Wed, 1st Dec 2004, 1:08am

Post 39 of 39

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

The main reasons I feel that many companies want to hold on to the MiniDV standard is partly because the hardware is cheap to manufacture now, but mainly because the companies which make the cameras also sell branded MiniDV tapes at a huge profit.

If they can keep you spending money on the consumables then it makes them huge profits. Kinda like a less extreme version of inkjet printers and the profits they make on branded ink/special paper (which in many cases is more than they make on the hardware).