Extensive XL2 Demo Footage

[triseven]

Not sure if you guys have seen this online demo footage of the XL2 but it's the most I've seen of the camera thus far. Has sample work of the camera in 60f, 30f, and 24p. The Quicktime file does the camera no justice!

Link:
http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0409/video/canon.html

[Gary_McClurg]

Yes when you see that image on a broadcast monitor all the seats are lit up and it looks really good.

[araujofh]

It looks similar to the DVX.

All the best

Fidel.

[goober542]

I honestly think it all looks like video. I mean compared to what I have seen the dvx do, not even the 100a just the regular, it is leaps and bounds above that.

[the_producer]

I think it looks very much like film if you can get around the fact it is to compressed.

[nullphonic]

Thanks for the link, that is indeed a pretty extensive clip. Aerial, sports, production, low light, etc.

Has anyone heard of a demo disk anywhere? I swear I've seen that police footage in another Canon site ad. If there is such a thing I'd like to have a copy and avoid the massive compression artifacts.

[J.R. Hudson]

Unbeliavable.

[gcaus]

How the heck can you tell it is good?!

That file is so compressed and can't tell at all!
-Jerry

[J.R. Hudson]

Purely from a visual standpoint it looked like crap (and I mean exactly what gcaus states. It is so compressed its horrible). Which makes me wonder how one could look at this footage and make any qualified opinions on it. I have no doubt the XL2 is going to be a solid camera (whether or not it is 'better' that the DVX remains to be seen and is subjective anyway). But yeah, this particular footage is in bad shape.

[Guest]

I could care less what the footage looks like coming str8 out of the camera in terms of "look" - as long as its good 24p and has good res the rest should be taken care of in post, this way you are left with more options.

[cinebuddy]

I could care less what the footage looks like coming str8 out of the camera in terms of "look" - as long as its good 24p and has good res the rest should be taken care of in post, this way you are left with more options.

LOL. That is a funny statement. I look at footage on the site all the time and hear the rants and ravings about how great it looks....and it has not been treated an ounce. I mean for crying out loud watch the outtakes from Bourne Identity, those clips look like shit...thats how all footage looks coming out of a camera (any camera). I have a DVX, I have an XL2 i like my DVX...I like the XL2 more, but when i'm done with the image you can't tell which is which. Discussions like this are further proof of hatefication of all things new on this board. Make some hot shit and quit all the assinine comparisions.

[strancali]

cinebuddy, can yu put up some quality footage for us? I for one would really like to see the 24p on the xl2 after post. I want to see the best that it can be. I hope you would do that for us peeps on the forum.

John - you crack me up (again :))

[J.R. Hudson]

So true about untreated footage. I have seen the PRE Bourne Identity footage and it looks like arse on a stick. I am a huge fan of color correction and manipulation of the original footage.

[TreStylez]

I don't have a dvx100 or XL2 but am looking to purchase one next month!! I found the XL2 footage very pale and have yet to make any decision to which i want, 3months ago it was the dvx100a all the way!.

I will await more footage :)

[J.R. Hudson]

Decisons are tough.

When I purchased it was hands down the DVX100. Now, there is the DVXa, the XL2 and the since announced Sony.

[Neil Rowe]

"I could care less what the footage looks like coming str8 out of the camera in terms of "look" - as long as its good 24p and has good res the rest should be taken care of in post, this way you are left with more options. "

cmon now matt. LOL ;) *you know i love ya man, but the ability of the camera in terms of color fidelity-noise-gamma-lattitude-shadow and highlight handling, lenses ability to handle flare and streak and chromatic abberation.. and on and on are all very important.. * *my webcam does 24p ..but even if it was high def.. i wouldnt try to just fix it in post. *the better the starting image.. the better your final image can be * :) *

that said, ..i really like alot of things the camera brings to the table, and think its a good choice for people to use as well as i do the DVX. ..while its not the next cam for me(waiting for 24p HD variant) it has alot to offer, and im sure that it can look excellent after some post work.

[J.R. Hudson]

So true IAL

Although I am completely stoked on my DVX I do know in about 3 or 4 years my choices will be there. I predict a true DV/HD/24p camera geared exclusively to filmmakers (not weddingographers or hobbyist). A camera exclsuively designed to meet the demands of an independent filmmaker.

:D

[Neil Rowe]

..i think your very right. *we'll likely have a cam like that in that time.. or earlier even. *im betting that Panasonic will bring it to us, i think they learned a great deal about giving the independent filmmaker/videographer what they want with the
DVX, and just how many of us there are, and how profitable and loyal we can be.. * if not them then canon.
but SONY.. lol ...yeah right. * sony will probably just paint the PD170 blue and other snazzy colors and say that its "the best filmmaking cam" because it matches your I-pod. *:P

[Guest]

My iPod really is blue! How did you know? (iPod mini...so cool!)

I hope the next step towards a "film making" camera will be a larger CCD. HD offers acceptable resolution for blow ups, 24p offers film like motion rendering, but the DOF and particularly the dynamic range are still missing. Even if the camera were a one-chipper, a large enough CCD would be pretty fantastic. Even a single 2/3'' ccd, if good enough with colors, would bring HD to the level of good 16mm. Look at the dSLRs..most offer great color rendering and the images truly look like film. Then again, most of them use CCDs which are larger than 1'' (well, actually about 1 inch, but since CCDs are smaller than their measurement indicates....)

[Neil Rowe]

..agreed, if the results of going to one chip were not a drastic loss in image fidelity , id glady trade 3 small ships for 1 large one and a large iris arpeture to gain the DOF and lattitude .

[J.R. Hudson]

I thought the goal was to have 3 Chips? Anyone care to elaborate?

[Barry_Green]

The goal is to get great color reproduction. So far, that has required three chips for the best image. IAL's saying that if you could get it looking just as good with one chip, then he'd gladly trade for that just-as-good single CCD if it could be made bigger, for better DOF properties, etc.

For a single chip that showed a lot of promise, check out the Foveon.

[ian lucero]

So true about untreated footage. *I have seen the PRE Bourne Identity footage and it looks like arse on a stick. *I am a huge fan of color correction and manipulation of the original footage.

Can someone point me to a book or video or something that takes you through color correction? I'd love to learn more about the art of making footage from different cameras match up and look all around better than what was shot.

thanks in advance

[J.R. Hudson]

I wish I knew of some books off-hand. My experience is strictly stuff I shoot and then manipulate ENDLESSLY in post using Vegas. I do not of any FILM related books on CC but there are tons of Photoshop books on the subject and basic photography.

[taubkin]

If you have FCP you could start with the manual. It has a great chapter on that.

About 1 chippers, maybe someone will have a CMOS 1 chip HD camera in 5 years...

[Neil Rowe]

..does the DALSA origin use the foveon chips? I know that it uses a single 35mm size chip with the color masking over each pixel..wait, nope.. it s newer tech.. better than cmos,....(taubkin..it alraedy exists.. :P http://www.dalsa.com/dc/dc.asp * *..but uses a newer sensor better than Cmos ..gets over 12 stops lattitude!) * i dnot even need a 35mm size chip though,, id be happy with a good performing single 2/3 or even a 1/2" 16:9 chip over a 3 1/3 inch older tech *chips anyday. *there are some other benefits to single chip as well like losing the prism which splits the light into the colors for 3 chip aquisition. *without the prism, you can use standard cine/photo lenses that are somewhat screwed up by the prism instead of video lenses made to work with it. *also any image degredation caused by the prism is gone. just think..
wouldnt that be awsome if they sold the camera were dreaming about with a standard 35mm *interchangeable mount.. so you could use any still or cine lenses on it, and it just cam with a zoom one. *

[triseven]

Can anyone guess or approximate what my aspect ratio would be (or could be) if I put the .3X lens on the XL2 while shooting 16:9? I know it would be extremely wide but I'm tryin' to create more depth of field---want to make it as cinematic as possible. Just basically want to know what I'd have to do to get closer to 2.35 as far as aspect ratio. Is this possible with the XL2? Very curious because I read an article where the XL2's new 20X lens is near equivalent to 35mm or something like that. Caption below. My apologies if I'm asking too much. :-/


About the Canon lens:
The new lens incorporates Fluorite elements for superior contrast, resolution and color fidelity through the reduction of chromatic aberration. This 20x IS Optical zoom lens offers a fast f/1.6 to f/3.5 aperture for users that shoot under the most demanding lighting conditions. At an aspect ratio of 4:3, the 20x zoom range is an impressive 51.8mm to 1036mm (35mm equivalent). At the 16:9 aspect ratio, it is an equally impressive 42.2mm to 844mm (35mm equivalent). The lens comes equipped with versatile features, including: a 72mm filter thread; 6-blade iris diaphragm; independent ND filters; Electronic focus ring; Electronic zoom ring; Zoom present position; Focus preset position; and optical image stabilization.

[Shaw]

Your aspect ratio would be precisely the same. The 3x will give you a wider view (similar to adding a wide angle lense on a film camera) but it won't alter the actual dimensions of the footage.

To get 2.35 you would need to shoot in 16:9 and crop. It is oftened rumored that adding an anamorphic adapter will do this but it won't. It gives cinemascope (which some people seem to think = 2.35) 2.55, 2.66.

[triseven]

So you're saying crop in post, Shaw? I see what you mean but are you familiar with hard matting and soft matting?

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/video-format4.htm

[Barry_Green]

Yeah, just crop. If you add the anamorphic adapter it will give you a squished 2.37:1 (16/9 * 1.333333) but you won't be able to display it on any television without it being squished (unless you resize & crop it, which is about the same result you'd get if you just shot 16:9 and cropped it!)

Using the 3x on the XL2 will give you staggeringly deep DOF, basically it would be very difficult to get *anything* out of focus with that combination.

[triseven]

Thanks for your response Barry but let me get this straight. At Birns and Sawyer the other day they told me that with the DVX, using the anamorphic adapter, everything would be "squished" even if I had an 16:9 monitor while shooting on the set? They told me that I won't be able to see the full 16:9 picture until post using editing software. That didn't sound right to me. Is that true??

But they said with the XL2, since it's native 16:9, I could have a 16:9 monitor on set and it would convert the signal. Is that true? If so, then how would attaching a .3X lens on the XL2 squish my image?

I'm basically soon to start shooting (directing) a feature in 16:9 but gosh I have to see what I'm shooting on set!

[Barry_Green]

Either Birns & Sawyer fed you a load of hogwash, or you misunderstood what Birns & Sawyer said.

The image from a DVX with anamorphic will look just like the image from an XL2: if you show it on a 4:3 TV, it'll be squished. If you show it on a 16:9 monitor, it'll look correct. There's nothing about post/editing software that has anything to do with it, so your understanding was correct.

I have a 16:9 monitor, I use it with the DVX/anamorphic, and it looks wonderful in its widescreen glory.

Attaching a .3x lens on the XL2 will not squish anything, it'll just give you a very wide-angle view.

Here's what they probably should have said: with the DVX, there's no way ON-CAMERA to view an un-squished 16:9 image. You *have* to use an external 16:9 monitor, because the viewfinder and LCD will both display the image as if it was 4:3, so a 16:9 image will look squished.

However, on an XL2, when in 16:9 mode, the viewfinder will adapt and show an un-squished image. You don't *need* an external monitor in order to see it in its 16:9 aspect ratio.

An external 16:9 monitor will, however, be MUCH more useful and show the picture much better than the XL2's viewfinder. And, if you really want to convert the DVX to show 16:9 in the viewfinder, you can add the Century Precision Optics Viewfinder de-anamorphosizer (about $310) which will optically unsqueeze the image.

[triseven]

Yeah, I think she made a slight mistake or wasn't sure exactly what "monitor" I was referring to. Thanks for the insight Barry. Might look into an on board 7" LCD monitor or some sort of larger flat panel LCD monitor where I can see the footage better. Just don't wan't to lug around a big '13 inch tube TV! Bad experience. :o

So any 16:9 flat panel LCD monitor should work, right guys?

[Shaw]

I would imagin so Triseven. I have heard that some people have found some nice 7" displays. I'm not sure where to get one though or who manufactures it. I'll have to look into that as I will need to get something as well!

I think Barry more than answered your questions regarding aspect ratio so I'll refrain from adding more at the moment :).

[triseven]

Okay thanks Shaw. I do know Panasonic and Nebtek makes some 7" LCD models. Checking into something larger. I saw one director which looked something like a tablet PC on MTV's "Making the Video" once. It looked so cool.

[TimurCivan]

Letter to John hudson

Everytime i read one of your responses on thsi thread, i hear Christopher walken as Koontz, from pulp fiction, talking technical details about the DVX..... "I kept that uncomfortable hunk of metal (hopefully not a DVX) the only place i could.. My ass........ for three long years" ETC... I love the icon, and i hope your not offended about the ass thing.. but i swear, its been in my head for a few weeks now........



Thats it.. sorry for the loss in train of thought...... back to 7" LCD monitors

[XCheck]

I thought the goal was to have 3 Chips? *Anyone care to elaborate?

It's a matter of math. If I have three chips at 1/3" diagonal each, that gives me total area of 4/25 sq in (assuming 4:3 ratio). If I have one chip at 2/3" diagonal, it gives me total area of 16/75 sq in.

So, even with one chip at twice the diagonal, I get an area that is (16/75)/(4/25) = 4/3 = 1.33 times larger to record the picture. If that picture also happens to have HD resolution, I think it's a no-brainer that one 2/3" chip will beat three 1/3" chips hands down.

Now, if you have THREE 2/3" chips, then we are talking! Isn't that what the Varicam has?

Jerry

[Dabong]

2/3" chips with variable speed control... ahhhh that would be heaven.

[MovieSwede]

well then you are only 75 000$ away from heaven, of course you need an editing system also. :)