The XL2's Achillies Heel...

[evinsky]

I went to Birns and Sawyer this morning to demo the camera. I also watched the promo DVD Canon sent with it. And I watched it in a dark room on a 30" calibrated HD production monitor. This is "THE" camera for low light work, but it fails miserably in bright light situations. I don't know if the shooter was trying to get a pasty look but he manages to blow the living #@$& out of the guys shirt and face, It's awful! The highlight response is truly not up to the 100A. The XL2's image is smoother and the low light sensitivity is far beyond the DVX. The DVX has to my eye a more pleasing color response, the Canon, like all Canon glass has a tendancy toward pastels and greens, the DVX reds and blues. The 16:9 is awsome, the zoom ring is stupid, the zoom rocker is better, iris control is not quite as anoying as I had anticipated, but I still would have perfered a wheel. Aparently Canon made the front of the 20x stick out so far that the Century .7x wide adapter needs to be redesigned to fit it. That means any of you XL1ers who kept the .7 on your cam the whole time, are going to have to drop another $700. Typical! So my 2¢ is if your a noctournal shooter go XL2 if you want the sunshine on your face keep your DVX.
BTW. The XL2 and 100A were set as closely to each other's setting as possible and viewed on the same monitor. Peace.

[Bill__Turner]

Just a short comment re the .7X Century WA, we hope to have a reasonalbly priced mod available to make the XL1 .7x's useable on the XL2 and still function on the XL1.

The XL2 model of the .7x for the 20X will be compatible with the 16x auto lens.

Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics

[nullphonic]

Great info, thanks!

Do you think that DVX and XL2 footage could be cut/edited together in your opinion based on what you saw? (since they were matched settings wise somewhat)

[J.R. Hudson]

There definately seems to be a 'pastiness' to the XL2. Almost ghostly.

[gcaus]

You aren't saying that the dynamic range is bad...so doesn't that mean just use an ND filter in bright situations?

Low light with DVX100A filmic look without having to worry about noise is sweet!

This is getting very interesting...

-Jerry

[the_producer]

Does anyone have a copy of this dvd that they will put online for the rest of us?

-also, I do not know how bright we are talking about here, but I have never been in a situation that I was trying to shot the surface of the sun....but many times I have been in places that the lighting is just never enough. *Sounds like I will not have to worry about having perfect lighting to get wonderful shots. *I could be wrong though...

[evinsky]

By bright I mean Hi key, or any situation where 50% or more of the frame is above 50 IRE (50% Brightness). This has nothing to do with the ND's, they work fine. It's how the camera handles it's transition from midtone to highlight. My guess is you'd have keep everything below 85 IRE to keep from blooming. That seems very limiting to me. Even an interior with just window light would look blown, in fact. that is exactly what the DVD showed. Now maybe it's just thatt Canon's Cinegammma is not as advanced as Pany's and the normal Gamma does a better job, but I haven't seen it yet.

[J.R. Hudson]

You aren't saying that the dynamic range is bad...so doesn't that mean just use an ND filter in bright situations?
-Jerry

No, Im just calling it like I see it.

[scharky]

You know, personally I am as pro DVX as anyone, however, I find it more likely that it is user error than a camera problem. *True, nobody wants pasty colors, however since this is a new camera, I will give it the benefit of the doubt that changing some of the settings may remedy this problem. *Remember, people right now are just starting to get good looking DVX footage. Rememer how many people were, and are having problems with cinegamma and lots of noise. *there are ways to remedy those problems, i think it will be at least a few months before we start seeing any really good looking footage from the Xl2.
Don't get me wrong, I will never buy an XL2, I am very happy with my dvx and Anamorphic adapter. Who knows, I may rent on sometime just to say that I did. ;)

[Antoine_Fabi]

I agree,

I think it is a user error.

The XL2 grabs i've seen so far were showing *exellent dynamic range with no tendency to overload CCDs on bright objects.
...and dont forget that most of the XL2 grabs were with default settings.
I saw some grabs today with cinegamma on, and the colors are much richer that with the normal mode.

BUT, there is more noise with the cingamma, even with the XL2...he he,
...normal...more processing.

but overall, the DVX100A and the XL2 look much better with cinelike colors that with normal setting. Even if there is more noise, the image looks better.

I'm also a happy DVX100A/anamorphic adapter user, but i am curious enough to see what the XL2 can do.

...and i am pleased to see some good results i saw on some grabs so far.

...and it will "push" Panasonic to give us more of the SDX900/Varicam technology in a small and affordable package.

[Barry_Green]

Gotta go with Scharky on this one. I've found the DVX capable of such a wide variety of looks, it simply amazes me when someone says "the DVX colors are too flat" or "the DVX colors are too saturated and candy-like"... you can get almost *any* look you want out of this camera.

I'm sure the XL2 will have the same capabilities.

Using the detail level, I can make the DVX look as soft as out-of-focus VHS, or as sharp as Death's scythe. So when someone says "the XL2 looks a little soft to me", I have to wonder if it's not just a setting.

Hopefully soon Jarred will get back and he & I will be able to do an ultimate DVX/XL2 comparo DVD thing soon...

[jimagine]

<<There definately seems to be a 'pastiness' to the XL2. *Almost ghostly.>>

no offense John but that's like saying that there seems to be a messiness and bluring from using arista paint brushes. I can't think of a more inappropriate description for well shot XL2 footage than "pasty" or "ghostly".

The footage I'm shooting in low light and bright mid day is remarkable in it's detail, clarity and latitude. I produce for a living, and haven't tweaked the hell out of it yet, but with basic Cine Gamma, Cine Color, low knee and stretched black settings the look is uniformly gorgeous. There are 5 pages of image controls to work with. Honestly, I and my creative team at the Imagination Company are so far blown away by what this camera prodcues in 16:9 24p.

I don't know where all of this crappy footage is coming from, but I can tell you it's definitely not because of the camera. I love the DVX and would use it in a heartbeat, but if you want to shoot 16:9 format regularly, the DVX isn't as good a camera..it's just not as resolute.

other than that, give me or just about any decent shooter either camera and they'll get great results. The rest is just internet jawing..seriously.

[Antoine_Fabi]

jimagine

just for fun, could you post some grabs of the same scene

A) DVX100A with the anamorphic adapter
B) XL2

and try to match the detail seting, gamma and colors

and please dont use the cinelikeD (i just hate its artificial look ! )

thanks

[J.R. Hudson]

I dont know why everyone is freaking out. I said it looks pasty. It does. Whats the big deal? I also said it it will know doubt be a solid camera; Ive also said the footage is rockin. When I say its pasty, im calling it like I see it; particulary the skin tones.

Of course there are 'controls' and levels and blah blah blah. I like what I seeing in this camera but it has an 'out of the box' pastiness as the DVX has an 'out of the box' warmness.

Everyone calm down. Jeeesh.

[Aaron Koolen]

Well I think it's achilles heels are:

No Line level input on the XLR
That stupid iris control switch

I'm just flabbergasted those things are there, especially the lack of Line level in on XLR. It's hard for me to stop mentioning them..

[skippyfetus]

::) ::) ::) ::) Time after time I see people judging a camera's picture without having used the camera or even knowing the settings of the camera. It is just retarded. I could make the DVX look like dogshit if I chose the right parameters and camera settings. Blown out highlights? Who cares? That is a camera operator problem. You don't know the dynamic range of the XL2. It could be the same or better than the DVX.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only way you can compare two different cameras is by matching all the settings because changing just one will make the results pointless.

[cinebuddy]

Amen Tony. I swear if I had to bitch about every little thing missing from every confounded thing i've ever purchased, i'd never have car, live in the open butt naked. No line level blah, blah, blah....jeezzus

[J.R. Hudson]

Well we seem to have 3 classses here.

1. The DVX Faithful -

No matter what the XL2 just cannot be better than the DVX. NO MATTER WHAT.

2. The XL2 Lobbyist -

I am so happy that the XL2 is here and Im gonna get one as soon as I get my money and to hell with all of you DVX'ers. *Its kind of like revenge of the Xl1s users

3. The who really cares class -

Personally, I subscribe to this party. Its just another tool in the box.

One thing is for sure, no one on either side of the fence is allowed to make one single observation without upsetting everybody. *If someone finds an observation that is important to them then that is really all that matters; its important to them.

[Aaron Koolen]

And my class

- The person who was waiting the Xl2 and when it came out realised that Canon had their heads up their arses designing it, so now aint so eager.

[J.R. Hudson]

Thats my point exactly.

For you it is not what you had hoped or wanted or expected. But be damned if you say it right? The next guy is all over it and that is fine too.

[Rich Lee]

http://www.rich-lee.com/DVX-XL.jpg

[Ranger]

Well, these truly are exciting and yet confusing times for many of us.

I’m not sure what class I belong to. I just wanted a better than average prosumer camera than I can record some of my experiences while still in the military. I’ve left too many moments in my life pass me by unrecorded.

“I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched sea beams glitter in the darkness at Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.”
- Blade Runner (I love that quote!)

[Ranger]

http://www.rich-lee.com/DVX-XL.jpg


LMAO!!! ;D

[skippyfetus]

http://www.rich-lee.com/DVX-XL.jpg


I'll take one of these, lol

You can put me in category 2.5... I'm not a brand loyalist, but I lust for the XL2. I'm surprised I haven't made it the background on my desktop.

There's no sense in putting cameras on a pedastle or slamming them... they're just products and they have limitations.

[hvpz]

A new class, I named the "Vampire Class"

For the Day : Dvx100/A (bad in low light, good in "normal/hight" light)*

For the Night : Xl2 (good in low light, bad in "normal/hight" light)*

;D


*(I don't share these views)

[J.R. Hudson]

LMAO :D

No matter the camera of choice the technology is moving in an exciting direction. Im just glad that we are not onyl a part of it but can afford it!

[jimagine]

<<Everyone calm down. *Jeeesh.>>

I don't know who was acting too excited for ya John. I certainly wasn't jumping around while I typed my "call it as I see it" response. I'm suggesting calmly that your perception isn't a technical fact. I didn't suggest you get your eyes checked, which I would if I saw the XL2 footage as ghostly <g>.



IP Logged

[J.R. Hudson]

Yeah you were. *

In all seriousness, dont take things so literal. *That was my way of saying "Yes I am aware of everything you posted" but was just making a casual observation and not stating any technical facts.

[Guest]

Aza

Right on for the line control in the xlrs. How cold I use my Shure mixer for my very ancient, but excellent Electrovoice shotgun? Audio is very much of any movie.

[PFP_VIDEO]

I'm in the class that says whats the camera worth if the picture is good but the audio is crap. No switchable line level in the xlr's? Noisy audio? Iffy iris control? Having to buy speciality lenses for specials situations? If the XL2 is gonna compete in the same league as the DVX then your going to have to buy a DAT recorder and velcro it onto your XL2. So far im unimpressed with the XL2 and it's not because im a DVX fanboy. Its because this is typical Canon b.s., and I expected as such when the XL2 came out. I had the money to buy either camera and I could'nt see wasting my money on a first generation camera with numerous bugs. I waited, and ended up buying a DVX . So now instead of crying and bitching about how canon doushed everbody, Im out there shooting, making some $$, and seeing the smiles on clients faces as they are super impressed with the picture of the DVX.

[lephunk]

wow... lemme guess... you just bought your dvx a week before the XL2 was announced right???

whats all this line in yap... go get an XLR cable... it's like 5 bucks...

different lenses for different situations?? that's the beauty of it...

use what you have... and be happy with it... if you don't like another product, don't hate... just don't buy it...

F.Y.I.... my company uses a 100a, pd150, vx2000 and an xl2...

[HorseFilms]

I waited for Canon to anounce the XL2... it didn't really do much for me, so I bought a DVX. I'm sure it's a great cam, but it didn't slap me in the face the way the DVX did.

[Ernest_Acosta]

Does anyone know the cost of the lenses (manual) to use with the XL2? Isn't there small boxes that can convert mic level to line level?

[evinsky]

Manual lens is about $1500, no IS and no manual iris control.
Yes there are ways to get line level to mic level but they all introduce noise. The whole point of line level is to get the superior signal generated by a good sound mixer and sound person. It makes a huge difference. And trying to post sync a DAT is an unnecesary pain in the assets.

Regarding previous posts. Birns had very carefully set the XL2 and the 100A to identical settings for my test. So please do not assume the camera wasn't calibrated correctly. Secondly a great majority of my clonclusions were made from the DVD that Canon it's self created. Now if Canon can't make it's own camera perform acceptably for thier sample DVD one has to wonder if the rest of us can. Put simply, Canon had a chance to knock one out of the park, they merely hit a double, they got 16:9 and good, clean low light response. The interchangeable lens is a mixed bag and the 24P is just playing catchup.

[Aaron Koolen]

Also just to add, you can get manual lens control if you can find the older 14x lens. But you get a rotating front element to screw on polarisers etc don't do so well. Also I think you miss the ND filters too.

Aaron