XL2 first real life impression

Re: XL2 first real life impression

It takes weeks to months, not years, nowadays to do design through production on lenses. It is all computerized, design through production, except on low quantity lenses like HD, which are hand assembled.

You can use the Canon SLR lenses only for telephoto only.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

[quote author=the_director link=board=XL2;num=1093021579;start=195#200 date=09/04/04 at 10:29:01]It takes weeks to months, not years, nowadays to do design through production on lenses. It is all computerized, design through production, except on low quantity lenses like HD, which are hand assembled. [/quote]

I assume you have published facts to back that statement up?

While it seems like things can happen much quicker these days with all our modernization and computer-aided design, I suggest that your timetable is a bit off.

I'd like you to point out one single example of a lens that took "weeks to months" to go from design through production.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

Wow, I just got back from vacation and the forums have been deluged with XL2 hysteria! :D I'm glad to see there's finally a working unit out there for people to play with.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and maybe I'm completely alone in my thoughts, but I'm not impressed with the posted XL2 footage at ALL. The one area that the camera clearly shines is its high resolution - those clips look unbelievably sharp and clear - and I have admittedly not seen footage shot with the DVX that looks comparable to me in that department. That is, however, where the advantages end in my opinion.

The XL2's gamma and color are significantly less filmic looking than the DVX (you can call it a "different filmstock" look if you want, but it's just screaming "home video" to me), and I'm not sure if that's because the default settings are crap or the camera wasn't configured correctly - but even right out of the box the DVX has far better color IMO. The fact that the settings are adjustible via visible "bars" and not numbers further detracts from its usability within the community. The motion does mimic that of the Panasonic (this was assumed already since they borrowed the exact same technology), but if the gamma and colors look like standard video, then it seems to completely kill the point of having a 24p camera! I'd like to see the "nighttime" sample footage from the camera as well, but it appears that link is not functioning right now.

What blew me away more than anything were the very obvious and unacceptable levels of chromatic abberation present in the XL2 footage - most likely being a result of cramming more pixels into a CCD of equal size. This is the exact same thing that happened to Sony's DSC-F828 digital still camera when they were hoo-hahing about having the first 8MP consumer camera and then all they gave everyone was a high-resolution abberation grabber. I think we've reached our limits with these 1/3" CCDs, and the results are clear. Is it any wonder that this is the last SD camera Canon intends to make?

There's no question that the XL2 packs some serious resolution punch, and as a 60i capturing device, it's probably unmatched in its class. However, my guess is that most people that are shelling out for the XL2 aren't buying it for its 60i capabilities (and at five grand, that would be a ridiculous price to pay for such a use). Let's also not forget that users who want to caputre 60i footage are probably also more likely to shoot in 4:3 mode, an area blocked out on the XL2 CCD that actually has LESS resolution than the DVX! Because no one has posted any 4:3 footage yet (or that I've seen), we can't really compare... but the whole design of the camera just seems flawed to me from just about every angle. I know that users are are going to give the XL2 a one-up on the competition saying how the availability of a myriad of lenses make it much more flexible and powerful, but when you have to shell out around two grand a piece for a few more lenses, then it's probably time to start looking at a better camera anyway.

My overall feeling after seeing the test footage is that the camera does have its strengths, but at a $5,000 price point, they just aren't justified. There are too many weaknesses to set it back. It's funny, too, because the availability of the XL2 has impacted me directly as a young filmmaker in ways that other (older, more experienced, richer) users probably don't have to think about as much. I've been saving up for a DVX for quite awhile (over two years now), and finally through the success of some projects I have been working on have acquired enough funding to be able to purchase one of these two cameras. I decided to hold off on the DVX for awhile after hearing the announcement of the XL2's late 2004 launch. Thanks to these forums, I am now very secure in the direction I want to go - and all I can say is, it's not gonna cost me $5,000. ;)
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=XL2;num=1093021579;start=195#201 date=09/04/04 at 12:09:52]

I assume you have published facts to back that statement up? [/quote]
Are you related to Slapdragon? Really though, who cares about whether or not his info is published... I don't think his statement is unbelievable
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

Haakon - it gonna cost you more than $5.000! If you have ever tasted the nativ 16:9 than you never gonna use a 4:3 again.

I guess what we want is a filmlook illussion on video. We don't want to transfer the video to film but we want to look like film on DVD. The Canon XL og DVX100A is a good start.

I'm using a Sony Pd150 , Century optics 16:9 with mattebox and 2 filters all the time. If I have to move with the camera I use a DVrigPro or Glidecam 4000 Pro. Otherwise the camcorder is on a Libec stative.

If the Xl2 as good ballanced as in the test than you don't need the DVrigPro. It has nativ 16:9, you don't need an anamorphic adapter.

Canon XL2 Body-only Kit is $ 3,999 now. http://www.xl1solutions.com/sample_outtakes_of_a_canon_comme.htm It works for the XL2 as well I guess.

I'm also looking for a second camcorder. If it gonna be a Panasonic DVX100A or a XL2 is hard to tell now. But at this time I'm going for the XL2.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

[quote author=Jestorius link=board=XL2;num=1093021579;start=195#204 date=09/04/04 at 22:49:43]Haakon - it gonna cost you more than $5.000! If you have ever tasted the nativ 16:9 than you never gonna use a 4:3 again.
[/quote]
With all due respect, I think you've read me completely wrong. The $5,000 jab was mere sarcasm relating to my decision not to buy the overpriced and arguably underperforming XL2. Obviously, one could spend and spend forever and still never get to where they might ultimately want to be - but I can get true 24p footage with the DVX at a MUCH lesser cost than if I shell out for an XL2 (and with many more benefits, in my opinion), and then I have the extra money for other hardware like cranes, matteboxes, stablization units, etc. Personally, the 'native 16:9' issue is pretty moot... all of these cameras have already been trumped by vastly nicer looking HD models, and although there isn't a high performance HD camera that's in a consumer range, it will only be a matter of time before it does happen one day. To add to that, "native" 16:9 footage is useless if it's full of chromatic abberation, jagged artifacts, excessive noise, and has the gamma qualities of a $200 home video camera.

[quote author=Jestorius link=board=XL2;num=1093021579;start=195#204 date=09/04/04 at 22:49:43]
Canon XL2 Body-only Kit is $ 3,999 now.
[/quote]
Uh, yeah... and were you planning on shooting video without a lens? I guess if I did that I could save some cash... ;)

Seriously, you're looking at a $5,000 commitment *minimum* with the XL2 vs. around $3,400 for the DVX. And despite its lower resolution, it's got much better gamma and color performance (at least in my opinion). That fact, coupled with the reality that I now have extra money to spend on other things that only further justifies my reasoning to get the DVX. Obviously there's no "end all" answer to all of this, but I'm surprised that people like Matt McDermitt are chomping at the bit to trade in their DVX for an XL2... they may be in for a pretty rude awakening.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

Häakon - DVX isn't just 3.400 ,- if you like to have a 16:9. I guess you end up with 4.200,-. And you gonna need some kind of support to walk with your DVX, like a DVrig? Now the total is ... 4.800,- ? XL2 has a shoulder support.

Nobody is planning on shooting video without a lens! http://www.xl1solutions.com/ shows you what you can do.

Read this: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthre...bfb432&threadid=31360&perpage=15&pagenumber=3 - at least one who already has an XL2 .

And the size is a metter. Your customer would like you to have something he hasn't got at home.

But to DVX isn't a bad solution for anyone!
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

Dear Jestorius,

You're right about the 16:9 issue.  I have my own qualms about that one, but I don't think anyone really does it right so it's pretty irrelevant.  Like I noted earlier, though, the resolution on these cameras has already been eclipsed by all of the HD cams, and it's only a matter of time before consumers have some sort of reasonable HD option.  (HDV is already here, for instance, and although the worthiness of the format has yet to be seen, there's no doubt other options will also be available sometime soon).  Also, like I pointed out, resolution will only get you so far... it's nice that the XL2 has "native" 16:9, but it has other shortcomings that weaken the usefulness of that feature.

The size of the camera is probably more important to some people than others... it's kinda like cars, where everyone always wants the biggest, "coolest" one to show off.  (And though I actually really like the DVX's looks, I can certainly see how some people might prefer the style/size of the XL2.)  I think that it's the footage that you ultimately end up with that's important, though, and not how sexy your camera is... the DVX might be small(er), but it can still certainly hold its own when it comes to making films... and that's what this whole thing is about, right? :)

That brings me to the other point... obviously the XL2 isn't going to be a "bad camera," or an "unworkable solution" for anyone.  All I was saying is that it doesn't really look to offer much to the end user over the DVX, and at $1,500 more in cost, that's a big chunk of change to have to justify.  The only real advantage I see that it has is interchangable lenses, but if you can afford the extra cash for the privelege of being able to swap lenses that cost upwards of $2,000 a pop, you can probably afford a better camera.

P.S. - Have you lived in Norway your whole life?  My family is Norwegian (hence my unamerican name!) and I absolutely love it there! :)
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

Ok, heres the facts that we know so far about the differences between the two cameras with what you get in the box for the price asked:-

First, what the XL2 has that the DVX doesnt-

-Native 16x9
-Significantly higher resolution in 16:9
-Interchangeable lens system
-20x zoom over 10x zoom
-Shoulder mount
-Included mic in the mic holder
-Much cleaner and more efficient lowlight performance
-Ability to change software for Gamma settings and others
-Professional looking style (definitely matters with some clients)

Second, what the DVX has that the XL2 doesnt-

-Very practical wider wide angle
-Slightly higher resolution in 4:3
-Approximately $1,500 less expensive
-Smaller body (Useful for certain situations that call for it)

By the way, i havent given the DVX "better color performance" simply because we dont know what the XL2 can do yet when properly adjusted.


So, considering the above facts, each consumer must decide whether the difference of $1,500 is or isnt worth it. --- AND THATS WITHOUT ADDING ANY EXTRAS TO EITHER CAMERA, BECAUSE THEN THE PRICE DIFFERENCE CHANGES.


Saying all of that, i will most likely be purchasing 2 dvx100a's, more than anything because I dont have enough money to buy more than one XL2 along with the extra accesories i need- and i need 2 cameras for weddings- and from what i read, the dvx is a great camera anyways.

Cheers, (i like that word)

kevin
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

Your name should be Håkon or Haakon. I'm not norwegian , I'm from Hungary. I have kids in Norway so I'm a norwagian citicen now.

The DVX is a good camcorder. Maybe it is better than PD150 what I have. http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/filmstylePD150.html does it looks like a palmcorder?
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

kbar,

And you will probably have the best looking wedding video that a customer can ever expect (with the DVX). I would think that most guys are shooting weddings with camera's like the PD-150 or VX-2000, or maybe even with a less res camera 1 CCD. For weddings, I think the DVX is more than anyone could ever ask for.

With anyone wrestling the idea of buying a DVX or XL2. Ask yourself this....how important is shooting 16:9. If it is important, then ask yourself...do I want true 16:9, or can I put up with the limitations of using the anamorphic adapter. To me, that is the main difference between the two camera's. If (true 16:9 without adapter) is what you need, then splurge and spend the extra bucks for the XL2. If not, then buy a DVX and save.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

i know this is extremely off topic, but ive tried getting this answered in the right place and no one answered me... so maybe one of you who have an answer for me can help me out.

Whats a good example of the dvx100a at work - a movie i can rent at blockbuster or something- i wanna see some good footage before i decide to buy.

thanks- all i need is one person to reply, thanks
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

or you can make your own and film like this: this:http://www.marlathemovie.com

I'm making corporat videos with anamorphic 16:9. The 16:9 is very important becouse the final product is a DVD. I have all those extras on the camera not just to impress the customer. I use filters and anamorphic lens, but to impress the customer is also very important. You must have something they don't have at home.

I'd like to have filmlook in my palmcorder as well but the customer doesn't. They prefer sharp pictures. They want video.

Now when I'm looking for a second camcorder, I have to choose between DVX and XL2. All those pictures and videos I have seen on the internett looks allmost the same high quality to me. I'm impressed of the "filmlook" they have. But most of the DVX-movies was color corrected. Why , if it has the filmlook?

Anyway, for me it gonna cost allmost the same if I buy the DVX or XL2. Maybe the DVX will be cheaper now. But it's hard to make a dissition.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

kbar,

I don't know of any DVX stuff that can be rented at blockbuster, since the camera and it's 24p technology has only been out about 2 years. There are some coming soon however. I saw a few really terrific 3 min shorts done by a member here. "iamloser". He did two very good examples of what you can achieve with the DVX. Do a search and see if he still has them uploaded. The names of the clips are "Soldier" the other is "Alternate Ending" Loved them both.

Jestorius,

People color correct all the time, no matter what the format. 35mm film gets it's fair share of color correction.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

thanks, i appreciate the answer. Im looking it up now.

I can still shoot 16x9 without anamoriphic adaper though.

Is it bad quality without the anamorphic adapter?
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

I can't answere how the DVX 16:9 looks like but I know how it looks like with the PD150. They both crop the image as I know.

I made the same video with and without the anamorphic. It's an other world with the anamorphic. It looks so much better with the adapter. You can't see the different here on the internet but on your studio monitor.
 
Re: XL2 first real life impression

Kbar,

Check out Pieces of April, which is available at Blockbuster. It was shot on the dvx-100 (pretty certain it wasn't the 100a...too long ago).

Also, you might want to check out Personal Velocity...I think it was shot with the panny. You might want to google it to make sure.

Also, check out www.indigent.net for links to digital films. Some shot on PAL cameras and others using the panasonic.

NOVEMBER is another feature coming out soon that was shot with the DVX-100 (a).

best,

Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top