PAL XL2 Review at SimplyDV (UK) at DVinfo.net

Chris Hurd · July 20th, 2004, 09:30 PM

Howdy from Texas,

SimplyDV.com, an excellent digital video site in the UK, is supposed to have an online review of the PAL XL2 up shortly. Keep an eye on this page for developments.

Ed Smith · July 21st, 2004, 05:40 AM

Review is now on line:

http://www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/canon_xl2.html

time to get my reading head on...

Cheers,

Yang Wen · July 21st, 2004, 06:24 AM

hmmm.. I'm must say.. I'm not entirely impressed with the resolution of the two screen shots provided.. The guy didn't mention whether they were shot in the XL2's progressive mode or interlaced. I would hope they weren't prog!

Boyd Ostroff · July 21st, 2004, 07:39 AM

That's a nice write-up. What do you find lacking in the images Yang? I enlarged the 16:9 example in Photoshop and thought it looked quite nice. Had a look at an outdoor scene shot on my PDX-10 in 16:9 (60i) and the XL-2 image looked significantly better. I hate to keep fueling the fire, but did you notice that he mentions "frame mode"? Is Canon using this term interchangeably with "progressive?"

Quote:

Frame Mode coupled with Cine Gamma certainly produces the intended cinematic feel, although it could be argued that this is a subjective judgment only

Colin Barrett · July 21st, 2004, 08:06 AM

All the shots were taken in PAL interlaced mode as were given to me by Robin. I've now amended the captions to emphasise this fact.

I'm always wary of uploading frame-grabs from video footage onto web pages simply because they're bound to suffer some degradation even after careful optimisation in Photoshop. However, on comparing these full-sized (1024x576) grabs with the originals that Robin created in Avid DV Express I'm quite confident that they're sufficiently well representative.

Doubtless Robin will add to these notes when he returns to base from his shoot.

Colin

Chris Hurd · July 21st, 2004, 08:52 AM

<< I'm always wary of uploading frame-grabs from video footage onto web pages >>

Someone who understands! Hooray! Thanks Colin,

Yang Wen · July 21st, 2004, 09:02 AM

Given all things are equal and all screen caps from every camera will go through the same minute degradation, then this is indeed a valid base-level at which to compare image quality from. Regardless, I'm relieve that these caps were indeed interlaced.

Boyd: i found those caps to be no better than the current offerings of 1/3 CCD 60i cameras we have, in 4:3 ratio.

Colin Barrett · July 21st, 2004, 09:10 AM

I agree that as long as one is working within consistent parameters there is reasonable basis for comparison. It's important that those accessing the images must also understand this, and not be tempted to harp on about this visual artefact or that bit of picture noise. There are those, of course, who'll find fault no matter what you do and how you do it!

Colin

Boyd Ostroff · July 21st, 2004, 09:13 AM

They look good to me Colin. Of course there was obviously horizontal stretching involved though since the anamorphic DV image as recorded to tape would have only been 720 pixels wide.

Jay Gladwell · July 21st, 2004, 09:30 AM

To think that an accurate judgement of a camera's ability to capture images can be made from online images is rather telling, in my humble opinion.

Jay

Yang Wen · July 21st, 2004, 07:40 PM

That reviewer should really put up a screen cap of the GL2's none frame-mode 50i screen shot. The reason i'm suggesting this is that the XL2's 4:3 pixel use is not necesarrily that much higher than the GL2's.

Colin Barrett · July 22nd, 2004, 03:48 AM

Whilst I agree that this would be useful, I have to say that this review was put together in 48 hours with the reviewer (Robin) and the web editor (me) working 200 miles apart. I guess the main issue is that although there's always something that would have been nice, it's a question of what can be done in the time. Don't forget that we both have "day jobs" and that we're doing it for love not money.

Colin

Paul Colt · July 22nd, 2004, 04:49 AM

I thought the caps looked great, but then I don't usually need the 16 : 9 feature. I just think its one more positive review I've read about this beauty of a camera. Why are so many people so immediately negative towards this camera? I know expectations were high but there is only so much possible in the format and the camera's price range. I'm looking forward to more reviews and I am leaning more towards buying the XL-2 now.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · July 22nd, 2004, 05:21 AM

<Quote:That reviewer should really put up a screen cap of the GL2's none frame-mode 50i screen shot>

All the frame-grabs I put up from the XM2/GL2 were interlaced (50i) but only 16:9.
Thanks anyway for the positive feedback of the review.
I was particularlty pleased with the stage material.
Had to go off to shoot 16:9 stuff on the XM2 yesterday - boy, do I miss the XL2 ;-)

Robin.

Chris Hurd · July 22nd, 2004, 07:15 AM

For the record I just want to say that Robin and Colin did a great job -- theirs is the first serious XL2 review ever that wasn't the result of a few minutes of playing on a tradeshow floor. Congrats fellows,

July 20th, 2004, 09:30 PM	#1
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	PAL XL2 Review at SimplyDV (UK) Howdy from Texas, SimplyDV.com, an excellent digital video site in the UK, is supposed to have an online review of the PAL XL2 up shortly. Keep an eye on this page for developments. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 21st, 2004, 05:40 AM	#2
Ed Smith Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hampshire, England Posts: 1,545	Review is now on line: http://www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/canon_xl2.html time to get my reading head on... Cheers, __________________ Ed Smith Hampshire, UK Good things come to those who wait My Skiing web www.Frostytour.co.uk For quick answers Search dvinfo.net \| The best in the business: dvinfo.net Sponsors

July 21st, 2004, 08:06 AM	#5
Colin Barrett New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 11	All the shots were taken in PAL interlaced mode as were given to me by Robin. I've now amended the captions to emphasise this fact. I'm always wary of uploading frame-grabs from video footage onto web pages simply because they're bound to suffer some degradation even after careful optimisation in Photoshop. However, on comparing these full-sized (1024x576) grabs with the originals that Robin created in Avid DV Express I'm quite confident that they're sufficiently well representative. Doubtless Robin will add to these notes when he returns to base from his shoot. Colin __________________ Colin Barrett http://www.simplydv.co.uk

July 21st, 2004, 08:52 AM	#6
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	<< I'm always wary of uploading frame-grabs from video footage onto web pages >> Someone who understands! Hooray! Thanks Colin, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 21st, 2004, 09:10 AM	#8
Colin Barrett New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 11	I agree that as long as one is working within consistent parameters there is reasonable basis for comparison. It's important that those accessing the images must also understand this, and not be tempted to harp on about this visual artefact or that bit of picture noise. There are those, of course, who'll find fault no matter what you do and how you do it! Colin __________________ Colin Barrett http://www.simplydv.co.uk

July 21st, 2004, 06:24 AM	#3
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	hmmm.. I'm must say.. I'm not entirely impressed with the resolution of the two screen shots provided.. The guy didn't mention whether they were shot in the XL2's progressive mode or interlaced. I would hope they weren't prog!

July 21st, 2004, 09:02 AM	#7
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	Given all things are equal and all screen caps from every camera will go through the same minute degradation, then this is indeed a valid base-level at which to compare image quality from. Regardless, I'm relieve that these caps were indeed interlaced. Boyd: i found those caps to be no better than the current offerings of 1/3 CCD 60i cameras we have, in 4:3 ratio.

July 21st, 2004, 09:13 AM	#9
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	They look good to me Colin. Of course there was obviously horizontal stretching involved though since the anamorphic DV image as recorded to tape would have only been 720 pixels wide.

July 21st, 2004, 09:30 AM	#10
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	To think that an accurate judgement of a camera's ability to capture images can be made from online images is rather telling, in my humble opinion. Jay

July 21st, 2004, 07:40 PM	#11
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	That reviewer should really put up a screen cap of the GL2's none frame-mode 50i screen shot. The reason i'm suggesting this is that the XL2's 4:3 pixel use is not necesarrily that much higher than the GL2's.

July 22nd, 2004, 03:48 AM	#12
Colin Barrett New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Milton Keynes, UK Posts: 11	Whilst I agree that this would be useful, I have to say that this review was put together in 48 hours with the reviewer (Robin) and the web editor (me) working 200 miles apart. I guess the main issue is that although there's always something that would have been nice, it's a question of what can be done in the time. Don't forget that we both have "day jobs" and that we're doing it for love not money. Colin __________________ Colin Barrett http://www.simplydv.co.uk

July 22nd, 2004, 04:49 AM	#13
Paul Colt Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Posts: 35	Looks good.... I thought the caps looked great, but then I don't usually need the 16 : 9 feature. I just think its one more positive review I've read about this beauty of a camera. Why are so many people so immediately negative towards this camera? I know expectations were high but there is only so much possible in the format and the camera's price range. I'm looking forward to more reviews and I am leaning more towards buying the XL-2 now.

July 22nd, 2004, 05:21 AM	#14
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	<Quote:That reviewer should really put up a screen cap of the GL2's none frame-mode 50i screen shot> All the frame-grabs I put up from the XM2/GL2 were interlaced (50i) but only 16:9. Thanks anyway for the positive feedback of the review. I was particularlty pleased with the stage material. Had to go off to shoot 16:9 stuff on the XM2 yesterday - boy, do I miss the XL2 ;-) Robin.

July 22nd, 2004, 07:15 AM	#15
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	For the record I just want to say that Robin and Colin did a great job -- theirs is the first serious XL2 review ever that wasn't the result of a few minutes of playing on a tradeshow floor. Congrats fellows, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!