Calling all Xl2 owners....help! Is my camera defective? samples for you...
 

Ok...

Let me take a deep breath......

AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Let me start at the begining. I have been a DVX100 user for 2 years. Got mine when they originally shipped. Prior to that I had the XL1 for 4 years. So I have a decent background with these cameras. I have always preferred the form factor of the XL series because of stability so when I heard that the XL2 was coming out....I had to have it. I read some of the early impressions on this board and got the distinct impression that this camera is on par.....equal to if not better than the DVX in resolution and color reproduction. Every comment I have heard about the camera has made mention of how incredibly sharp and clear the image is. Especially users here that I have great respect for. This is why I sold my DVX and got the XL2. Because I felt that I would be getting the same....if not better image quality. Even today when I put my DVX100 footage on my 55inch projection TV I am blowm away by the apparent resolution and clarity. OK.......on to the issue at hand.

I get my XL2 last Friday and assembled it. It is late at night by the time I got home so I could not really put it though its paces. I however did handle it and get a little familiar with the layout of the controls. I didn't change any of the settings other than to put it in 24P mode and 16x9.

The next day I get a chance to shoot. As luck would have it a hawk is being badgered by some bluejays in a tree in my yard. I get the camera and film some of this. I use the default outdoor white balance and expose properly using the zebra patterns. I finish up and proceed to go watch my first footage on this high tech marvel that is supposedly so clean and pristine.

I fire up the TV and sit back. Imagine my surprise when the image comes up and it is a little dark......all of the colors seems muted.....and the image seems.....well....soft. A little. I pop in my old DVX footage that was shot outside in my yard on a very similar day.......WOW!!!! It is crystal clear and sharp as a tack!

I must be doing something wrong I tell myself. I go back to the drawing board and read the manual hoping that I missed something obvious. I do some more shooting, all the while being super careful that I am not doing something wrong. As it gets dark I get the chance to shoot inside. I choose a room with 2 incandescent lights that I have shot in before with the DVX in 24P mode and it looked very nice and clean.

I finally get the chance to watch the footage and.....yuck.....All the colors are super muted still.....there almost seems like there is a "haze" over the image casuing everything to appear darker. It just looks wrong. I proceed to show my wife who has been involved in my video making for the last 10 years and she says it looks bad too. In fact she used a few choice words to describe it.

At this point I am about to have a nervous breakdown as I jumped through hoops to sell my DVX and do a few side jobs to buy this $5000.00 camera and I am seeing results that look like a 1 CCD DV camera from walmart.....(ok not quite but in my mind it was not anywhere near the DVX qulaity I was used to.)

All the while I am reading posts on this site from users who have camera in hand and are raving that is looks incredible.....even stating that it has some drawbacks but the incredible clarity of the image is undeniable. Heck.....even DVX faithful seem to be admitting that the XL2 has incredible clean video beyond the DVX.

I decide to do a test.....non-scientific to reassure that I am not crazy. MY wife tells me that I don;t need to do this as she can clearly see the image is inferior. But I need to appease my doubting self. My partner who still has a DVX100 (non A!) comes over and watched what I have shot. He instantly says.....something is wrong.....you have to be doing something to cause that. I inform him that I am still on default setting and have double checked everything 2-3 times and can't resolve it.

We take both camera and do some simple shooting of similar objects outside and inside. This is on another 80 degree day around 2:00 and not a cloud in the sky. Both camera are white balanced and all settings are neutral. So neither camera has any Cinegamma or color settings moved from default. If you know the DVX you would know that without Cinegamma on it is not that colorful.

We sit down to watch the footage and play his first. It looks real good. Clear and great colors. we watch mine (XL2) It looks pretty good too.....except it is lacking a little color on the outside shots and even less color on the inside ones and sharpness is not up to DVX. We decide that the camera is about the same as the DVX on most shots and a little less on some. He says.....it just proves that it isn't anything revolutionary and that everyone on the web is just exxagerating. Also that having compared them he would definitely not buy the XL2 as it is only as good or inferior in many shots.

I proceeded to load this footage into Premiere and do A/B comparison......woah! There is a significant difference in quality when I do that. I guess you need a side by side comparison to see it. But the colors aren't there in the XL2. and it isn't as sharp.

Am I going nuts! How can everyone and their Uncle love this camera and it's image when to me it doesn;t even look as good as the DVX100 non A?

I am posting a link to a short movie that will give and example of the color differences and the inability of the XL2 to reproduce sharp clear images in an environment that is lit fairly well. It is not a studio environment but my room with 3 windows and daylight spilling in. Both camera have neutral density off, and are wide open at f1.8. I will also post links to uncompressed .bmps of the this same footage so you can compare. Maybe one of you can analyze what I am seeing and tell me technically why it is like this.

But mostly I would like to hear if this looks acceptable. I feel it is not and I am strongly leaning towards returning the camera if this is not a defect.

Let me know what you think. Each image starts with DVX and then switches to XL2. Sorry I didn't have time to label.

http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/xl2-dvx.wmv

Here are BMPs of the images that are more easily viewed. They are uncompressed directly from the Premiere timeline

http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/dvx6.bmp
http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/xl26.bmp

http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/dvx7.bmp
http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/xl27.bmp

http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/dvx8.bmp
http://www.iciclestudios.com/images/xl2/xl28.bmp

Someone tell me I'm not crazy and stop the madness!!!

Marty,

I must admit, when I read your text I thought - "Here we go again - this is going to be another XL1 story...very soft image compared to just about everythig else" (I am an unhappy XL1s owner - especially when it comes to sharpness)

But...when I looked at your test footage, in my opinion the XL2 samples definitely seem to be sharper than the DVX100. The colors seem a little "cooler" and a bit washed out on the XL2 (which is unusual as the Canon normally has warmer tones).

There seems to be little difference with the last image (the one with the toys).

I would conduct some more tests before you take it back. Try something in brighter light outside and see how that works out. And of course, fiddle around to tweak the image a little more.

Hope that helps,

Ron

Hello Marty,

Sorry you have are having problems. In all honesty, all those grabs look like typical Canon images to me. I owned tha XL-1 then the XL1-s then the DVX100, I recently purchased a DVX100a when the XL2 was announced. I imported Barry's footage into FCP and for my taste, I had to kick up the saturation just as I used to with the XL-1 and XL-1s, I also notice that "haze" you speak of in the other samples I've seen. There were several other samples posted over at DVXUser as well. The XL2 picture is really noiseless, especially in the low light samples but I thought every sample I've seen lacks color and has that hazy look. I never thought any of the XL's had a sharp picture, it was always softer than the Sony's at the time, some people had a preference for the softer look. Hopefully you can find someone with an XL2 to do side by side comparisons but I'm thinking the results will look the same. I sincerely hope you get this worked out or at least replaced or refunded.

Marty,

Please adjust your viewfinder settings so that you are not under-exposing by mistake.

1) Go into the MENU, DISPLAY SETUP
2) EVF SETUP:
- Set BRIGHTNESS to NO HIGHER THAN Middle Default
- Set CONTRAST to NO HIGHER THAN Middle Default
- Set COLOR to NO HIGHER THAN Middle Default
- Set SHARPNESS to Middle Default or higher, depending upon your preference.

PLEASE make sure that you are reviewing your footage on a decent NTSC CRT (glass) monitor and NOT an LCD panel. Better yet, use as high a quality monitor as possible, preferably the same NTSC CRT monitor which you use to edit and color correct with.

Let us know if you are still having issues setting up your camera.

- don

Ron,
The tests outside in broad daylight are closer. The colors and clarity still are in favor of the DVX however. In all fairness I am slightly biased toward the Canon but I can't deny that when I view them side by side the DVX is looking better.

I posted these because the muted colors are most obvious on here. And the way it is now, filming with this particular unit inside a house lit with normal lighting is dark as heck. I'd have to gain up a lot to get usable footage. and then it will be noisy. The DVX however is handling it better. I am hoping that this is a defect and not the nature of the camera.

Anybody trying the XL2 have a DVX background? I'd like to hear what you think about the 2.

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube :
Please adjust your viewfinder settings so that you are not under-exposing by mistake. -->>>

I haven't changed the viewfinder settings but I will check. However how can I be underexposing when I have the ND off, the iris wide open with a 1/48 shutter? I could go to 1/24 shutter or start to use gain. But the DVX is right next to me doing admirably at 1/48 and it can't even use gain in 24p mode.......

Marty...

Are you using auto white balance on these...or a preset...or are you manually white balancing...? I did some tests a few years back on the xl1, and was chastised for not manually white balancing....sure enough the presets were tuned somewhat red...which is what I'm seeing in your shots. Also...you are about 1/3 stop under on the xl2 stuff and this in combination with the color shift are certainly helping to soften your colors somewhat.

What I'd like to see you do to really test the cameras properly is to get a lighting situation that will let you get f 4 to 5.6 out of either camera, and a shot that is somewhere in the middle of their zoom range. Manually white balance both cameras, and then show us something.

I shot a lot of color this weekend, and I don't see anything wrong other than the typical canon propensity to run yellows a little red (this is happening in your shots as well.

Also, I took your stills and opened them in photoshop...surprisingly when you assign a working profile to the images (exactly the same for each image) the color saturation is not nearly as noticeable compared to the unprofiled bmp's on my monitor....I don't know how this translates to what you'd see on screen.

Barry

No ... It looks like your ND filter is somehow maybe stuck on and wont flip off.
or it looks like the iris is somehow stuck and wont open all the way.

Hard to say without playing with it. But I feel like if I could I could tell you weather or not somethign was wrong or not.

Barry:

I white balanced on a white piece of paper by the window where daylight was spilling in. what do you mean when you say I am "about 1/3 stop under on the xl2 stuff and this in combination with the color shift are certainly helping to soften your colors somewhat"?? Sorry for my ignorance but I want to understand exactly what you are saying here.

I'm also wondering how the real scene was. For example the
scenes with the table. Do you think the DVX is more "accurate"
to how it looked to your eye? It's one thing to have a difference
between the camera's, but how does it compare to the real world?

Ofcourse it could be a defect as well. Try removing all batteries
for a couple of hours and then start fresh again.

The table is a really brilliant yellow in real life. The DVX is reproducing that accurately. I do know that if cinegamma had been on the DVX that yellow would really be jumping! Maybe too much. But knowing the DVX with cinegamma has a strong influence on colors I chose to shoot with it off for a baseline comparison.

I will try to post a couple of other images this afternoon that are taken inside under normal lighting conditions. These are the strangest looking of all. Really soft and....just a weird look to them.

IS it at all possible for you to try another lens just in case that is the problem?

Marty,

Unfortunately there is nothing wrong with your camera. The quality of your footage is the same we are getting on our XL2. Just like you, we are highly dispointed with it. Not that it's a bad camera, but I guess wiht all the talk and hype we were expecting to be blown away by the picture quality...but instead it looks pretty much like DVX100....again that's not a bad thing (we love the dvx) but I trully believe that the XL2 is overpriced for its performance...especially if you don't intend to use the 16:9 feature..... I guess i agree with the statement that the XL2 is NOT revolutionary..... As far as I am concerned this camera could've come out at the same time as the DVX100 back then....as it really doesn't offer any major upgrades (such a shame afer all the wait).
Again I am not bashing the camera (especially since we own one!) I am just saying that the quality of your footage is what to expect from the XL2. We have also noticed that the XL2 seems a little darker than the DVX, even when they both have the same f-stop and shutter speed. And just like you we notice that the focus seems to be a little softer. But no camera is perfect! (but what is up with the lousy iris control knob????)
What amazes me is I read somewhere on this forum that someone thought the XL2 looked as good or similar to super 16 or even HD... I don't know what HD work you have been looking at, but no offence, the XL2 doesn't even COME CLOSE to HD.... (I can't believe someone would even compare it to HD....unless you're talking HDV) but statements like this really make me wonder if people are maybe overhyping the camera a little too much!!!
Hence Marty, I believe that maybe you were a victim of over hype and maybe you expected too much. (I know we did!)

Those forums are great to get information...but sometimes we get carried away and we start painting an unrealistic picture of how the product may perform!

Good luck with whatever decision you make!

Marty,

I'm reading these comments and feeling your pain brother...

I think Maya is right, perhaps your expectations were a bit higher than reality.

But... have you seen the footage that was posted by that guy in Austria. He apparently had the camera for a couple of hours and quickly shot some footage and posted it for download. I'm sorry I can't remember his name or the thread that contains the URL, but when I saw that, it made me want to go out and buy one! Those images are absolutely beautiful, and certainly streets above what I achieve with my XL1S (Which probably illustrates what a crap camera it is!)

As I have said previously, I am an unhappy XL1S owner, and I have always been disappointed in the sharpness of the image, but NEVER with the color saturation. The colors have always been great.

If you're unhappy now you probably always will be...

Good luck with your decision anyway,

Ron

<<<Not that it's a bad camera, but I guess wiht all the talk and hype we were expecting to be blown away by the picture quality...but instead it looks pretty much like DVX100.....again that's not a bad thing (we love the dvx) but I trully believe that the XL2 is overpriced for its performance...especially if you don't intend to use the 16:9 feature..... I guess i agree with the statement that the XL2 is NOT revolutionary.....


Maya

I think your point of view is interesting...here a couple of thoughts.

1. I've posted stills of a good comparison between the DVX and XL2. These cameras are so close to each other in 4:3 mode, you'd swear its the same technology (guess what....it is!) Out of the box the 4:3 image of the xl2 is sharper than the DVX. In 16:9 the xl2 provides significantly higher resolution than the DVX.

2. XL2 is overpriced especially if you don't want to use one "major" feature that makes it substantially superior to the DVX. OK, then the turbocharged Mini cooper S is overpriced compared to the Mini if I don't want to go as fast.

3. Canon's opening statement about the Canon XL2 is that it is "evolutionary"...who ever said that this is a revolutionary camera? It is a major upgrade to an existing system that has evolved considerably over the years...the xl2 is the biggest jump in terms of quality and functionality yet, but that is when it is compared to the xl1s, not the DVX, but still, I've never heard anyone call it revolutionary...although I've heard people say it isn't.

<<<What amazes me is I read somewhere on this forum that someone thought the XL2 looked as good or similar to super 16 or even HD... I don't know what HD work you have been looking at, but no offence, the XL2 doesn't even COME CLOSE to HD.... (I can't believe someone would even compare it to HD....unless you're talking HDV) but statements like this really make me wonder if people are maybe overhyping the camera a little too much!!!>>>


4. HD...what I said was that if you view the 16:9 30p footage on an HD monitor, you'll be very impressed...you'll swear it is HD. And it is better than the compressed HD streams available over sattelite. I've said the same thing about the DVX in the past, but the xl2 footage in 16:9 is even more impressive. I'll stand by that statement. From a pure technical level, both cameras produce a 480p image that is certainly greater than what is necessary for SD viewing, 720p is considered HD...480p ain't that far off.

But what gets me most is this need to knock a camera for not being revolutionary enough, or calling it overpriced....how can the xl2 be overpriced when there is not another camera in the marketplace with anywhere near the same feature set.....The DVX has a beautiful lens that produces some stunning wideangle shots...but there is no way in Haddes that lens cost as much to produce as canons 20x plus camera mount and body mount. The DVX motorized zoom is all but worthless unless you only want to get from point A to point B. The XL2 zoom is worthy of a true professional lens. And the hair trigger on the DVX manual zoom certainly doesn't compare with what is available on the canon manual lens. The OIS on the XL2 is truly phenomenal...I'm getting incredible handheld stuff at 20x...I couldn't get footage nearly as stable on the DVX at half that zoom. And technology-wise the internal guts of this camera are virtually the same (actually the same?) as the DVX.

Look I bought the DVX100 when it came out for $3800. I just paid $600 more for the xl2...Considering the increased functionality alone (add the xl2 platform to the DVX100 guts...Does the $600 difference make the xl2 overpriced?

For what it's worth...I am extremely happy with the xl2, and I'm sorry that not everyone shares that opinion. I come from the still camera world where resolution is everything, and the xl2 is the first camera from canon that has really impressed me in this regard. It may be the last video camera I ever own (ha!)..


Barry

-----------------------------------
Everybody denies I am a genius - but nobody ever called me one! -Orson Welles

I am not knocking the price if it looks good! I feel there is some theory here that I am dogging this cam. I'm not. But with mine at least it isn't up to snuff. Yet. Do I think it is better than the DVX? Maybe. At the moment I can't get a sharp picture out of it if my life depended on it. I was expecting a higher res looking image. In my comparisons so far I don't see it. I see softness and no apparent resolution boost. And I never set out to compare it to the DVX. I expected to shoot some footage with and and be amazed! IF not amazed at least be impressed with the saem clean sharp technology that the DVX gave me. When I viewed it for the first time I was underwhelmed......It wasn;t anywhere near as crisp and the colors were drab! This is daylight! BUt look at those web videos of vienna! They look great.....surely I am doing something wrong. BUt through 3 days of playing it still produces a soft, uncolorful picture.

I am hoping that it is defective and a new one will make me happy. BUt in all honesty there are some drawbacks that I don;t like that much anyway but was willing to work around them for the supposed resolution gain and clear almost HD quality image.
The iris control I don't like, the viewfinder is nowhere near the quality of the DVX LCD, and the zoom and focus rings are that weak servo deal. I knew of these limitations coming in but expected to be rewarded with amzing imagery. Even in moderate light. It just isn't happening so far. And that makes these inconveniences seem even bigger.WHy give up the things I am comfortable with on the DVX if the XL2 doesn't bring a better image to the table? And for me....so far it hasn't.

But good gracious the images posted by others here and on the web look gorgeous and colorful.

I don't have an XL2 and if I get one it'll be a while before the PAL version is available here. But I must say that what I have seen of Johnnie's stuff over on DVXUser was absolutely amazing. I dunno if it was what you'd call "better" than the DVX as I don't have one of those either, but it was very nice.

Have you guys, who are having the trouble, tried playing with the camera some to see where it gets it's best results? Maybe out of the box it isn't that great?

I do however agree that is seems overpriced but that always has to be taken relative to your personal requirements. The Xl2 does have features that the DVX lacks, but the opposite can be said too. If you're in the indie filmmaking crowd, working on a lowbudget, you want a camera that fills most of the areas you want, all without having to spend a tonne more. This is where I think the DVX wins hands down

1) Good sized LCD for better focussing
2) Rings for Zoom, Iris and Focus.
3) Repeatable markings on barrel
4) Nice wide angle lens.

Now if you were an ENG/Event person, you're probably totally rapt with the XL2 and would prefer it over the DVX for it's own reasons

1) 20x zoom
2) Excellent OIS
3) Shoulder resting

Now if you're in the middle (like me :( ) , you're hosed with either cam without spending substantially more.

For me, I'd think the Xl2 was the Bees Knees from what I've seen if it'd only had an LCD and they'd not put that STUPID iris flick switch on it - Is there anyone out there who likes this thing? Seriously I feel like giving my Xm2 a nice punt into next year whenever I have to adjust the iris on it. ;)


Aaron

I don't have the XL2 but have seen the test movie made by a guy in Austria.

He was talking abouth something you have to do again after you where choosing a setting. He made the same mistake and the først test he made was the same as yours.

Try on the www.dvxuser.com

"Back from few more hours with the camera.
The more I use it.more I like it...
I think I found out why the footage I took 2 days ago is looking kind of "videoish".

1-Somehow the cine matrix on that demo camera is not really working.

2-The camera have a default status plus 3 adjustable.

After adjusting some parameters,when you go out of the menu you have to "call" the cine file you just adjusted other wise the camera will film on its default.Only today I got it...
The picture quality is amazing and almost totally noise free.
Still not enough filmic but I hope to get there...
I will send Jarred more material during the weekend and hopefully some will be posted. "

This is from the www.dvxuser.com , he made the first test with the Canon XL2.

http://www.24puser.com/XL2Video.wmv take a look at this.

Barry,

I am not here to start a flame or anything but I will stand by the fact that the XL2 is an overpriced cam for being "old DVX technology". Of course I paid $3150 for the DVX and $5000 for the XL2.... so while your difference was only $600 my difference is $2000....so I am sure you can see where I am coming from at this point....

I guess it comes down to opinions and preferences....funny cause you knock the DVX100 motorized zoom and i find it much better than the XL2....different people, different preferences! :-)

This post wasn't even intended to offend you or anything, I guess from all the people who were raving and saying how unbelievable the picture quality was, I expected to be blown away....instead it pretty much look like a DVX100, and you know how easy we get spoiled.... the DVX looked awesome when we first used it but overtime you got used to it and eventually want a better picture (even though it's a good picture to begin with).....so i expected the XL2 to really outshine the DVX and find out that it really doesn't.... just my opinion that's it!
What i don't understand is why did it take Canon so long to come up with the XL2 when it's really a DVX100 inside a canon body?

Either way the whole point of my post was to tell Marty that what he's getting from his XL2 is what is expected from it. I will bet you anything you want that even if he exchanges it for another one he will get the same results. I don't believe there is anything wrong with his camera....

Maya,

No offense taken...just having a spirited discussion. :)

One of the things that we all need to remember about these cameras, and it has been said often by people much wiser than myself...they all have more in common than they have differences. In the case of the DVX and XL2...one look at the menu choices lets us know that Canon is licensing the technology from panasonic...(no mystery here...every canon 3 chip has panasonic technology inside). On top of this, the overriding limiter of any DV camera is the format itself. There is only so much data that be stored in a frame that is 720x480 that is lossy compressed 5:1.

As Chris told me once, Canon's video division is a relatively small company compared to its still camera biz, and certainly it is much smaller than panasonic and sony, who both have well developed professional video divisions. Canon's strength is in its innovative design...whether you like it or not, the xl2 is a unique animal. I'm not being an apologist for canon, I'm just suggesting that for those who like the xl1 platform ---the way it works-- the addition of DVX-like technology is a huge thing. (the same could be said if canon licensed its industrial design to panasonic--a certain number of DVX users would shout---cool!!) Anyway, when you add a 16:9 function that surpasses anything the DVX can offer in terms of resolution...we're not really talking about "old" DVX technology. My experience viewing xl2 footage has been different than yours...Viewing on an HD monitor, I have never seen such delicate detail from a DV format camera, almost no noticeable aliasing.

But I keep wondering why we are seeing different things...is it our monitors..is it our settings...or just our eyes. Marty's shooting 24p, I'm shooting 30p....is there possibly a difference....only time will tell.

Barry

Take into consideration that to achieve "True" 16:9 from the DVX, you have to slap on a $700 - $800 anamorphic adapter. With that said, now the two camera's are only a $1,000 give or take apart in price. Couple that with the XL2's ability to change lenses and now ask yourself is the XL2 overpriced? If 16:9 is "important to you then it's (XL2) is very competitive at it's current price point. If 16:9 is not a feature you need, then you probably wouldn't have considered the XL2 anyway.

Who knows why it took Canon so long...

Maybe they were making enough from their Xl1s

Maybe Panasonic (Assuming they have their technology inside) wouldn't allow them to use it.

Maybe they see their market as ENG/Event and not Filmmakers so the other additions were better.

Maybe the prefer to make more $$ from the addons they sell rather than offer an all in one package.

Maybe they don't really care about this sort of market and are happy to be taggers on rather than ground breakers.

My feeling is the latter two, but that's not necessarily the truth and we'll probably never know.

Now if Panasonic could only add interchangeable lens technology then things might start to get interesting...

Aaron

As a "fly on the wall" I would just point out that you're buying the XL-2 a few days after it's been released so it really isn't realistic to expect any "bargains." Didn't the DVX sell for something like $3,700 at release? If so, at $3,150 that's about a 15% discount. If cost is a big factor then wait a couple months for inventories to build up and demand to level off. As competition heats up then Canon may start pricing the XL-2 a little more aggressively...

Aaron,

With 16:9 and the interchangable lens system, which allows for manual lenses with barrel markings, with without servo if you go to the 14x, I think the XL2 is a lot more filmmaker friendly than the DVX. Just buy a body kit and add on from there. Really the XL2 is for anyone, that's one of the things that makes Canon so great. It's fully customizable. The DVX feels really limited in that way.

The one factor that no one has mentioned which could be crucial. The footage of Vienna was shot with a PAL version of the XL2. I know the PAL unit has different CCD's.

Could this possibly explain the difference? I really hope not because my XL-2 is due to arrive in 2 days. I am going to give it a good workout in progressive 16x9 and see how it plays on my 65" widescreen tv. Would love to get the kind of 'wow' factor that Barry mentions. I will keep my fingers crossed.

Joel, I totally agree with you. Sure the Xl2 is expandable and VERY filmmaker friendly, but I guess the clinching factor that me and lots of others are talking about is the price factor and expectations. That's what I think have been shattered.

I think a lot of people think that the things that the DVX offers should be considered standard fair now - I mean the camera has been out for years - if you're an indie filmmaker on a low budget. So they expect an LCD of decent size (Cause they can't afford a pro monitor for the set). They expect a good wide angle cause that's popular and very useful indoors (And not have to buy an adapter). They expect good manual control of the lens built in (So they can pull focus etc) without having to buy another lens - and in the DVX case you can't so if that had none of those things they'd be screwed.

Sure to do all those properly on the Xl2 you buy a proper monitor, proper manual lens for the XL2, wide angle lens etc, but that's a lot more $$. Canon could have absolutely made a lens that was wide and manual as standard. I just feel that that would have killed a lot of their income on the other lenses and so they, of course wouldn't do it.

I applauded Panasonic for coming out with something revolutionary - for breaking the mold. Canon just used it - the remind me of the Commodore of the video camera industry. Good potential, just wasted.

I bitch about this a lot and I think it really does no good, so I'll stop. I just have to be happy with being dissapointed.


Aaron

<<<-- Canon could have absolutely made a lens that was wide and manual as standard. I just feel that that would have killed a lot of their income on the other lenses and so they, of course wouldn't do it. -->>>

Hey Aaron, you never know, maybe that lens is coming. We've had the 16X AF IS, the 14x manual, the 16x AF IS II, the 3x AF wide, the 16x manual, the 20x AF IS, now why not a nice wide angle, short zoom, high resolution full manual lens? It wouldn't kill any of their other lenses, since only the 3x AF wide angle would offer a similar focal range, but no AF on this one, so not really the same market. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for that lens to be released soon.

To me you guys are worrying about nothing. Just like the guy with the moire problem. A whole thread on it and then you find out it was operator error.

Oh wow! A whole thread about it! Big Deal. I'm discussing ways to make the image look better and if nobody can suggest something that I haven't tried to fix it I have to assume that it is defective or overhyped. Side by side in good lighting or bad lighting in does not look one bit better to me than the DVX other than the 16x9. But I don;t want 16x9 with poor color reproduction and soft images. My DVX (no longer have it) consistently gave sharp clear pictures regardless of the light.

Yes it looked incredible on a set with pro lighting but it didn't look bad shooting in a non scripted non professionally lit scene either.

So far only the outside shots even compare with the DVX res and sharpness. Inside it looks grey and washed out. I have tried changing settings, tweaking colors and even using gain. IT helps but there is not mistaking that something is off. At least on this camera. And I find it hard to beleive that something that is this obvious to me on the videos I've shot could be deemed acceptable to everyone else.

My only thought is that the frame grabs do not properly show the issue at hand. There is a real lack of contrast in most of the footage.

Marty Hudzik writes:
>>>>>>>>"But I don;t want 16x9 with poor color reproduction and soft images. My DVX (no longer have it) consistently gave sharp clear pictures regardless of the light... I have tried changing settings, tweaking colors and even using gain. IT helps but there is not mistaking that something is off. At least on this camera. And I find it hard to beleive that something that is this obvious to me on the videos I've shot could be deemed acceptable to everyone else... My only thought is that the frame grabs do not properly show the issue at hand. There is a real lack of contrast in most of the footage."

Marty, with all respect. This isn't going anywhere... Seriously. The appropriate procedure for you to follow is to contact your dealer first and allow them the opportunity to work with Canon in determining if your camera is defective. The good news is that you purchased your camera from a very reputable and professional service-oriented Canon authorized reseller. You stated to me today that they have personally offered you an R.M.A. # to quickly return the camera to them so that your isssues can be addressed promptly with a minimum of downtime. Why don't you take advantage of that? That is the only way this can be most effectively addressed. They will take care of you. Trust me on this one. Do not fear that if you allow the camera to leave your hands that the integrity of the camera will be compromised. Holding onto the camera and performing tests comparing the output of the camera against the DVX is not going to solve anything. The issue at hand is whether or not your particular camera is performing as it was designed to. In simple terms, the camera needs to be checked by qualified Canon-authorized technicians. Please do not take this the wrong way, I feel for you bud... been there, done that, you know? Speaking from my own direct experience with the new XL2, I can safely say that it is a wonderful camera capable of handling most anything you throw at it. I took a look at the images you posted. They look under-exposed a bit, yes. The colors look a little on the neutral/ unsaturated side, yes. Is the XL2 capable of producing a much more pleasing image in that environment you set up? Most definitely.

Personally, I feel that you need an eye break, a respit from this ordeal - let's move forward instead of detracting sideways - send the XL2 back so that it can be determined if it is defective.

Please be mindful of jumping to conclusions. That is a very 'reactive' thing to do and the most 'proactive' thing you can do for yourself at this point is to move forward and follow through with the return arrangement offered to you by your dealer.

Everything is going to work out.

Sincerely wishing you the best,

- don

Good points from all (especially Don now). If you are not happy
take them up on the offer and otherwise get your DVX back.

I can understand why some people might be dissappointed, but
if you've bought the camera you just haven't done your homework
in my opinion. Now this is not to bash anyone, but consider the
following (this is going to sound a bit hars, sorry):

1) if you want the first camera's out of the plant you know it might have problems and you definitely know you can't do any of my points below

2) I would not buy a camera I did not tested myself for that kind of money. At least indoor in the store.

3) Some people complain about money versus features etc. etc. Clearly the camera is not for you. Don't buy it then.

As stated before if you don't want 16:9 then you are probably
better off with the DVX indeed. That doesn't make the XL2 a
lesser camera or over-priced.

What I find funny is that a lot of people seem to want film look
(which means the widescreen look as well) and when a camera
comes out with true 16:9 and 24p this combination is not praised
and people say they don't need/want 16:9. Huh? Now perhaps
these are not the same people (so please don't take offense),
but this feels a bit "off". The only reason I can imagine for not
wanting true 16:9 is when you are doing lots of TV / wedding
work for example. If you are in the business of making fictional
entertainment pieces why would you not want this?I assume you meant to write CAN instead of CAN'T in that last line.

Anyway, you say: "expect an LCD", "expect a good wide angle",
"expect good manual control" and "cause they can't afford a pro monitor"

If you can't afford a pro monitor (which you can get around $500
second hand) you should not get any of these camera's for
fictional work. Period. You can't trust the LCD on a DVX either,
perhaps more than the XL2 LCD, but still not as a professional
CRT monitor. If you can't shell out $500 for that I think you just
bought a too expensive camera. I've never had a problem
critically focussing my XL1S and the viewfinder on the XL2 should
be even better.

You also say people "expect" the other options. That is all fine
and well and those people can buy the DVX. I mean, if someone
who is expecting such options and buys a XL2 they have clearly
NOT done their homework. Simple as well. You don't HAVE to buy
an XL2 or a DVX. You HAVE a CHOICE.

From ZGC you can buy the XL2 *with* the manual lens and a B&W
viewfinder (which is way better than the DVX LCD) INSTEAD OF
the normal items. Yes you will pay more, but not that much more
(for the manual lens).

It all boils down to choice in the end. Basically who cares if
someone is dissapointed with a certain camera (if they haven't
bought it yet!). Get another camera. The camera doesn't make
your movie (great).

Why did you all plunk down $5000 for a camera when you've only
seen footage from PRE-PRODUCTION models and not even some
that you have recorded yourself? Not only that, you are getting
the first batch of camera's for a high price.

I'm just wondering why you guys bought the camera. Everybody
knows problems can crop up in the first couple of shipments,
prices will be high and you didn't get a change to see footage.
That's a pretty big gamble with $5000, especially if you need to
shoot for a client right away for example.

I appologize if this offended people. I'm just expressing my
questions and thoughts on this matter. It is not directed at
anyone in particular.

I don't know if the XL2 is good or not. I wouldn't recommend it
to anyone yet myself. I would encourage to check it out at a
store to see how it is. But that's always good to do.

Three things to perhaps get this resolved:

1) work with the company you bought it from, as indicated above they should help you in resolving this "issue"

2) the previous remark on PAL versus NTSC is an interesting one

3) how about viewfinder settings? On the XL1S I can focus the viewfinder. Perhaps this is off resulting in a blurred image? (focus with a black background (lens cap) on the white text)

What I think is key to posting ANY material with either the XL2
or the DVX is the mention of the EXACT settings used to shoot it.
The default settings on both camera's might be off. I know cine
settings may greatly improve images. There are so many settings
to change on each camera that it really becomes important to
tell exactly which settings you used (mode, shutter, iris, gain,
matrix, color balances, sharpness levels, black/white levels etc.)

Rob I think your points are valid, but I think the points of others are equally - it depends on your feelings of how you think this sort of market should operate. Sure, if we don't like it don't buy it, and if we don't want to fork out more $$ for the other bits, don't buy it - But that doesn't help the issue of trying to get companies to offer more to the consumer that what they might "want" to. I believe in putting more power in our hands, and less in theirs.

I'm the sort of guy who likes to see innovation. I used to develop computer games and I tried to be innovative in doing so. I loved the Amiga and it's innovative way of doing things (Just let down by Commodore and squashed by the PC behemoth) I'm still a developer and when we look at what new things we want to put into the next version of our software, me and most of the other developers want to put in stuff WAY over and above what we know the bean counters will allow - and it pisses me off that we have to basically cripple our software because of it.

Canon had a prime opportunity to kick arse in this field and I like the style of the Xl series cameras so I was hoping to see some socks knocked off just like Panasonic knocked some off when it unleashed 24p at that price point.

Guess I was naive and expected too much and I don't think any side will win this debate, it's sort of fruitless.

Aaron

Thanks Rob. I was beginning to think my earlier post was somehow invisible. Tomorrow, I will get to test the NTSC XL2 against my NTSC XL1. Something tells me I am going to be pleased with the difference in quality. My only possible pre ownership complaint is loss of the 'wheel' control for iris. A toggle lever would seem to inhibit manual use.

To Don. What is your take on the new iris control? Is it limiting by your standards. BTW, am enjoying the MA-100 and isolator.

regards,

-gb-

Greg Boston writes:
>>>>>>>>"To Don. What is your take on the new iris control? Is it limiting by your standards. BTW, am enjoying the MA-100 and isolator."

Heyas Greg,

It is what it is. Same as before with the XL1s. I have no issue with it really- my brain simply adapts, for real.

If you have a need to constantly ride the iris during recording, consider buying the older Canon 14X Full Manual. (still available for sale from some resellers)

Hope to meet you soon at a show,

- don

Yes Don, been considering that since I now have a CO .6 clamp on which fits that lense. I was doing a shoot a couple weekends ago having to ride the iris quite a lot (filming a bike race). I finally gave in and threw the camera in Tv mode so I could hold a constant shutter speed(required by the guy paying me).

regards,

-gb-

Don,
My camera is indeed going back to the dealer. I opened my mind and started tweaking the gain and colors as we talked about yesterday. While I see some minor improvement I still get the feeling that the image is flat or soft or whatever. I hope I get good results from the dealer regarding Canon fixing/replacing....whatever.

I only responded in this thread again as there was a comment that basically stated that all of this is user error. That kindof ticked me off. In ten years in the business I have never found this issue with any cam......Canon AI Digital, Canon L2, VX1000, XL1, DVX100 or PD150. I haven't had any problem adapting to each camera strengths or weakness. I also haven't had the luxury of shooting on a better format like Digibeta or HD. SO all of my reference is in the "prosumer" world.

Maybe from what I have read I expected the XL2 to be a step above prosumer. At this point....mine.....my own......thos one here.....is not showing that. I am not dogging all XL2's.

I have a short video shoot at work today in the plant which is in a well lit area. I have done many commercials here before with the DVX and have a good reference. I am planning on using the XL2 there before sending it back as one last test of its image. I am now just judging the res and clarity and not worried about it's low light capabilites compared to DVX. Only raw image qulaity ....and this is 16x9 so I should see an improvement.

I;ll let you know how it stands up in this environment as opposed to the not perfectly lit environment.

Interesting article/editorial in October's DV magazine. It's all about WHY manufacturers don't add the nice things we want to prosumer cameras, when everyone knows they "can". Worth a read, and helps to understand their viewpoint. (Might be online at DV.com??)

Marty

I posted some new clips with more color. I'm curious to see how they look to your eyes.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=31660

Barry