Report from the field: XL2/XL1 Durability/Quality

Marty Hudzik · July 6th, 2005, 02:01 PM

In 4x3 mode the XL2 will definitely not be as wide. However in 16x9 the XL2 should match very closely to the XL1's wide angle.

Are you shooting in 4x3?

Also....I notice the XL2 is much sharper than the XL1 but the colors are de-saturated in comparison.

Anthony Marotti · July 6th, 2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

In 4x3 mode the XL2 will definitely not be as wide. However in 16x9 the XL2 should match very closely to the XL1's wide angle.

Are you shooting in 4x3?

Also....I notice the XL2 is much sharper than the XL1 but the colors are de-saturated in comparison.

You know, I only shot 1 short film in 16:9 (which premiered to a sold out audience I must say) and that was with the DPs camera. I shoot mostly industrial documentary, corporate stuff and have been shooting almost exclusively in 4:3. I will be shooting another short with my Canons and will delve into 16:9 for myself for the first time.

I agree with you as to the sharpness, but my XL2 is more saturated than my XL1. But if you put 10 cameras of the exact same model side-by-side, you would probably get 10 different results anyway.

I'm goin to swap those damn lenses....

:-)

PS I am getting either a DVCAM (DSR-400) or a Panasonic DVCPro 50 soon, which I hope will give me results that are more in line with my expectations.

Lauri Kettunen · July 6th, 2005, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty Hudzik

Also....I notice the XL2 is much sharper than the XL1 but the colors are de-saturated in comparison.

I have the PAL versions of XL1 and XL2, and my experience is the same as Matry's.

I've noticed that the XL2 has more precise colors than the XL1. This is to say, the colors of XL2 match better to what I see than those of XL1. Furthermore, XL2 seems to capture better small differences in colors and for me it looks like it produces more colors than XL1.

When Anthony says the XL1 is closer to the image of a SLR camera, I agree in the sense that the dark end of XL1 behaves somewhat similarly to films such as Fuji Velvia: black becomes easily completely black. (Still, I prefer myself the black tones of XL2.)

Patrick King · July 6th, 2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

In the first versions of the XL2 Canon actually had at least one of the custom presets to match the XL1s. I have the settings written somewhere.

Ash,
Can you post those settings here? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=46082

Ash Greyson · July 6th, 2005, 04:58 PM

The XL2 is really a 16:9 camera, the 4:3 performance is good but no better than cameras that are half the price. The DSR-400 is a great camera as well but it will be similar to what you notice in the XL2. It has great resolution and superior performance in highlights AND shadows. People have been so accustomed to the super-crushed black saturated look that a good clean image somehow looks milky, when in fact, it looks much more like it would to your eye...

ash =o)

Anthony Marotti · July 7th, 2005, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash Greyson

The XL2 is really a 16:9 camera, the 4:3 performance is good but no better than cameras that are half the price. The DSR-400 is a great camera as well but it will be similar to what you notice in the XL2. It has great resolution and superior performance in highlights AND shadows. People have been so accustomed to the super-crushed black saturated look that a good clean image somehow looks milky, when in fact, it looks much more like it would to your eye...

ash =o)

I'm with you buddy !

Bill Pryor · July 7th, 2005, 10:03 AM

If you're shooting in 4:3, then the XL1 probably does look better, since you're using all of each chip. The XL2 crops down from the 16:9 aspect ratio to get to 4:3, so you lose some of the chip, in effect shooting with smaller chips.

Anthony Marotti · July 7th, 2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

If you're shooting in 4:3, then the XL1 probably does look better, since you're using all of each chip. The XL2 crops down from the 16:9 aspect ratio to get to 4:3, so you lose some of the chip, in effect shooting with smaller chips.

You guys have me all psyched up to shoot 16:9 !!

Being a novice in this regard, I assume that if I shoot 16:9 for my present audience that will be viewing my work on standard TVs, either from a DVD player, tape, or TV Broadcast... that I will have to deliver it in MattBox format...

Is that true?

Seems like I will be delivering more horizontal data, but at the cost of the vertical data... meaning that ultimately the image is going to be smaller.

Help me out guys :-)

Greg Boston · July 7th, 2005, 10:43 AM

Anthony,

FWIW, there were several folks that noted when the XL1s came out that they preferred the image of the original XL-1 (I still have mine). I am with the folks who notice the XL-2 is much sharper but I love the color saturation and gamma curve of the original XL-1. My default XL-2 color rendition is a little flat.

Don't worry about shooting 16:9 because all DVD players can recognize the anamorphic flag and the viewer should set up their player to know what type tv is attached (4:3 or 16:9). This way, the DVD player will adjust its output accordingly. IOW, it will letterbox widescreen footage for you on a 4:3 set and leave it alone when playing on a 16:9 set.

regards,

-gb-

Anthony Marotti · July 7th, 2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Boston

Anthony,

FWIW, there were several folks that noted when the XL1s came out that they preferred the image of the original XL-1 (I still have mine). I am with the folks who notice the XL-2 is much sharper but I love the color saturation and gamma curve of the original XL-1. My default XL-2 color rendition is a little flat.

Don't worry about shooting 16:9 because all DVD players can recognize the anamorphic flag and the viewer should set up their player to know what type tv is attached (4:3 or 16:9). This way, the DVD player will adjust its output accordingly. IOW, it will letterbox widescreen footage for you on a 4:3 set and leave it alone when playing on a 16:9 set.

regards,

-gb-

Yes, I really like the XL1 picture quality, especially for an inexpensive camera!!

Thanks for the feedback on 16:9 and how it works with DVD playback. If I am going to distribute on VHS tape, or other similar mediums, I will have to letterbox manually in my project I assume. Is that true?

Thanks Again !

Ash Greyson · July 7th, 2005, 02:38 PM

The XL1 came stock with a more tuned picture since there are no manual adjustments, no doubt that it looks best out of the box. With some skill the XL1s can look even better and with more skill the XL2 even better than that. The learning curve can be pretty steep. Panny has it down better on the DVX because they give you 5 pre-sets out of the box so the learning curve is easier (though the image in 16:9 is not as good).

As far as 16:9... go for it, it really is what the camera was made for....

ash =o)

Marco Wagner · July 7th, 2005, 08:35 PM

I have the XL1s. I live in Phoenix, AZ. Need I say more? We were shooting the other evening in the garage. It was still 100+ degrees out and shooting in a closed, non air conditioned garage with 800 watts of light made it an oven. We could only take it for about 10 minutes at a time, (then we'd turn on the fans and open the doors) but it was the only place we had for green screen work. It was easily 110+ degrees, beer helped. The camera worked without issue, the footage came out great!

We also shoot during the day once in a while, out in the 100 - 115 degree weather, I was worried at times as the cam was hot to the touch. I'd make feeble attempts to cover it with an umbrella, but in AZ even the shade is 100+. I try to NOT make this a habit as heat will shorten the life of microprocessors but I have yet to have an issue.

my 2 cents

Bill Pryor · July 8th, 2005, 08:42 AM

I know that heat well. Back in the mid-'80s during the tube camera days, I had several shooting trips to the Phoenix area, always in the summer. When shooting outside in the sun, the heat would cause the camera to lose its registration in just a few minutes. We provided shade for the camera while we mere humans cooked in the 114 degree (F) heat. Shooting essentials included Gatorade and a registration chart. The strangest part of the whole shoot was the day I shot on a golf course. It was 114 degrees, for real. What was weird was that there were people playing golf. In that heat.

Greg Boston · July 8th, 2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

I know that heat well. Back in the mid-'80s during the tube camera days, I had several shooting trips to the Phoenix area, always in the summer. When shooting outside in the sun, the heat would cause the camera to lose its registration in just a few minutes. We provided shade for the camera while we mere humans cooked in the 114 degree (F) heat. Shooting essentials included Gatorade and a registration chart. The strangest part of the whole shoot was the day I shot on a golf course. It was 114 degrees, for real. What was weird was that there were people playing golf. In that heat.

Well Bill, if you love golf like I do... Seriously though, it gets pretty warm here in Dallas and the golf courses throw out some nice perks to get us to play in the heat. A very nice golf course was offering breakfast, morning round of golf, luncn, another round of golf, cart, range balls for only $55. We played 36 holes and I noticed I was sucking on ice cubes between every golf shot. Turns out, when I got home I found that we had set a record high of 109 degrees for that day. Yikes!

The heat is managable if you keep hydrated and the beer cart personnel will have wet towels kept in coolers for you to wrap around your neck periodically.

stay cool,

-gb-

Marco Wagner · July 8th, 2005, 11:12 AM

Anyone know off hand of the temps XL1s/XL2 were tested at? Or the max temp they can handle?

July 7th, 2005, 08:35 PM	#27
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	I have the XL1s. I live in Phoenix, AZ. Need I say more? We were shooting the other evening in the garage. It was still 100+ degrees out and shooting in a closed, non air conditioned garage with 800 watts of light made it an oven. We could only take it for about 10 minutes at a time, (then we'd turn on the fans and open the doors) but it was the only place we had for green screen work. It was easily 110+ degrees, beer helped. The camera worked without issue, the footage came out great! We also shoot during the day once in a while, out in the 100 - 115 degree weather, I was worried at times as the cam was hot to the touch. I'd make feeble attempts to cover it with an umbrella, but in AZ even the shade is 100+. I try to NOT make this a habit as heat will shorten the life of microprocessors but I have yet to have an issue. my 2 cents __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

July 8th, 2005, 11:12 AM	#30
Marco Wagner Trustee Join Date: May 2005 Location: Saint Cloud, Florida Posts: 1,043	Anyone know off hand of the temps XL1s/XL2 were tested at? Or the max temp they can handle? __________________ www.facebook.com/projectspecto

July 6th, 2005, 02:01 PM	#16
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	In 4x3 mode the XL2 will definitely not be as wide. However in 16x9 the XL2 should match very closely to the XL1's wide angle. Are you shooting in 4x3? Also....I notice the XL2 is much sharper than the XL1 but the colors are de-saturated in comparison.

July 6th, 2005, 04:58 PM	#20
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	The XL2 is really a 16:9 camera, the 4:3 performance is good but no better than cameras that are half the price. The DSR-400 is a great camera as well but it will be similar to what you notice in the XL2. It has great resolution and superior performance in highlights AND shadows. People have been so accustomed to the super-crushed black saturated look that a good clean image somehow looks milky, when in fact, it looks much more like it would to your eye... ash =o)

July 7th, 2005, 10:03 AM	#22
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	If you're shooting in 4:3, then the XL1 probably does look better, since you're using all of each chip. The XL2 crops down from the 16:9 aspect ratio to get to 4:3, so you lose some of the chip, in effect shooting with smaller chips.

July 7th, 2005, 10:43 AM	#24
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Anthony, FWIW, there were several folks that noted when the XL1s came out that they preferred the image of the original XL-1 (I still have mine). I am with the folks who notice the XL-2 is much sharper but I love the color saturation and gamma curve of the original XL-1. My default XL-2 color rendition is a little flat. Don't worry about shooting 16:9 because all DVD players can recognize the anamorphic flag and the viewer should set up their player to know what type tv is attached (4:3 or 16:9). This way, the DVD player will adjust its output accordingly. IOW, it will letterbox widescreen footage for you on a 4:3 set and leave it alone when playing on a 16:9 set. regards, -gb-

July 7th, 2005, 02:38 PM	#26
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	The XL1 came stock with a more tuned picture since there are no manual adjustments, no doubt that it looks best out of the box. With some skill the XL1s can look even better and with more skill the XL2 even better than that. The learning curve can be pretty steep. Panny has it down better on the DVX because they give you 5 pre-sets out of the box so the learning curve is easier (though the image in 16:9 is not as good). As far as 16:9... go for it, it really is what the camera was made for.... ash =o)

July 8th, 2005, 08:42 AM	#28
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	I know that heat well. Back in the mid-'80s during the tube camera days, I had several shooting trips to the Phoenix area, always in the summer. When shooting outside in the sun, the heat would cause the camera to lose its registration in just a few minutes. We provided shade for the camera while we mere humans cooked in the 114 degree (F) heat. Shooting essentials included Gatorade and a registration chart. The strangest part of the whole shoot was the day I shot on a golf course. It was 114 degrees, for real. What was weird was that there were people playing golf. In that heat.