New Canon XL1 series coming soon?

Didi Schoeman · September 23rd, 2003, 04:54 PM

I've just learned something new! It would be awesome if they could do that... but I suppose it's one of those wish list things which will remain on the wish list... pitty really...

Jeff Silberman · September 24th, 2003, 03:19 AM

are for sale on e-bay in contemplation of an XL2....

Didi Schoeman · September 24th, 2003, 04:56 AM

Jeff, it would seem that they are going for a song! Found a place which are selling brand new XL1s PAL cameras for $3099.00 (NTSC models are about $300.00 more)

Things are looking rosy!

Who knows we might just have Christmas early this year…

Jeff Donald · September 24th, 2003, 05:08 AM

There are always a lot of XL1(s) for sale on ebay. Nothing unusual in what I see.

Robert J. Wolff · September 25th, 2003, 05:57 AM

The biggest problem that Canon faces, is the same as the others: The lack of uniform standards between them and the other manufacturers. Every body wants their standards excepted as THE one and only.

It wouldn't be wise in this world wide down business climate, to retool a plant, and, then, find that different standards are now in vogue by all the others.

I believe that the current meetings among several of the manufacturers will eventually solve the problem. How much lead time do they need to arrive at THE standards, I do not know. Six months? A year? Two?

I am not holding my breath on a new XL-2s. An upgraded XL-1s………, maybe.

Sony's memory stick appeals to me more than tape or disc. I love the idea of no transport system.

No moving parts, no break downs.

Juan P. Pertierra · September 25th, 2003, 11:52 PM

Here's another one of those ideas for the XL2 wish list, which i've never seen mentioned anywhere.

The idea is for a means to simulate the latitude of film. We all can identify DV when we see those washed out whites, because of the linearity of the CCD and the fact that it can't display such a wide range of brightness levels as film on a single exposure..

I think i've figured a way to get the same latitude of film and get the same look...two ways of doing it.

The expensive way, is to have an additional CCD, set to collect less light than the main CCD by a certain amount. An algorithm would control exposure and maybe an auxiliary iris on the secondary CCD. By means of software, a processor could combine the darker image from the secondary CCD(thus better capturing highlights) into the washed out sections of the primary CCD image.

The cheap way, is to use the same CCD but instantaneously capture a second image after the primary frame is captured, but with less exposure. Not sure if this would work, due to the fact that for a certain shutter speed, a shorter exposure of the same image would follow to get the detail in the brighter areas of the scene. I guess you could do it with the iris as well, but this would change dof....the change in iris opening would be minimal so this might not be a problem.

It would be an interesting experiment, i think i'm going to try it with one frame and see how it works....i can compare it with an image of the same scene from my 35mm still camera.

Juan

Jeff Donald · September 26th, 2003, 06:05 AM

Digital blending of frames is a well known technique in still photography. You can find a tutorial here. The only problem is the scene can't contain any motion

Robert Knecht Schmidt · September 26th, 2003, 10:10 AM

As Jeff points out, the problem with the two-exposure method for achieving high dynamic range in video applications is it doesn't work for moving subjects. (Although, you can use this method for achieving high dynamic range stop motion movies of very slowly moving subjects, such as clouds migrating across a daytime sky. I worked on such an HDR time lapse camera as part of my master's.)

While the contrast compression method described by Jeff's link will produce some pretty pictures, it's not photographically correct, because it doesn't take into account the gamma curve(s) of the camera, and moreover, it won't increase the actual dynamic range of the image, since the same number of bits will still be used to describe the radiance of each pixel. See Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs ("The HDR Paper") at www.debevec.org.

Juan P. Pertierra · September 26th, 2003, 10:17 AM

Thanks for the input...you guys know way too much :)

I'm not sure exactly why it wouldn't work with 2 CCD's? Like if you split the light beam from the lens 50x50 and then had different exposure settings on both CCDs, on of them more sensitive to capture the darks and the other less sensitive to capture the brights that would otherwise be washed out.

Why wouldn't this work for motion?

Robert Knecht Schmidt · September 26th, 2003, 12:12 PM

Juan, this would work, and those cameras that do motion HDR use just such an apparatus, with a few caveats. When I was at the ICT Graphics Lab in Summer 2001, producer Jamie Waese nailed two VX2000s to a 2 by 4, attached a beam splitter with ND filters of equally spaced stops affixed to the facets to the lens of one of them, and created a real-time HDR lightprobe. (A patent was filed for this; I don't know whether it was ever issued.) The setup was not without its issues, however, one of them being a slight chroma shift on some of the beam facets, a problem which had to be corrected in software, the overall effect being a slight degradation of the resultant HDR video.

Since Canon and SONY are already experts at split-beam imaging, having produced a number of 3 CCD video cameras, I'm sure with the proper engineering either manufacturer could produce a camera capable of higher dynamic range without exceedingly prohibitive additional cost. But, since there is a market for this (it's called HD cinema), one might speculate that the reason why SONY hasn't already implemented such a scheme in its high definition line of cameras is that a more effective and economical way of achieving higher dynamic range is to use better CCDs, a luxury prosumer equipment doesn't offer.

Sean R Allen · September 26th, 2003, 12:44 PM

"Yes, the firewire cable length is limited just as always...however, there are many ways to get around this. You could have a laptop to record near the camera..."

Just so you know, they make firewire cables with built in repeaters that go pretty far. We use two that are 150ft. each and are looking at getting another that's 200-250ft long. They're of course more expensive, but thought I'd let you know they exist in case you didn't.

Juan P. Pertierra · September 26th, 2003, 12:45 PM

Thanks Robert! Well, i guess if Sony patented the idea then Canon might have trouble applying anything similar to it in their next camera.

I'm curious as to why canon has 'held back' as far as video quality goes on the XL1 series. They seem to have plenty of resources and experience, and they don't have a professional line to mantain, so they could go all out on their next XL upgrade, adding features that until now Sony/Panasonic/JVC wouldn't include in order to not overlap with their pro line.

I don't know, maybe they are selling so many XL1's just based on it's unique design that they are not really concerned with trying to sell any more. After all, the XL1 is in a class all by itself anyway. It just seems really strange that the GL2, which is supposed to be a step down from the XL1 has more pixels per CCD's than the more expensive big brother. I really hope they don't disappoint with whatever the XL1 replacement will be.

Juan

Robert Knecht Schmidt · September 26th, 2003, 01:09 PM

Just for the record, the ICT's Hight Dynamic Range Light Probe was not a SONY endeavor.

Barend Onneweer · September 27th, 2003, 08:24 AM

Back on the topic of uncompressed output on DV camera's... I know of people that hacked their Sony DSR-300 DV camera to output UNCOMPRESSED video through one of the analog video outputs...

Aparently it takes a bit of soldering to activate the analog video output during recording video, since by default it's turned off while shooting, and then turned on on playback from tape, with a compressed signal.

They'd hook it up to a G4 with a RAID system, and captured uncompressed video from a DSR 300...

It wouldn't be suitable for everyone, but I can imagine I'd bring a system on-set if it would allow for uncompressed video output from a DV cam. It would be even better if it would have firewire or SDI output of uncompressed video :-) Buy a Decklink board and you're set.

Bar3nd

Juan P. Pertierra · September 27th, 2003, 12:10 PM

That's very interesting! I've been wondering if I somehow obtained schematics or had an 'extra' DVX to open up carefully and see if it could be hacked in a similar way. I guess the thing to know is if the CCD chipset does DV compression internally right after sampling, or if a separate set of chips does the sampling/compression. Perhaps, even if it is done on a single chip it can be switched modes somehow...i wouldn't mind inacapcitating the tape if i can get uncompressed video out in a studio setting....

September 23rd, 2003, 04:54 PM	#16
Didi Schoeman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Tzaneen South Africa Posts: 76	I've just learned something new! It would be awesome if they could do that... but I suppose it's one of those wish list things which will remain on the wish list... pitty really... __________________ Didi Schoeman ProAfrica Television & Video Productions

September 24th, 2003, 03:19 AM	#17
Jeff Silberman Tourist Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Mill Valley Posts: 1	Seems like a lot of XL1s are for sale on e-bay in contemplation of an XL2....

September 24th, 2003, 04:56 AM	#18
Didi Schoeman Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Tzaneen South Africa Posts: 76	Re: Seems like a lot of XL1s Jeff, it would seem that they are going for a song! Found a place which are selling brand new XL1s PAL cameras for $3099.00 (NTSC models are about $300.00 more) Things are looking rosy! Who knows we might just have Christmas early this year… __________________ Didi Schoeman ProAfrica Television & Video Productions

September 24th, 2003, 05:08 AM	#19
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	There are always a lot of XL1(s) for sale on ebay. Nothing unusual in what I see. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 25th, 2003, 05:57 AM	#20
Robert J. Wolff Major Player Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Adirondacks of New York Posts: 210	New Canon XL-1……… The biggest problem that Canon faces, is the same as the others: The lack of uniform standards between them and the other manufacturers. Every body wants their standards excepted as THE one and only. It wouldn't be wise in this world wide down business climate, to retool a plant, and, then, find that different standards are now in vogue by all the others. I believe that the current meetings among several of the manufacturers will eventually solve the problem. How much lead time do they need to arrive at THE standards, I do not know. Six months? A year? Two? I am not holding my breath on a new XL-2s. An upgraded XL-1s………, maybe. Sony's memory stick appeals to me more than tape or disc. I love the idea of no transport system. No moving parts, no break downs. __________________ Himself

September 25th, 2003, 11:52 PM	#21
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	Here's another one of those ideas for the XL2 wish list, which i've never seen mentioned anywhere. The idea is for a means to simulate the latitude of film. We all can identify DV when we see those washed out whites, because of the linearity of the CCD and the fact that it can't display such a wide range of brightness levels as film on a single exposure.. I think i've figured a way to get the same latitude of film and get the same look...two ways of doing it. The expensive way, is to have an additional CCD, set to collect less light than the main CCD by a certain amount. An algorithm would control exposure and maybe an auxiliary iris on the secondary CCD. By means of software, a processor could combine the darker image from the secondary CCD(thus better capturing highlights) into the washed out sections of the primary CCD image. The cheap way, is to use the same CCD but instantaneously capture a second image after the primary frame is captured, but with less exposure. Not sure if this would work, due to the fact that for a certain shutter speed, a shorter exposure of the same image would follow to get the detail in the brighter areas of the scene. I guess you could do it with the iris as well, but this would change dof....the change in iris opening would be minimal so this might not be a problem. It would be an interesting experiment, i think i'm going to try it with one frame and see how it works....i can compare it with an image of the same scene from my 35mm still camera. Juan

September 26th, 2003, 06:05 AM	#22
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Digital blending of frames is a well known technique in still photography. You can find a tutorial here. The only problem is the scene can't contain any motion __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 26th, 2003, 10:10 AM	#23
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	As Jeff points out, the problem with the two-exposure method for achieving high dynamic range in video applications is it doesn't work for moving subjects. (Although, you can use this method for achieving high dynamic range stop motion movies of very slowly moving subjects, such as clouds migrating across a daytime sky. I worked on such an HDR time lapse camera as part of my master's.) While the contrast compression method described by Jeff's link will produce some pretty pictures, it's not photographically correct, because it doesn't take into account the gamma curve(s) of the camera, and moreover, it won't increase the actual dynamic range of the image, since the same number of bits will still be used to describe the radiance of each pixel. See Recovering High Dynamic Range Radiance Maps from Photographs ("The HDR Paper") at www.debevec.org. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 26th, 2003, 10:17 AM	#24
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	Thanks for the input...you guys know way too much :) I'm not sure exactly why it wouldn't work with 2 CCD's? Like if you split the light beam from the lens 50x50 and then had different exposure settings on both CCDs, on of them more sensitive to capture the darks and the other less sensitive to capture the brights that would otherwise be washed out. Why wouldn't this work for motion?

September 26th, 2003, 12:12 PM	#25
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Juan, this would work, and those cameras that do motion HDR use just such an apparatus, with a few caveats. When I was at the ICT Graphics Lab in Summer 2001, producer Jamie Waese nailed two VX2000s to a 2 by 4, attached a beam splitter with ND filters of equally spaced stops affixed to the facets to the lens of one of them, and created a real-time HDR lightprobe. (A patent was filed for this; I don't know whether it was ever issued.) The setup was not without its issues, however, one of them being a slight chroma shift on some of the beam facets, a problem which had to be corrected in software, the overall effect being a slight degradation of the resultant HDR video. Since Canon and SONY are already experts at split-beam imaging, having produced a number of 3 CCD video cameras, I'm sure with the proper engineering either manufacturer could produce a camera capable of higher dynamic range without exceedingly prohibitive additional cost. But, since there is a market for this (it's called HD cinema), one might speculate that the reason why SONY hasn't already implemented such a scheme in its high definition line of cameras is that a more effective and economical way of achieving higher dynamic range is to use better CCDs, a luxury prosumer equipment doesn't offer. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 26th, 2003, 12:44 PM	#26
Sean R Allen Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: RTP, NC Posts: 66	"Yes, the firewire cable length is limited just as always...however, there are many ways to get around this. You could have a laptop to record near the camera..." Just so you know, they make firewire cables with built in repeaters that go pretty far. We use two that are 150ft. each and are looking at getting another that's 200-250ft long. They're of course more expensive, but thought I'd let you know they exist in case you didn't.

September 26th, 2003, 12:45 PM	#27
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	Thanks Robert! Well, i guess if Sony patented the idea then Canon might have trouble applying anything similar to it in their next camera. I'm curious as to why canon has 'held back' as far as video quality goes on the XL1 series. They seem to have plenty of resources and experience, and they don't have a professional line to mantain, so they could go all out on their next XL upgrade, adding features that until now Sony/Panasonic/JVC wouldn't include in order to not overlap with their pro line. I don't know, maybe they are selling so many XL1's just based on it's unique design that they are not really concerned with trying to sell any more. After all, the XL1 is in a class all by itself anyway. It just seems really strange that the GL2, which is supposed to be a step down from the XL1 has more pixels per CCD's than the more expensive big brother. I really hope they don't disappoint with whatever the XL1 replacement will be. Juan

September 26th, 2003, 01:09 PM	#28
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Just for the record, the ICT's Hight Dynamic Range Light Probe was not a SONY endeavor. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 27th, 2003, 08:24 AM	#29
Barend Onneweer Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Netherlands Posts: 111	Back on the topic of uncompressed output on DV camera's... I know of people that hacked their Sony DSR-300 DV camera to output UNCOMPRESSED video through one of the analog video outputs... Aparently it takes a bit of soldering to activate the analog video output during recording video, since by default it's turned off while shooting, and then turned on on playback from tape, with a compressed signal. They'd hook it up to a G4 with a RAID system, and captured uncompressed video from a DSR 300... It wouldn't be suitable for everyone, but I can imagine I'd bring a system on-set if it would allow for uncompressed video output from a DV cam. It would be even better if it would have firewire or SDI output of uncompressed video :-) Buy a Decklink board and you're set. Bar3nd __________________ www.raamw3rk.net digital storytelling and vfx

September 27th, 2003, 12:10 PM	#30
Juan P. Pertierra Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 479	That's very interesting! I've been wondering if I somehow obtained schematics or had an 'extra' DVX to open up carefully and see if it could be hacked in a similar way. I guess the thing to know is if the CCD chipset does DV compression internally right after sampling, or if a separate set of chips does the sampling/compression. Perhaps, even if it is done on a single chip it can be switched modes somehow...i wouldn't mind inacapcitating the tape if i can get uncompressed video out in a studio setting....