Back from Haiti.

I am IN LOVE with the XL2 (with its 20x lens).

Never thought I would say it... but I am. Having just come from straight broadcasting cameras, I wouldn't trade the XL2 for ANY of them. What is lacks, it MORE than makes up for with features that mildly affordable broadcast cameras don't have.

I will write a deeper review of my experiences shortly. But until such time, have a look at a few stills.

http://homepage.mac.com/cre8inator/FiresideOnline/PhotoAlbum5.html

Cheers!
Luke

Where these taken in Frame mode or normal? I'm hoping normal.

Incredible quality... and certainly gives a feel for the poverty that is Haiti. Thanks for sharing.

--Ralph

Luke, this is first-rate work. I especially like "Doing the chores," "Hesitant" & "Silent echo" as compositions.

Please share technical details on how you shot--cam settings, which lens, time of day (if you recall) etc.

Here's my camera settings:

- 16:9
- 24P
- I assume "Normal Mode" - not "Frame Mode." Never manually put it "Frame Mode." So if it comes in "Normal Mode" out of the box, then it was in "Normal Mode." I know that sounds staggeringly professional of me!
- Used the Canon20x lens (came with the camera).
- 1/48 shuter speed (as often as I was able).
- Image stabalization was on (switch on the side of the lens).
- I tweaked quite of few of the internal settings via Cutom Preset 1 - mostly went toward 35mm characteristics. Crushed blacks a bit, bumped red up a bit, cine gamma, etc. All personal taste.

One thing I will say is that the color viewfinder makes focusing more difficult (but NOT impossible). The UP-SWING to that is how easy it is to create a mood with an alternate white balance and to KNOW how it will look as you shoot it. That makes up for the focusing prowess required by a long shot. Besides, now I will just get better at focusing.

Out of curiosity Jacob, why were you hoping normal?
Do the frames look bad for frame mode or good for normal?

Cheers!
Luke

<<<-- Originally posted by Luke Renner : Out of curiosity Jacob, why were you hoping normal?
Do the frames look bad for frame mode or good for normal?

Cheers!
Luke -->>>



The pictures look phenominal and are geat material. I especially love the footprint in the sand picture.

I wondered because in a few shots there is some interlacing artifacts (shots 7 and 29) and if it was shot in Frame Mode they shouldn't be there. If they were then I'd be a little dissapointed but confused as many of the subjects in other stills were undoubtedly in motion when they were taken and no interlacing is present.


Will the slideshow allow you to correct for the right aspect ratio? Either way, I think you've got an excellent eye.

Right you are about the interlacing!
I fired these out so quickly, it's possible those two missed my correct export setting. But good eye.

Cheers!
Luke

<<<-- Originally posted by Jacob Ehrichs : Where these taken in Frame mode or normal? I'm hoping normal. -->>>


"Frame Mode" is a feature available only to the XL1. The XL2 does not have frame mode. Correct me if i'm wrong but that should be the case.

I made a generalization about 'frame mode'. No it does not have frame mode. I should have used the term 'progressive mode' instead. I tend to use those terms interchangably sometimes even though I do understand they are different.

Then yes, it was in progressive. But like I said, i think I exported those two incorrectly. My bad.

Luke

It really depends on the pull down. I was having a problem with the interlacing. If he shot everything with the 2:3:3:2 pulldown then that is full progressive and shouldn't have any interlacing what so ever. If he shot the footage with the 2:3 pulldown then there will be noticable interlacing.

Correct me if I am wrong guys, but I had the same problem and I re-shot some stuff today in the 2:3:3:2 pulldown and ta-da, no interlacing.

The XL2 is astounding period. I kinda get dragged down by some posts on here with the negative things about the XL2, but the camera deserves all the credit it can get.

A lot of people put down the XL2 because everyone wants to get into the HD cameras, but If I could have the choice between getting the HD and the XL2 I would still go with the XL2.

Just some thoughts...

I'm with you Travis.

The XL2 is simply ASTOUNDING.
HD will be a great thing. But at this point, I am Canon's bitch. I will stay with them for some time, hoping that the next breed of XL boasts some HD capabilities. Until then, I'm in HEAVEN!

Cheers!
Luke

Luke, I can see the ad campaign now--a testimonial sort of thing!

But what would the photo be?

JS

Luke, first off - kudos for your work. As well as working for an amazing cause, your composition and color pallettes are very sharp. I was wondering if you used any filters on some of the shots. One in particular appeared as if you used a graduated nd filter, and other sky shots were very deep blue - polarizer? Anyways, just wanted to get the skinny on how you accomplished those images. Great work!

Sharp eye Devin.

I'm a firm believer in leaving it alone as it comes into the camera. Anything simple (like gradiation or grain) can be added in post. Nothing can be removed if it's shot that way.

So in answer to your question, I added gradients in post.
I do love the look. On the deep blue, that was actual. No filter, no post effect.

I think the only post-gradient that is represented in these stills is the market shot.

Oh yeah, and thanks for the positive thoughts.

Cheers!
Luke

Ah, well thanks a ton for the insight luke. I generally side on the post-filtering process and agree with your statement, the only time i apply a filter in the field is to control exposure (nd, etc). I'm also very surprised at how well the XL2 reads colors. I'm purchasing one here in several weeks and can't wait to get my hot little mittens on it after seeing your pics!

One of the beautiful things Devin, is how you can internally tell the XL2 how to handle color.

Seriously, the internal menus gave me control over red, green, and blue intensity (independent from one another). I could go less or more.

Overall color boost or desaturation was available.
Cine gamma.
Knee tweaks.
Black tweaks.
Sharpness tweaks.
It was insane!

Literally, most of the things that I tend to color correct in post, I was able to correct them to my liking BEFORE THEY EVEN HIT TAPE.

You ARE NOT gonna regret this purchase for ONE SECOND.

By the way, the 20x lens that can be purchased with the camera is truly a great piece of glass. I friggin LOVE the flare that it produces in good light. Very film-like. Very smooth and slow zoom (if you want it). Also, the ND ring that is built into it was a real charm. While the lack of dynamic iris control is a bit doofy, I learned quickly that adding or removing a level of ND (which takes a split second to do) get's you in the right ballpark immediately and requires less iris tweaking from there. It was a good trick that I learned. Most times, after jumping up or down my ND filter, I was only a couple of notches from where I wanted to be.

So have fun and let us see some of your work when you can!

Cheers!
Luke

Oh man, you just wanna make run and buy this camera :D.
No, really :).

Wow! Very nice images! I'm currently in the market for a camera to shoot my first major short film. The two cameras Im considering are the XL-2 and the DVX100a, and Im having a hell of a time making a decision. Have you ever used the DVX? How do you think thy compare? It's obvious to me from your images that you can get the same kind of picture out of both cameras. I have always liked the soft filmic look you can get from the DVX, and I keep hearign that the XL-2 is too sharp. Can you soften the picture more? This is such a hard descision! Any insight you have would be much appreciated!

-Jason

Yes, you can soften the picture internally.

I have worked EXTENSIVELY with both cameras. I would NEVER use the DVX to shoot a film. The XL2 is HANDS DOWN worth the extra money. For goodness sake, you can even attach 35mm film lenses to an XL2 if you want! It's just BUILT for filmmaking. You can take that as far as you care to. But even out of the box, it SHINES.

I would use the DVX to shoot a rock concert (but that's about it). And yes, I have used both cameras quite a lot. It's not that the DVX isn't good. It's that the XL2 is BETTER.

My two cents.
Luke

Thanks Luke! I appreciate your info. I've been on the fence, but I'm leaning more and more to the XL-2. Thanks

-Jason