Will Canon drop the XL-2 in favor of pushing the XL-H1?

With all the trouble and incompatibilities between various "HDV" formats, as well as no standardized delivery system (i.e. HD-DVD), let alone production facilities thereof, why drop what is arguably the best machine for output ultimately to DVD?

Sure, there have been minor issues with this unit, but all accounts suggest it is head and shoulders above even its predecessor. I'm hoping to "upgrade" my present setup next spring to an XL-2 setup, and now I hear from a "reliable source" that it might not be available. That's why I bring this up.

Will Canon drop the XL-2 in favor of pushing the XL-H1?

With all the trouble and incompatibilities between various "HDV" formats, as well as no standardized delivery system (i.e. HD-DVD), let alone production facilities thereof, why drop what is arguably the best machine for output ultimately to DVD?

Sure, there have been minor issues with this unit, but all accounts suggest it is head and shoulders above even its predecessor. I'm hoping to "upgrade" my present setup next spring to an XL-2 setup, and now I hear from a "reliable source" that it might not be available. That's why I bring this up.

They are aimed at different market segments. No immediate plans to drop the XL-2 as far as we know. Canon has stated that the XLH1 is NOT a replacement for the XL-2.

-gb-

Will Canon drop the XL-2 in favor of pushing the XL-H1?
<snip>

While I suppose no one can say definitively that Canon will or will not drop the XL2 next year, I doubt they would do so to push XLH1 sales. That would be akin to Chevy dropping the Cavalier to push customers into the Corvette. The price point of these two cameras and related gear are just too far apart to compete with each other. And I'm pretty sure that's no coincidence.

Now I could see Canon bringing out a $4900-5500 XL2 replacement next year with HDV. I'm sure Canon is looking at the Z1 and HD100 sales and realizes that some sort of beefed up HDV XL2 or stripped down XLH1 could compete nicely in this popular segement. I bet they could strip out all the studio stuff from the XLH1, slap a cheaper lens on there (maybe a 13-16X ?) and they'd have a hit. Plus folks could rent or buy the hi-end lenses if they wish.

In any event, next year should be fun.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Will Canon drop the XL-2 in favor of pushing the XL-H1?As has been stated, the XL H1 does NOT replace the XL2.

Panasonic isn't dropping the DVX100 because they have HVX200 is coming out (someday). So Canon will probably keep their SD camera. As great as High def is going to be the cost are just to high for a lot of people. Computer upgrades are needed, HD-DVD players are not even out.

Once my money builds back up I'm looking at the DVX100b or maybe by then we might see a GL3.

I'm with you with the GL3.

The problem is that people are going to be reluctant to spend thousands of dollars on a standard definition camera that is going to be obsolete in a few years and will not hold its resale value. With a high definition video camera you can still shoot in standard definition but you leave your options open for high definition. People are already worried and they are asking how long they can hold onto their standard definition gear while it is still worth something. When customers refuse to buy standard definition gear because they think its a bad investment then at that time camera manufacturers will stop making standard definition gear but of course the high definition gear will still support standard definition. If you are an electronic news gatherer you can be shooting in standard definition today and the very next day the boss decides to switch to high definition. A wedding videographer could have a client that just bought a plasma TV and wants high definition footage to match it and is willing to pay a premium. Its the same thing with a sports videographer.

I'm sorry, Tom, but I don't think you're right. This is the thin straw, the weak reed put forth by the HDV (masses? crowd? gang? pedant?) whatsit to spur sales of an unsupported format. I simply cannot reconcile the desire among videographers for "HD at any price" against the epic intertia of the great unwashed, i.e., the consumer.

Okay, so somebody got married and has an HD plasma display, so they want their nuptials in HD. Well, will they want the divorce proceedings in HD as well? If so, bully for you, since 52% of marraiges end in divorce. No such majority of potential viewers (IOW, the Market) has HD equipment, let alone DVD, if what I've read recently suggests.

So that leaves us with "Shoot HD today for an HD customer tomorrow." Yeah, yeah, our friend the atom, whatever.

Does the XL-H1 provide HD-SD output into, say, my DVCAM-centric system? What happens if I translate 1080i into DV and recompress back into MPEG2 for DVD? Aren't we going back to the dreaded digital-analog-digital-analog-digital-lossy-loser-lost spiral in some Twilight Zoney reverse spin? Or, "Artifact this, Batman!"

Okay. Let's say I have the XL-H1, or any other contemporary HDV camcorder. I've just shot some vid at 1080i, 30fps. Now what? Can the XL-H1 output to my PPro PC a DV stream? Or do I edit in HDV in Premiere?

Okay, let's move on. My output is to DVD. Mother always told us that the better the source, the better the output, probably due to her disapointment in us, or a back-handed reconcilliation thereof. Where we ask for resolution, she asks for restitution. Anyway, the HDV should produce some mighty fine DVD material, what?

I think that I'm primarily worried about the use of an HDV unit recording HDV for output today on SD DVD. If I have to reinvent the wheel here, such as employing the circle as a design concept, I'm in deep dropout.

And, yes, I'm aware that even a circle can be thought of as a series of tangents. Surely, in the digital world, it is.

The argument that "why shoot in HD if the wedding is going to end up in divorce" has a simple answer. If you are going to pay for a wedding video you might as well have it shot in high definition if you can get HD for no extra charge. And an HD wedding video is less likely to collect dust because it is so stunning that you will want to watch it over and over again.

About the Plasma display a comon misconception is that it costs 5000 dollars for an HDTV. The fact is that HDTV is available in more affordable technologies and you can get an HDTV starting at around 350 bucks.

It may be true that only a small percentage of people own an HDTV but as far as new televisions are concerned the majority of televisions sold today could be HDTVs.

As far as the delivery of high definition video is concerned, when DVD first appeared the naysayers said that you needed a $10,000 digital television to view a Digital Video Disc but as it turned out DVD players worked well displayed on conventional analog televisions. The fact is a conventional DVD disc is perfectly capable of displaying high definition video. Look at the mainstream release of Terminator 2 Extreme High Definition DVD released in the year 2003 and playable on most Windows XP computers. And yes you can hook up a computer to an HDTV or the computor monitor itself is perfectly capable of displaying HD images. HD weddings have been distributed over the internet. And high definition DVD players are also available. Only the naysayers say that high definition video cannot be distributed. And the naysayers bashed color television when it was first introduced.

The fact is that HDTV saves money. With an HDTV you can receive free high definition over the air broadcasts.

On the day you walk into Wal-Mart and see that half their selection of TVs are HD 16:9 sets selling for $500 or less is the day to be worried about HD.

I was going to say Best Buy or Circuit City (I will never do business at Wally World), but that's my point. Someday, the HDV footage shot today will find a ready home in the marketplace, but not tomorrow.

I laughed when I read the comparison between HD and SD to color and black & white TV. Lest we forget, our color system was a compromise because (surprise! surprise!) the established base was black and white, and you couldn't reasonably expect everyone to scrap their existing sets and buy new, far more costly, color ones. That's why the US went with NTSC and not PAL, which we originally came up with. Even so, a decade after its introduction, not everybody had color sets and, for that matter, not all TV was produced or broadcast in color. That last is an important point. If it wasn't to be broadcast in color, it wasn't produced in color.

A decade later, at the same time as the consumer VCR hit the market, technology brought us a clearly superior movie viewing experience in the laserdisc. But most people had the crummy TVs of the time (barely adequate to reproduce the low quality of Betamax and VHS), so the superior image quality was lost on them. And who had their TV set up between the speakers of their stereo system? TV was monaural. In any event, folks could record their TV shows with a VCR. So the laserdisc died as a distribution method outside of afficianados. It did live on behind the scenes for instant replay work at the network level.

A decade went by, and in the mid-80s the compact disc showed up. Here, then, was the catalyst for change, ironically, in video. All people needed was a new piece of stereo equipment. The rest followed. Soon the LP disappeared from the mainstream. All new releases were on CD, and old recordings, newly remastered, were re-released. People were actually buying new CDs of their old LPs! And why not? Superior sound quality and, often, extra tracks, made it desireable. No more needles to change, no more pops and clicks and the knowlege that each playing inevitably would worsen the quality. The strange thing here is the death of the audio cassette. It was never replaced by combination CD player/recorder, though they are available. Ironically, the PC, once CD-ROMs became the standard distribution method for software over the floppy disc, and once CD-Rs became available, furnished the means to supplant the audio tape. Having CD players in cars probably was the spur.

A decade went by, and by the mid-90s we were finally prepped for DVD. TV quality had improved tremendously. Stereo TV was standard, as was Hi-Fi stereo video cassette recording. The developments that followed the CD are following the DVD, except in one case. That was the recordability issue. It's only very recently that the average Joe or Jill could purchase a set-top DVD recorder. Even if they use it literally like a VCR, it's an important development for toppling the VCR from its central video position. It hasn't happened yet. How many people have hear the term "PVR" let alone know what it is.

So should we shoot HD today for an HD world tomorrow? Yes. But are we jumping on the right format of HD? Maybe it doesn't matter, what with easy transcoding. Sooner rather than later we'll have the tools available to make HDV editing and production as easy as DV and DVD production are now. However, the stage is set, and the trends are clear to indicate the coming of widespread HDTV until, maybe in a decade, it will be the de facto standard. And that is the only standard that matters.

Edit...Look below.

If Canon drops the XL2 this soon, then I'll find the quickest way to sell mine and never buy from them again.

That just feels like an insult to me. I bought the camera feeling like it would hold it's place in the market for at least a couple years and then they backout on me and just drop it like it never existed. I would guess that all the tech support and everything would go bye bye with it.

If it happens it'll be the last time I purchase something from them.

Well, Canon hasn't announced the demise of the XL-2, nor would I expect it. Sony routinely drops things without comment while introducing new things to everyone's bafflement and annoyance. Look what happened to their entire 1/2" camera line, including not only the DVCAM camcorders, but their only DVCAM dockable VTR as well.

I started this thread because A) I want to have a better setup than I have now and the XL-2 seems to fit both bill and budget; B) because there is no sensible agreement amongst manufacturers and software developers concerning HDV, as well as no distribution method for the masses of HD content; and C) because when I contacted (purely from curiousity) one of DVNet's sponsors about their XL-2 price, and my plans to acquire one next spring, he responded that he didn't think it would be around then.

What seemed to lend credibility to his assertion was that he claimed (when I asked what I should use as an HDV edit deck) that he wasn't carrying JVC anymore because of all the problems, defects and trouble JVC's products cause. I appreciate his candor and, frankly, can understand that, as can any of us who has bought a JVC VCR in recent years. They put "the inventor of VHS" on the box, but apparently it means about as much as that sticker we see from time to time, "made with pride in America." In short, it's crap (pride goeth before a fall, after all.) I have a Sony VHS deck that's old enough to start driving, and its picture quality is only exceeded by SVHS. 'Nuff said.

Bravo Doug.

I remember growing up I the 1960s and 70s -- the peacock era -- and watching color TV in black and white. I remember the network ids that would come on and tout that a show was "in living color" as a way to try and encourage people to buy color sets. It was years and years after color that my family of four kids had a color TV.

Consumers are confused about HD/Digital TV/EDTV and the prices of essentials like food and gas are going up, health care housing and education costs are up and form a huge part of family budgets. I think the last statisitc I saw was that the average yearly health insurance premium for a family with health insurance through an employer was $2,000 - $3,000 (the total cost with employers contribution is about $9100 a year -- so imagine what non-employer covered people have to pay). Compare this with the price of large HD sets now. Wage growth has been sluggish. Hmm . . . health care or HDTV?

The current economic environment is not one that favors the rapid adoption of confusing, costly new technology for a service many people don't think is all that broken. Many folks are still trying to get the internet figured out.

Ultimately it will be the market that decides whether or not the XL-2 stays or goes. Right now the cry is to think twice before you spend thousands of dollars on a standard definition camcorder that will be obsolete in a few years. Some will heed the warning others will ignore it. If enough people refuse to buy standard definition camcorders the XL-2 will be discontinued.

The naysayers say there is no way to distribute high definition video. The reality is that they refuse to distribute high definition video simply because they do not want to change.

Now about JVC. The camera professionals bashed JVC when it
introduced the worlds first consumer high definition video camera saying it was unreliable.
However lets use this analogy. If JVC had the first color video camera available and all the other video cameras were black and white would you buy a black and white video camera just because it was reliable and had a hundred year warranty?

My brother in law declares he cannot afford HDTV because it costs too much money. But he gladly pays 80 dollars a month for his cable bill. If he had an HDTV he could receive free HDTV broadcasts over the air and save a lot of money. But of course he will not do this because he believes you can't get something for nothing. But with HDTV there really is such a thing as a free lunch.

People say that standard definition television is not broke so why fix it. I would agree that progressive scan standard definition is not HD but it is a darn good picture. But interlace SD has got to go. If you look closely you can see ugly black horizontal scan lines and its like watching television through a set of venetian blinds. High definition on the other hand is a rock solid picture.

If enough people refuse to buy standard definition camcorders the XL-2 will be discontinued.

Nonsense. Standard definition will be around for quite some time to come. Nobody outside of the HD pioneering realm is going to "refuse" to buy superb SD gear that is now far more affordable and more readily obtainable than it ever was before.

The naysayers say there is no way to distribute high definition video. The reality is that they refuse to distribute high definition video simply because they do not want to change.

Incorrect. If you shoot a wedding on in HD, how exactly will your clients view the finished product at home? Because there is currently no practical way to distribute high definition video, that's why.

But then, this is Area 51 so you're free to believe whatever you want. Reality has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions on this particular forum.

If you look closely you can see ugly black horizontal scan lines and its like watching television through a set of venetian blinds.It would seem that you're sitting far too close to the TV. But that would definitely explain where the real problem is here.

I laughed when I read the comparison between HD and SD to color and black & white TV. Lest we forget, our color system was a compromise because (surprise! surprise!) the established base was black and white, and you couldn't reasonably expect everyone to scrap their existing sets and buy new, far more costly, color ones. That's why the US went with NTSC and not PAL, which we originally came up with. Even so, a decade after its introduction, not everybody had color sets and, for that matter, not all TV was produced or broadcast in color. That last is an important point. If it wasn't to be broadcast in color, it wasn't produced in color.

Totally incorrect, Doug. There was never an intent to do PAL in the US. The two systems are different mainly because the power line frequency was used as a clock for the vertical sync rate. And just for correction, NTSC is both black and white and color. It stands for National Television Standards Committee. They developed both systems. To make it backwards compatible with BW sets, the NTSC slightly increased the horizontal and vertical refresh rates to make room for the chromaburst subcarrier. The standard is 8 to 11 cycles of chromaburst reference that ride on the back porch of the horizontal sync pulses. The refresh rate was 'close enough' that the older b/w sets could lock into the 59.94hz vertical rate vs. the 60hz rate and the 15734hz vs. the 15750hz horizontal rate that was used in b/w transmission. You might have had to adjust the horizontal and vertical hold controls a touch but otherwise compatible. Pretty ingenious for that day and time.

The comparison BW/Color SD/HD is valid and it will make people curious enough to switch over when time to replace their set comes along. For others, it will happen by 2009. The federal government is looking to subsidize the cost of getting all broadcasters converted to digital transmission by then. A tuner box will be available to make analog sets compatible so no one gets left out. At that time, the FCC intends to re-allocate the current broadcast frequencies to other services. And HDTV sets started selling in Wal-Mart within the last year. If Wal-Mart is selling it, mass market acceptance will come quickly because they never carry the big ticket stuff. All the large and medium tv markets have HD broadcasts. Dish Network offers an HD sat receiver. Comcast cable offers HD cable receivers. More and more material is being originated in HD with each passing day. I have had an HD set since Sep. 2002 and have witnessed the rapid growth of programming available in HD within the last 3 yrs. The 3 major networks have all their weeknight prime time programming in HD. The Late Show with David Letterman just made the switch. The Tonight Show with Jay Leno has been HD since before I had my set. Conan O'brien is in HD. Wheel of Fortune switched over year before last. ABC Monday Night Football switched 2 seasons ago. CBS does most college football games in HD. FOX does most sports programming in HD including the current World Series. Need I go on? HBO, Showtime, ESPN, HDNET, Discovery Channel, yep, all available in HD.

The consumer should actually be the last piece of the HD puzzle. The shooting techniques for HD are different and videographers need to have a jump on the learning curve. The time to LEARN to shoot HD is NOW so you will be ready when delivery is feasible. And I am one that says you shoot HD now if you can and deliver in SD. Why do you think so many commercials are showing up in your 4:3 set in letterbox format? Those companies are futureproofing their material to the forthcoming widescreen standard. Most of those are being shot in HD or film as well.

Doug, I'm sorry but I think your timeline is just a little too conservative. The HDV format offers the smaller operators a chance to have something to offer in HD just as mini-dv does compared to DVCPRO, Betacam or Digibeta.

-gb-

Totally incorrect, Doug. There was never an intent to do PAL in the US.

In the literal sense, no. In the technical sense, yes. CBS wanted, and indeed, with the blessings of the FCC, experimented for a few months in the early '50s with an incompatible color transmission system. There were other systems similar and divergent, but the "NTSC 2" won out after an enormous amount of work. What is sad is that it never reached the goals set for it. Well, that's the "free market" for you.

Getting back on topic, of abandoning one standard for another, I happened to watch the History Channel's "The Color of War" tonight. Nobody watching this today can fault the vision (no pun intended) of using 16mm cameras loaded with Kodachrome to record this singular chapter in human history. Some footage is pedestrian or banal, and of low quality. But much is of a poignancy and a vividness to startle one off one's seat. The sight of of the blood splattered within the nose of a bomber wrote an entire page...

How long was this footage available but not seen? The answer is all too obvious.

But would you spurn it, Greg, because it wasn't shot in 35mm? Yeah, sure, William Wyler was one of the cameramen, but so what? They had the technology, but chose the commonplace. This sounds too much like the Betacam SP vs. DV wars for comfort.

Shall we ask, "what is broadcast quality?" Answer: anything they show. Anything you didn't see isn't broadcast quality.

I was convinced that I need HD. But not so much anymore. You add up the cost of the camera, computer upgrades, the cost is just to high.
I went into a high end electronics store a few weeks ago and ask when a HD-DVD player would be out. Maybe at the end of the year, but the cost will be very high and the guy was kind of unsure what the format it will be and if it will stay the same. I think we are at the beta/vhs debate stage.

Plus like Chris said the prices of really top quality SD equipment is going to keep SD around for years. (I hope!!)

The big guys on TV are switching to HD but they are probably using $100,000 cams too. Kind of hard to compare that to a $5,000 to $10,000 HD camcorder.

Shall we ask, "what is broadcast quality?" Answer: anything they show. Anything you didn't see isn't broadcast quality. Brilliant, I love that quote. It rings so true. Nice to hear it again, every once in awhile, to keep me honest and grounded.

Interesting thread!

I'm also at the stage of "should I switch to HD, or not?". And one think keeps me from going to HD right now... yeah, well, aside from the money issue! I'd rather have clean SD then crappy HD. I've been so far disappointed with the current crop of HDV. And I'm waiting to see footage of the HVX200, and Canon's HD-SDI output (don't much care about HDV for now). Hey, I might even get myself a DVX with the andromeda mod. Who knows...

Oh yeah! I concur that another showstopper for HD is the lack of standardized delivery medium. What good is HD if you can't show it off, aside from some non-standard player supporting XYZ format. Sure HD runs on a PC, but hey! Most John Doe's don't have the necessary hardware to run it.

On a side note, aside from freelance work by night, I work at a regional cable TV station by day. The day we start broadcasting in HD is the day the Best Buys and the Walmarts don't carry SD TVs... And even then. Have you looked at the crap that is being broadcasted on some HD channels? Content aside... ;-) but the compression artifacts are disgusting! Hey look, we broadcast 1080 lines.... of crap! Hence my motto: "I'd rather have clean SD then crappy HD".

Just my two cents.

Well if you want to all but eliminate compression artifacts you should try the 720p format. I shoot 720p at 30 frames a secound and if there is a compression artifact I have not seen it. I have even shot footage out of a side window of a car. ABC, Fox and ESPN all support the 720p format.

For standard definition cameras to be phased out high definition videos and players have to be more readily available. Right now if you go to your local video store you will be lucky if you find even one high definition title. When Blu-Ray is introduced video stores will start to stock more high definition movie titles.

In 2004 21% of all televisions sold were HDTVs. However since HDTVs are more expensive, more dollars were spent on HDTV then they were on standard definition. So dollarwise HDTV already has the majority of market share. By 2010 70% of all televisions sold will be HDTVs and 63% of households will have an HDTV.

What I think Chris is trying to say is that performence of the Canon XL-2 cannot be judged by watching it on a cheap analog television. If that were the case then the days of the XL-2 would be numbered. However with its progressive scan capability the Canon XL-2 would qualify as an Enhanced Definition camera. If you hooked up the Canon XL-2 to an Enhanced Definition Plasma television the results would indeed be superb. Of course it would not be HD but it would be a pretty darn good picture and not blurry like the typical cheap analog television. And the contrast ratios of an ED Plasma may be even better than the LCD HDTV.

For me I was fed up with my old analog 8 camcorder and my circa 1988 analog television. So I decided to go HDTV with the firm belief that my old equipment was obsolete. And yes I firmly beleive that it is very fair for me to say that my old equipment is obsolete. But it would be very unfair if I declared in my zeal that all enhanced definition video equipment is obsolete. As long as footage from the XL-2 is demonstrated on a good quality television I would think that production of the XL-2 will remain until the end of the decade.

I agree with Tommy. I have hooked my XL-2 to my 65" HDTV via S-Video and was very pleased with the picture quality. It holds its own very well as an SD camera.

-gb-

As I've mentioned on other forums both Sony and Panasonic, and indeed the likes of Ikegami have very recently released new SD 2/3" shoulder mount models. If SD was to be dead in a short time these cameras would never have been developed because their main market is the broadcast sector.

At the viewing distance most people wacth their televisions from they would be hard pressed to make out the detail in an SD picture let alone an HD one.

Many people forget when they aregue about HD and SD that they need to look at things from an everyday persons perspective. Most people aren't sat with their noses up against the TV looking for the various picture improvements or defects.

Let me ask those of you that can receive HD broadcasting and have TRUE HD televisions. When you watch The West Wing, or CSI or whatever on your TV, are you constantly thinking "wow this in in high def!" or do you become so engrossed in watching the programme that you don't even contemplate what kind of format it is in? Most general viewers aren't looking at the TV and going "Wow, I can see that guys facial detail in the background over there!" when they watch programmes. They are more concerned with the programme content.

I've spoken to a few people who aren't into video making about high def. Most of them don't know what it is, and even when I explain what it is they are indifferent to buying a new TV-set to watch it.

Lets take DVD's as a good example too. I like to watch my DVD's on a really good widescreen TV with surround sound. Most of my friends and other people I know still watch DVDs on a small 4:3 television in bog standard stereo, or straight through the TV speakers connected with composite video cables.

In other words they didn't upgrade their TV's to get the extra quality benefits that DVD offered them. They don't see the extra quality DVD has over VHS. Those same people will not upgrade to HD for the same reasons. They just do not care enough about the picture quality to want to bother with the expenditure.

Actually a lot of people in America are buying HDTVs in order to save money. With my old analog television my rabbit ear antennas could only pick up a snowy picture but with my digital HDTV my indoor antenna can pick up a crystal clear free high definition signal. So now I don't need to pay cable bills anymore and I use that money to pay off my HDTV. Of course my programming is more limited so its a trade off. So now the poor have a choice they can get free HDTV broadcasting with limited choices or they can pay to get standard definition cable television with more choices. To be honest with you my family thinks HDTV is no good because the Disney channel is only available through cable. However soon there will be over the air digital subscription broadcasting services so that means my basic service will be free and I only pay for the premium channels. With cable you have to pay for basic before you can get any premium channels.