Well, this thread certainly has been informative. I haven't checked back on the Gluskin's camera shop I went to yet, but I think I'll go tommorow to see if they have a more definite release date for this new camera, or perhaps have specs on it or somethin'. I guess I can't expect much, but a couple of weeks huh? Any trade shows coming up soon? I haven't really been paying much attention lately. But in any case, I'm VERY excited. =D

History Revisited or Revised?
 

I wasn't making any jokes about my grim predictions for the demise of the Canon semi-pro line. But, this is Area 51 and nothing here can be taken seriously, unless you're completely whacked and probably an Art Bell fan, to boot.

I can't agree at all about the XL1 not being a direct continuation of the VL line of camcorders. Look at them, handle them and use the controls and the family resemblance is undeniable. Even the weaknesses in picture quality between the two branches of the family are similar.

The video lenses for the L-1, LX100 and L-2 were (1) a standard 15X (2) a closeup, wider angle 3X (3) an optically-stabilized 10X. With the EOS lens adaptor, at the 1993 NCAA Track Meet, a Sports Illustrated photog of my acquaintance, put his 1,000mm Canon lens on my L-1. This is the equivalent of using a 5,400mm lens on a 35mm camera. Its value was about 10 times that of the L-1. We had to use two tripods for this and it took a couple of minutes to find and focus on any subject, but it was very interesting. You could actually do the same thing with an XL1 today. My friend was so much more impressed than I by the results, that the next morning, he drove to Portland and back, to buy himself a new L-1, 2X extender and EOS adaptor, at Camera World. I told him that if he'd just asked, he could have had mine and at a bargain price. I actually used my Canon original A-1 and ED-Beta cams for most of my serious shooting back then.

We used the 1,000mm lens during an afternoon prelim session and a pair of my friends was making-out in the empty upper corner of the Hayward Field stands. They were astounded later, at the closeups I showed them, that I'd taken from 300 yards away. I jokingly told them that my friend was going to put his own film picture of them in the next week's magazine article, as a local flavor shot. They were distraught, wondering what their spouses would say when they saw it, until I told them I was kidding and gave them the otherwise empty cassette.

If they ever made a semi-pro LX200, I never saw or heard about it. I asked a Canon Rep about such a model, who was in Texas, of all places, and he really thought I was joking when I asked if they were making a replacement for the LX100.

The LX100 and the stabilized lens were marketing flops. This lens cost more than the L-1 camcorder itself, was slow in response and drifted past its hoped-for stopping point in panning. I remember there being new L-2 models for sale until a few months before the XL1 was available. The L-2 price was about $1,000. above that of the L-1, until after the XL1 was announced, then their price plummeted.

I don't remember the L-2 having an improved CCD or being one whit better in picture quality than the L-1. Canon representatives repeatedly denied that it had a different CCD, despite widespread rumors to that effect. I've already told the unofficial story of the super L-2 prototype that was aborted before production.

The best part of these Hi-8 models' existence was in the 5-month long glory days between the introduction of the L-1 at a trade show and the start of its actual sales in the Summer of 1991. The excitement about it during that period and rumors of its capabilities, remind me of what's happening now, regarding speculations about its yet to be born, newest half-brother. I reiterate that I expect this vaporous, phantom camera to never be seen publicly, but again, I remind you that this is Area 51.

I have an original A-1, an A-1 Digital and an L-1 (but not an A-1 MarkII). It's my opinion that despite how great and revolutionary the first A-1 was, in 1989, that the video performance went down with each of those three successive models. Despite not having the RGB color-processing of the later models, the original A-1 helped me make better video than any of the others could. After 15 years, I still use the fully-playable tapes I made with it, for stock footage. Run through a Digital8 VCR with a TBC, they <almost> seamlessly tuck into new DV recordings.

The Canon Hi-8 models that followed gained more features and more control options with each newer edition and their audio capabilities became superb, with the A-1 Digital and L-1/L-2. Despite my opinion of their video performance, the A-1 Digital and L-1 are a lot of fun to use and are at least as complex in their control options as any pro camcorders.

Steve McDonald

I dunno, I think we've kind of gone back in time with all this Canon L1/L2, talk.....

But I guess as long as you keep this thread alive until Canon releases the camera, we should definitely be in the know! ^_^

Aha, this thread is starting to succumb to red-herring discussions along the VL-line variety, etc.

I think we should each post a thing we think the XL1s successor definitely will have/include/be capable of doing.

So here goes.

Granted, HDV would be a dream but this is less certain. So I won't offer that one.

But 99% certain am I that the new cam will definitely have:
A flip-out LCD screen.

Any other 99% predicitons, people? or 85% or 60%?

Come on folks, try to guess on things you feel fairly certain about and maybe state your case.

I just shot another wedding tonight with the XL1 after doing one on Friday with AGDVX100... and I can tell ya, the LCD allows you to walk and shoot more steadily because you can cradle the camera lower in both hands - very hard to have something up to your eye and walk and try to keep it steady. Having an LCD is an obvious advantage - I'd be surprised if it wasn't on the XL1 successor - that ENG old-school style is going the way of the dodo - the LCD easily allows to hold the camera up over your head and shoot from above - forget this "near" and "far" eyepiece-focus-while-looking-at-a-postage-stamp business.

Chris, looks like I'll be attending DV Expo east barring any last minute changes at work so will finally get to meet you and Don and whoever else is going to be there!

I'll be covering the event for the tv station I work for - it's a show about indie mini-dv filmmaking - so maybe I can interview you guys at the Canon booth and you can put the new HDV cam through the paces for us? Nudge nudge wink wink.

<<I'll be covering the event for the tv station I work for - it's a show about indie mini-dv filmmaking - so maybe I can interview you guys at the Canon booth and you can put the new HDV cam through the paces for us? Nudge nudge wink wink.>>

I don't know how JVC would react to a couple of canon guys putting their camera through it's paces...

And I never felt old until now, I used the panasonic AJ-450 (I think... I can't remember... man I am old)

Personally I'm 99% sure the camera will have 16:9 chips just so no one uses their XL1 lenses on it.

OH and happy 4th of July everyone and here's to a happier bastille day!

Nick -- last year I spent Bastille Day on Smith Street in Brooklyn, photographing the neighborhood folks playing bocci ball in sand lots out in the street. What a great time; wish I was there again.

Be sure to drop by and say hello at DV Expo, it's always a treat to meet fellow board members in person... although for an on-camera interview you'll have to talk to Canon's MarComm folks, that's what they're paid for!

Hadn't thought about that.

Need new lenses for a 16 X 9 chip don't ya?

That depends, Laurence. How large the chip is and how the lens
was made. If the chip stays just as wide as the current model,
but smaller in the vertical then you would not need a different
lens. It will change your field of view vertically, though.

Hey this is Area 51, it shouldn't really be CENSORED should it?


HDV - well, even though the compression is extreme, it's still better than DV...of course it's good enough for the 16x9 TV sets all the manufacturers want to sell us, but how does it look blown up to a big screen? That's what the filmmakers want to know...

Pretty sure you'll have to buy new lenses for this camera.


I've calmed down, since even after they announce the new cam ext week I still can't buy it till September, and even then there might be a bit of price gouging for 30 days...

<<HDV - well, even though the compression is extreme, it's still better than DV...>>

Humm. Interesting. How well do you guys think HDV will work for chroma keying? Blue/greenscreening, ya know. I do visual effects in college, and we are probably going to get the next generation Canon HDV camera.

"Humm. Interesting. How well do you guys think HDV will work for chroma keying? Blue/greenscreening, ya know."

My guess, it will probably be no better, and possibly worse, than DV. Then again, that's just a guess.

The spec is 4:2:0, and although it is a 25mb/s format, the compression is higher than DV (if I'm not mistaken). I would also guess that the use of GOPs would make it more difficult to get clean edges on shots involving much motion. So there doesn't seem to be any reason to think it will be better than DV. But, we'll have to see some HDV footage to know for sure.

"I do visual effects in college, and we are probably going to get the next generation Canon HDV camera."

And how do you know the next generation Canon will be an HDV camera?
:)

-Luis

No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film.

Laurence, I have to disagree. With the right project, even lowly DV is "acceptable" for blowup to film. The footage that's come out of the HD-10 is frankly incredible for a $3,000 camera, and far superior to DV in terms of pure image quality. It's too bad that it was hobbled for professionals. If the HD-10 had indpendent control over shutter and iris, and a PAL version that could shoot at 25fps progressive, I'm willing to bet we would aready be seeing indie features being shot on that camera and shot well. Even 720p HDV would be similar to Super16 - not the best, but certainly acceptable. I'm not saying that HDV is equal to Super 16, just that the type of projects that would have shot Super 16 could now consider HDV as an alternative, and still be viable for commercial distribution.

Now, if Canon or Sony would dedicate the full 25Mb/s (or more) to a 1080, 24p HDV signal, then things would really get interesting. Sony has already stated the new cam will be 1080, 60i. It would only make sense that 1080 24p would actually require less raw data, and allow more headroom for MPEG compression. A nice, tight 6-frame GOP could allow for really stunning images. A camera with those specs could do for independent filmmaking what the VX-1000 did for independent video production.

As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.

<<As a filmmaker, all I would really want or need is a DVX-100a with 1080 24p. Is that too much to hope for? It would only be the camera of the decade.>>

good news! sony already has that camera it's called the HDW-F900, and you're right it is a great camera, unfortunately it's out of most of our price ranges.
;)

How about a 16x9 cam with 2/3 chips and 24p? We've got that too!

It's the sdx900 and it's 25 grand.

Any 5k cam is going to be hobbled in some respect, I imagine. Canon has no "high" line of video products to protect, but they do sell lenses. And they have to buy the same chips as everyone else, so if they were to come out with an ubercam for 5k they might piss off their chip suppliers.

Hello everyone, I'm new to this site, So let me kick off by letting you know that I tried to book a Seminar on the XL1s last month at Birns and Sawyer in Hollywood and had an e-mail back stating that they are not holding anymore until September when the replacement model will be available. I would say thats pretty much a confirmation?

Regards
Paul

Interesting information, Paul.

aaaahhhhh... between apple's new product releases and Canon's "damn upgrade it already" I'm wearing thin...

Birns and sawyer is also the major canon retailer out here as well, I would trust them pretty readily. (they told me the same thing)

You know, I went to Gluskin's today and tried to see if they had any new info on the new camera. On display was a slightly altered GL2, a new revision I guess, which looked a little less round and more rugged. But besides the slightly altered version of the GL2 (which it was, I'm not saying it was the GL3 or anything, all it was was a more square GL2), I asked the guy about the new Canon videocamera coming in a few weeks and he said that all he knew was that it was supposed to be HD and that it was coming in a few weeks. Other than that, he said it was all supposed to be "big surprise" according to what the Canon guys told'em. So, I'm still in the dark, but anybody try this new revision of the GL2 or is that old news?

Hi Jack, thats probably the GL1 you saw, its a bit more boxy than the GL2... The GL1 came out before the GL2.

Did it look like this: http://www.gl1universe.com/images/gl1-ds.jpg

No, no, no, no, you misuderstand. I should know what a GL1 looks like in comparison to the GL2, because I've got a GL1 ;). But no, this GL2 was SERIOUSLY different then the other GL2's I've seen. Like I said, it was physically less rounded than the regular GL2's. But yes, it was a GL2, NOT a rumored GL3 or anything. But who knows, I could be seeing things. Has anybody been to their local camera shops lately? Look at their GL2's if they got'em. But in any case, the GL2 is of little concern at the moment, I WANT MY XL2!!! =D

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : No matter how good it is, I guarantee it WON'T be acceptable for blowup to film. -->>>

Funny how the SD Dvx won the Cinematography award at Sundance.. blown up :)

I've seen a lot of stuff shot on DV, and I will agree that most of it is not acceptable for blow up to film. Of course, that has nothing to do with the quality of the format, but with the lack of quality in the content.

As far as I'm concerned, if we can finally get a DV camera that is not handicapped in some way, I'll be thrilled.
By not handicapped, I mean true 16X9, 24p, XLR inputs, and interchangable lenses all on one camera.

That camera would be more than good enough for most of the things I"ve seen people do with their DV cameras, myself included.
Good content can be made with any camera, and bad content shot in HD is just as unengaging as bad content shot in DV.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the format doesn't matter at all. I'm only saying that it's been incredibly rare for me to watch a short film or feature shot on DV and think, "wow, if that were only shot on HD I would have thought it was great."

-Luis

Jarred is referring to Nancy Schreiber's Sundance entry, "November." Read about it at this page at Digital Producer Magazine. There are numerous examples of DV blown up to 35mm, among them is last year's "28 Days Later," shot on the aging XL1 (not XL1S). I think it's been clearly established that there are plenty of succesful case studies for DV to 35mm.

I agree Chris.. and like in 28 days later when they hit the limits of DV, they shot in 35mm. Alot of people couldnt tell when they switched from Digital to 35mm for the wide shots, even when they watched it in the theaters.

As long as you can make out what the hell is going on and you have a good story your audience wont complain too much, they will forget it was shot on DV pretty quickly if its a good script. Remember Blair Witch?

I haven't seen the DVD of "28 Days Later", perhaps there is more information in there than what I read when it was theatrically released, but I was under the impression that the only section that was 35mm were the scenes at the end out in the country. For the wide city shots earlier on, I understood that multiple XL1's were used and "stitched" together.

My feeling about "Blair Witch" was the degraded image and shakiness was appropriate because it was "real", and the audience was aware of the technology used. I do find it distracting to have bad handheld and video artifacts present in a most narrative films, however. Even some of the images in "28 Days" pulled me out of the movie when I saw it in the theatre, and I was very involved in that film.

I amit to being a tough customer. I've felt that way about watching HD features also, including ones I've worked on!

yeah there was alot of info floating around. Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35.

You can tell if not by resolution by the increased latitude in those scenes.

they didnt shoot on the XL1 to save money.. they had boatloads of that, it was an expirement in the director's artistic design to use a lower format for a lower point in life, when everything was flat and bleek.. and it kinda worked, however I dont think it was as big as a difference as he may of wished.

"Basically before everything went to poo.. it was 35, and at the end when the poo was over, it was 35.

Are you saying that the opening was shot in 35?
That wasn't my understanding. Like Charles I understood that only the ending was 35mm, everything else was DV.

By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like "poo" they reach for the Canon XL1?

:)

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the camera.

Let's hope that isn't the case with the XL2 (or whatever it's called).

-Luis

<<<-- Originally posted by Luis Caffesse : [i]"
By the way Jarred, are you saying that when experienced directors want something to look like "poo" they reach for the Canon XL1?

-Luis -->>>

You are reading me wrong.. When I said everything going to poo I mean the virus was out and all hell breaks loose. Poo being a enviroment.

Jarred, I wasn't reading you wrong, just joking around.

Seriously, which scenes in the opening do you think were shot in 35mm? The movie opens with the monkey's in the lab, right? From there we go to the hospital.

I'm pretty sure that was all XL1 footage.
I have to agree with Charles, the difference between the 35mm and the DV footage was like night and day to me at the end of the film. And, although the gritty look of DV worked for the style of the film, it did work against it at points (for me), pulling me out of the movie. Then again, that may just be the nature of the beast due to the work that I do. Many of the people I was with didn't think twice about what the film was shot on, and a few didn't even notice that it switched to 35mm at the end.

Either way, we agree, content is the key.
The eyes will adjust to the format, as long as the viewer is engaged (which of course should be the goal regardless of the format we are shooting on).

-Luis

ps.
Hopefully this won't be an issue with the new XL.
I guess we'll know in 6 more days.

(just trying to keep this thread on topic somewhat)
:)

as for the 35mm.. There is a long road to the production of Film.. They tried first to shoot the ending on DV but the cost of the Jets etc. they didnt want to mess around, so they shot the ending on 35mm, and pinned the Artistic change to it.

Thats the time the story was given to the press, so most things you read will show the above, minus the attempt at trying to do it in DV.

Then, later on Fox coughed up some more cash after production to do reshoots in 35mm for some scenes that just didnt work on DV. Some of these where at the beggining, and if you watch the DVD you can even tell the changes.

There is no question though that the majority of the movie was 35mm.

The company that produced "November" - InDigEnt - seems to be on the right track as a model for indie features. Name talent and/or directors+compelling stories=profit, regardless of format.

www.indigent.net/

The common flaws that people associate with "video" have everything to do with sloppy production and nearly nothing to do with the limits of the medium. I've only seen one of their productions "Tadpole", but it was a fairly straightforward narrative film and the fact that it was shot on a PAL PD-150 never took me out of the story. It was shot like a decent low budget feature, and I responded to it as one. The fact that Sundence awarded cinematography prizes to “Personal Velocity” and "November" tells me the walls are already broken down. More speculative films will be shot than ever before, and the cost of 35mm transfer loaded into the distribution deal afterwards. Moviess don't even need "film out" for the major festivals anymore. I can't help but see this as good news for filmmakers everywhere, and this includes cinematographers.

I'm curious if you folks have seen any of the InDigEnt productions, and care to comment. It seems that HDV or some flavor of low-cost HD will go a long way to being a nail in the coffin for film-based production outside of Hollywood. No new info here, it's just that I'm happy to see the tide turning.

Ive seen them all.. and the stories have all been so good, that even I forgot about the whole DV thing.

Pieces of April was great, and Personal Velocity everyone should buy because it has a pretty good DV primer in the special features section that shows how they adapter for Video.

Gary Winick of Indigent (Tadpole) is now directing 50 million dollar studio features. The end game always seems to be to get out of video onto film.


However, if you have a great script, you could shoot in Fisher Pixelvision and still advance your career at a festival.

Of course, that's a big "if". Lot's of people have scripts, some people have scripts that are 85% there, but very very few have a script with the talent and massive rewrites necessary to get them to them to 100%.

Gives you something to do while waiting for new cams *L*

My Dealer confirms the XL2 is coming
 

I was at my local camera store and they were in a tizzy about the XL2. Funny, since I had been hunting for news all over the net about this cam on and off for years, and now it just fallls in my lap without me lifting a finger.

My dealer said they talked to their Canon rep yesterday?.

The "XL2" (that's what the referred to it, but I would not be surprised if that's more by habit than accuracy) will announced Monday in NY at DV Expo.

It will have "for sure" according to the store:

(1) 24p (24fps full progressive)
(2) Different Lens (wider but with extended telephoto though their were fuzzy on actual numbers)
(3) A "vastly extended feature set" whatever that means.
(4) List price to be "$700-800" higher than current XL1 pricing
(5) Interchangeable lenses

The other details were more sketchy as it was the store talking to Canon yesterday via phone according to the conversation.

(1) 16:9 - probably but not sure if that's stretched or native
(2) HD/HDV - Store was pretty sure HD was "assumed" to be part of the package but I got the sense they forgot to ask about this so it's a big unknown.

So I guess DV Expo will be a blast for Canon watchers after all. Have fun - I'm going on vacation on Saturday for a week, so I'm sure DVInfo will be staggering under the weight of discussion.

Very cool. And very exciting.

HD is automatically 16x9 native, is it not?

Hmmm, let's see...about 4500 bucks list price. Sounds reasonable, I think that HD chips are only 500 bucks each...Plus a grand for a lens...(can you get an HD lense for a grand?)....a couple hundred for batteries...

Let's say 6 geees. Oh yeah, the microphone...7 gees.

I'm still sold if they changed the form factor to make it balance better.

<---------- rubbing hands together.

HD is automatically 16:9. However, 16:9 is not automatically HD. Some people get confused on that point.

I don't want to be the barer of bad news but HD glass isn't going to be a grand. It won't be two or even three, think in the teen's as a LOW price point.

I went to the DVX users group in L.A. where they screened NOvember and had a querstion answer section with the DP. Personally I wans't a huge fan of the movie, but that's my personal preference. They still hadn't done a blow up of it at the time I watched it I believe we were the first to see it blown up to HD (anyone else who was there feel free to correct me on that)

But maybe we're all being a little too hopeful for HDV. I mean won't the motion artifacting be pretty awful? Has anyone seen DVX footage on an HD TV it don't look that bad, better then broadcast SD. Even IF sony releases their balsa cam in January, it would still just be 1080i which would effectively be 540 lines of resolution and that's just 60 more then the dvx 100 (xl2?) Then factor in the lack of interchangeable glass for it and suddenly the sony doesn't look so hot.

I"m not keen on the whole 800 bucks more as I think this would be the first time I bought a NEW xl1 instead of buting off ebay. (I want a warreenty darnit!)

Michael, I think 1 gee for a mic is still alittle high, (unless you're thinking something like the MKH416) which is something you'd probably just want to purchase after the fact and wouldn't be included with the camera.

I wonder if the vastly different feature set means you'll eb able to do some digital painting, or oh better yet they'll have a mini 35 like adapter built in so you won't have to spend an extra 8 grand (at least) to get decent DOF off the camera. Or maybe it means you'll be able to Jam timecode, so you could have in effect a real "film" camera at your disposel. My only question will be how long before they replace the standard lens for a manual one.