Chris, if this "XL2" is released next week, can we count on you for the best info out there about it? And if so, what day will you be giving us this accurate info?

Also, just to save us time, can you confirm or deny the existance of the Canon XL2? (ha ha, that wasn't subtle at all, was it?)

I hate NDAs. :-)

<<<-- Originally posted by Daniel Broadway : Chris, if this "XL2" is released next week, can we count on you for the best info out there about it? And if so, what day will you be giving us this accurate info?

Also, just to save us time, can you confirm or deny the existance of the Canon XL2? (ha ha, that wasn't subtle at all, was it?)

I hate NDAs. :-) -->>>


This area 51 - nothing can be confirmed or denied :)

NDA's are actually an extremely useful item, having signed a number myself in my corporate computer years. Yes, people bug you like crap (Chris is a real trouper for putting up with all of us - I really think he should be getting fabuously rich off running this bad boy) but it really helps a company get input and feedback outside while retaining their competitive advantages in new products.

While Panasonic and Sony like to announce cams way before hand, they may have both tipped the hand of Canon early enough in Canon's development cycle than Canon gets the upper hand as the "best prosumer/low-end pro cam".

As popular and well-designed as the DVX100 series is, there are way more XL1 and XL1s out there. If the XL2 or whatever it's called in a "DVX-killer", Panasonic's reign in the sun could be in doubt.

Panasonic did do a great job with the DVX100a - a bunch of improvements in a very short cycle, maybe they can do that again once the XL2 is out. Maybe not. It's an interesting time for sure.

Yes, I understand NDAs are helpful. I was just joking. I hope I didn't annoy Chris. I was just messin with him.

this Monday?

<<<-- Originally posted by Josh Brusin : this Monday? -->>>

yep. DV Expo is next week.

so I'm expecting a 24p camera? 3 chip.... 16:9 native necessitating new lenses all together? $5500ish

If the rumors are true......yes.

ok... deeep breath.
Holding....







HOLDING>>>

Guess I'll ask this question again, since nobody really ponied up to answer last time I posed the question:

Who is actually ready to purchase -and- How much exactly are you prepared/ willing to invest?

Just curious,

- don

I am - I had to sell my two DVX100's over a year ago due a loss in a financial scam. I've finally picked up an Optura 40 for fun, but really miss have a cam though I've had fun with motordrive still footage and Twixtor.

I will have to go into debt but I'm hoping for a camera and balanced kits of extra (batteries, wide angle adaptor and/or lens) to run around $5-$6K. If it's usuable HD, more, because I could get work to cover the diference. But still well under $10 for HDV 3-chip.

i just don't get it. Canon and the HDV thing.
 

Okay, it's driving me crazy.

Canon doesn't release new cams as frequently or have short cycles the way Panasonic has recently with DVX100A showing up on the scene only a year or so after debuting the 100...

So when Canon originally said last fall they were part of this HDV thing, I said to myself, okay, the XL1s will have to last till 2005 or so until Canon gets this 3-chip HDV thing figured out.

But now it seems a new cam is imminent.

From a long-term point of view, IF indeed there is now a camera coming out next week from Canon, how can they afford to NOT have it be HDV? You mean introduce a new kick-ass SD cam when HDV is just around the corner? So what? Would you sell off your DVX100 to get it?

I'm not buying the "price of the glass" argument either, folks. Let's face it. Technology is getting cheap(er). If the price of the glass was a limiting factor, why bother developing HDV at all? Why would JVC have bothered to put out their cam and Sony bother previewing their new balsa cam? I just happened across an old ad I had from a few years back when the Sony PD100A was first introduced and priced at more than what you can get the DVX100A for now. And look at Panasonic's 3-chip palmcorders like the GS200 and now the just-announced GS400. Amazing bang for your buck. Look at all those pixels. The GS200 is selling like hotcakes...

Why would Canon be a part of this HDV thing and not put out a cam? With all those patents to their name, they're not exactly dullards. I'm sure they could figure out a way to bring 3-chip HDV to the masses if they really wanted to... I guess we'll be finding out next week if they really want to.

Say the new cam is a 24p, 16:9, interchangeable lens SD DVX100 killah everyone now speculates it to be. So what? Canon will be the leader till next spring when Sony puts out the 3-CCD HDV balsa baby? Then what?

The timing of this camera is weird. I know there have been arguments made here that for Canon, prosumer mini-dv isn't as key as it has been or as it is to Sony or Panasonic but let's face it, Canon introduced the most revolutionary cam in mini-dv history with the interchangeable lenses - Canon did in fact show a great deal of leadership in the past introducing something very revolutionary that set a new benchmark for the format.

Don't tell me Canon wasn't all over HDV the minute JVC put out the cam if not before, well in advance to the official announcement of the consortium. They've had time to work on things. If not now, then when? Next year? After Sony puts out theirs?

So maybe Canon is going to wow us again?

I mean if JVC can put out a 1-chip HDV over a year ago and Sony can preview their thing, isn't it time for mighty Canon to step up to the plate and take a swing?

Or is Canon going to stay in the shadows? I think there's a bit of a "it's-now-or-never" for Canon with this new cam.

Heck, this IS the year after all that Panavision introduced a digital camera - so ANYTHING is possible.

"Guess I'll ask this question again, since nobody really ponied up to answer last time I posed the question:

Who is actually ready to purchase -and- How much exactly are you prepared/ willing to invest?

Just curious,

- don"

Don, if it's SD, I'd wait till the price drops, people realize the first batch of lenses has a backfocus problem and it gets recalled, etc. and just twidle my thumbs till next spring when Sony does their thing.

But if next week there's an H in front of the D and the V, I'd sell my car, my wife's car, her mother's car and my neighbour's car if that's what it took to get it NOW.

"How much are you prepared/willing to invest?"
-----------------------------------

I wouldn't give you a nickel for it. If I had to use it myself, that is. Of course, if I could sell it at a profit to
one of you, whose money is as a red-hot
coal in the pocket, then that's another matter.

I propose that a good model designation for the phantom camera is: XL1sX.

Steve McDonald

if it's a true 24p I'll get one sooner or later... unless it involves some $3000 piece of metal adapter for my mini35... then likely later... if it's HDV and 24p then it'll be sooner. I think I could market the service a bit higher to offset the cost. Most clients 'get' HD. 24p is a sell. They'll see it and get it but it involves the 'see it' sell in.

I'll bet within 60 days of the Canon announcement Panasonic announces the HDVX100.

Any bets?

Naw. Panasonic's probably still cleaning up the blood-stained carpets from their rapid-fire 24P burst.

No, it might be someone out of the blue that might poop in Canon and Pana's punch bowl. Someone like Hitachi or Sanyo or Casio.

Or Samsung or Sharp. Heh.

Wait a sec, this question just hit me. When everyone says that they want 24p and HDV, do they mean both at the same time? Or, is everyone talking about wanting the camera to have seperate modes, like 24p mode, DV mode, and HDV modes (720p and 1080i)? I don't know, any of those will do for Canon's next camera. Any o' that would be better than what my GL1 can do ;-). I'm sold no matter what! =D

I don't know Scott, I mean your enthusiasm is great, but 25 Mbps just isn't gonna cut it for blowup unless you have an intentionally "stylized" film like Blair Witch, and it's popularity was quite a fluke. Every indie filmmaker (accept for one lucky one a year) that shoots at 25Mbps will be unaccepted by distributors for blowup because it looks like what it is . . . a cheap movie. Now I'm not saying cheap-looking movies can't be great, I'm just saying they won't be picked up very often. And the ones that do get picked up from now on will more increasingly be films from so called "indie" filmmakers like Soderbergh or the guy that made 28 DAYS LATER. These guys can do it because they'e in the door and can flaunt it as "artistic choice".

In general, shooting a movie that looks like video instead of film is the kiss of death, as far as what I've learned in my festival and acquisition rounds.

Of course, if you could have Juan modify the new XL-2 to get uncompressed 4:4:4 out of it . . . now then we may be talking.

I just figured out that I'm to young to go to DV Expo East(I'm 15). My brother said he'll go and I was wondering whetheror not your allowed to bring your own cams there. I'm assuminging not but I figure I would ask anyway.

<<<-- Every indie filmmaker (accept for one lucky one a year) that shoots at 25Mbps will be unaccepted by distributors for blowup because it looks like what it is . . . a cheap movie. Now I'm not saying cheap-looking movies can't be great, I'm just saying they won't be picked up very often. ->>>

Laurence:

While I understand your technical point about the technical limitations in film blow-up, I need to get on my soapbox about why those limitations are pretty irrelevant, both to the art and business of filmmaking.

I've got numerous friends and associates with 35mm indie & independent films still on the shelf, never picked up. The fact is indie films are rarely picked up no matter what they are shot on. That's the nature of the indie art. My guess from sheer numbers, that more DV indie films find distribution than 35mm simply because they often can make lower margin deals.

Don't forget, "distribution" is DVD releases, international etc. My local Hollywood and blockbuster has dozens of shot on DV features at anyone time that are indies.

A true "indie" is financed out of pocket by filmmaker and friends as opposed to "independent" which generally refers to films independent of studio financing. The sheer cost of 35mm filmmaking pushes most "indie" films into "independents" where they have to find a bank/investor to back the project.

We need to open our minds to the possibility that not everyone needs to make a huge movie to be a a filmmaker. I, for one, thank god for DV and digital projection. It allows filmmaking to become a much more personal, local and community art-form than it ever has been.

Need proof? I helped start Triad Indie Film Network (www.triadindie.com) here in our community. It's all about personal filmmaking and yes, even blowing up shorts to 16 or 35mm. Not for 1000 theaters, but for 1.

You can blow up anything to 35mm - VHS is fine. Just engage your audience - that's all that really matters. We just had our first TIFN film festival of 10 second, 60 second and 3 minute shorts. A third of the filmmakers had never mad a film before. A third made films without even using a motion camera. None were shot on film (except for my 10 second, shot with a still camera). We had almost 200 people in a coffee house loving every minute of it - more than was watching any hollywood film or the independent film house that night.

"picked up" only matter for the few, lucky filmmakers that get that "big break". The rest of should just keep making films and support those filmmakers that truly need it.

Anyway, that's my soapbox for the day.

Don-

I'm ready, just let it be something worth investing in.

Even if it is not "HDV" what's the bleeding point, I've seen real HD look like bad dv and I've seen good SD look like HD, and to be honest with you it doesn't really matter it's how you shoot it. Will I buy it if it's HDV you betcha, will I buy it if it's SD, more then likely and I'll be starting a very lengthy correspondace with Mr Pertierra (if he'll still talk to me) IF there is some way to add 4:4:4 color correction and real intechangable lens with a P+S like adapter (build it yourself) then I'm all for it.

Unfortunately I also believe that Steve and Mark are correct and that there really will be some hella price gouging (even if it has half the item's speculated) for a camera that could be 90% hype and suffer from critical DV flaws.

I don't however believe that the "price of glass is crap" argument is crap. HD glass is very thin and must calibrated very specifically, HD glass is less forgiving then film glass (not an argument for HD) and there's a difference between making glass that will be left on a camera and never removed and glass that will be rotated in and out of camera's and will need to be back focused etc. As a result HD interchangable lens are going to be expensive. Technology nothing, have you tried to buy a Zeiss superspeed used? if it's in good shape most lenses will hold their value well, because lens technology doesn't change nearly as quickly as electronic technology.

Stephen I'm just curious have you guy's sought sponsor ship by tiffen? TIFN get it?

Jack, If I was to get 24p and HD I would really be upset if my HD didn't record at 24p.

Laurence:

Stephen just made about every point I was going to make about content being king, artistry over format, etc.

But I have to disagree about the technical possibilities of HDV for blowup. The limitation of video right now for 35mm blowup isn't in signal processing or the ability to make video look like film. The DVX100's CineGamma and the literally staggering array of post options can take care of that easily. To my thinking, the biggest limitation is sheer pixel count. You just can't blow up 720x480 to a theater-size screen, either by filmout or digital projection and expect it to hold up. 720p, on the other hand is a different story. That's Varicam. Or, hope against hope, 1080p. That's CineAlta.

Now, I'm not saying that a $5000 camera is going to be equal to a Varicam or CineAlta. It won't. But if the HDV consortium is confident that 720 30p and 1080 60i can fit within the 25Mb/s, 24p at either 720 or 1080 should be entirely possible. From the footage I've seen out of the JVC HD10, I'm a believer. Have you seen that footage? When well shot, it's practically indistinguishable from $100k cameras. It will happen, and soon from the looks of it.

This is what I've been saying for years now. The barriers to entry for features are fading fast. Some indie filmmaker is going to take this tool, make a killer movie on the cheap, edit it on a home computer with off the shelf hardware, and win Sundance. And the only people complaining about image quality will be tech geeks like us. The vast majority of the audience won't even know or care that it was shot on a prosumer camcorder. Who knows, it might even fool a few distribution execs.

Unfortunately, 95% of indie films will still be crap. Just like when everyone was shooting 35. Or Super-16. Or DV.

Bring it on Canon. A lot of people are holding thier breath.

"To my thinking, the biggest limitation is sheer pixel count"

I have to agree with Scott on this point.

After reading this thread yesterday, I was color correcting
some DV footage (24p from the DVX). And, I have to say,
I'm constantly amazed at how great that footage can look
when correcting mids and closeups. THEN I got to a wide
exterior shot, and the footage just falls apart. The pixels
just aren't there.

That got me thinking about Charles' comments yesterday
about how on 28 Day's Later they used multiple XL1s and
stitched shots together in post for the wide city shots.

With HDV, that would not have been necessary.

Sure, HDV may not be the perfect solution, but it is A
solution.

The color sampling in DV has never been the problem.
Sure it would be nice to have 4:2:2, but with a steady and
subtle hand, you can correct DV footage to look very very
good. The problem, as Scott pointed out, is sheer pixel
count.

I don't expect HDV to be great, but in the meanwhile, for
people like myself who can't afford tens of thousands on
camera gear, it may just be 'good enough'

-Luis

ps.
now let's just hope we'll see 720p24 next week from Canon.
I'm not holding my breath for that.

<<The limitation of video right now for 35mm blowup isn't in signal processing or the ability to make video look like film.>>

I would add to this, at the very least, latitude. Especially at the low end of the video chain, such as we are discussing. All well and good in completely controllable environments like interiors; not so good in exteriors with mix of sunshine and shade. White blowouts in the sky--not so filmic.

I just like to buy stuff....

I have to agree with Charles. I've downloaded a number of clips shot with the JVC HDV cam. While the pixels are there, unless you go through great pains to control it's painfully limited latitude, it really can look bad. But, that's not HDV, that's bad optics, electronics etc.

"I would add to this, at the very least, latitude."


Absolutely we need improvements in latitude.
But, although I do not want to disagree with Charles as he obviously knows more than I do about these things, I would say that what I meant was the bare minimum needed to get a decent projected image.

Increased latitude would be great, but I see it as a bonus. Without added resolution, the latitude wouldn't mean much. The image may look a bit more controlled, and more filmic, but wide shots woudl still completely fall apart once projected from a DV source.

Granted, increased latitude in DV would be great for broadcast work, and DVD work. I was simply commenting earlier on what was needed to get decent projection.

-Luis

Luis:

The pixel count for projection is only signifigant if you can project native - our monthly screenings project a variety of stuff off DVD. Well shot DV always looks better than poorly shot HD.

From the footage I've seen out of the JVC HD10, I'm a believer. Have you seen that footage? When well shot, it's practically indistinguishable from $100k cameras. It will happen, and soon from the looks of it.

Practically indistinguishable? C'mon. Do you not notice the excessive dithering in colors throughout the entire frame, the excessive quantization amidst any movement and the excessive noise artifacts in any color, especially full-field colors? That is HDV. Iv'e seen hundreds of examples of HDV and have seen the best of the HDV samples out there, they all exhibit these flaws. VariCam and CineAlta do not exhibit these anomalies at all.

Even in the JVC booth at NAB this year, the best footage they had to show was unnacceptable as far as dithering, quantization and noise artifacts go. Even the footage they were showing of some "film" which was being shown on a big screen directly above the prototype of their upcoming full-sized 3CCD HDV camcorder looked flawed in these areas. That is not acceptable for filmout, at all. The only time I have seen HDV look anything remotely close to true High Definition is when the HDV clip is played at a quarter-frame screen size on a computer screen. Not when it is resolved full frame on a large screen. You can still see the anomalies though. I know there will be people out there who will contest this, and I ask them to return to their screens and look for all of the dithering in the colors throughout the frame, the excessive quantization amidst any movement and the excessive noise artifacts in any colors... Try to color correct or apply any digital filtering on that footage in post and watch it fall apart.

I'm sorry to sound negative here (Honest, I have nothing but the best intentions!), but I cannot understand why no one else is pointing out these issues about HDV, why isn't anyone else taking the time to notice these flaws? If you ARE noticing them, why are you accepting them?

- don

I'm sorry to sound negative here (Honest, I have nothing but the best intentions!), but I cannot understand why no one else is pointing out these issues about HDV, why isn't anyone else taking the time to notice these flaws? If you ARE noticing them, why are you accepting them?
- don

Well, I think that we can accept these flaws because HDV is the best most of us will be able to get for a few years ^_^. If we all could go out and buy Varicams or SDX900's or CineAlta setups, then we'd be hunkydory, but we can't, so most of us will have to settle with HDV, just like people did with DV. But besides that, I think that people just need to learn how to shoot in HDV and discover ways to eliminate these shortcomings you've pointed out. Also, you seem to be the only one complaining, so that's just it, other people don't notice these flaws, just us camera tech geeks on here!

:-)

Maybe we'll all just get shockingly lucky and Canon will ignore the HDV standards and use some less compressed standard.

Now, I am dreaming.


And as far as SD goes, sure, you can shoot a feature on a pd150 and get it distributed...AS LONG AS IT HAS SIGOURNEY WEAVER or COURTNEY COX or KATIE HOLMES or SIMILIAR STAR in it.

<<<--And as far as SD goes, sure, you can shoot a feature on a pd150 and get it distributed...AS LONG AS IT HAS SIGOURNEY WEAVER or COURTNEY COX or KATIE HOLMES or SIMILIAR STAR in it. -->>>

Not true at all - just go to your local video store and they are full of shot on SD films with no names, often genre style straight to video flicks. But they are distributed. Many 35mm and DV features never have a US theaterical release.

"The pixel count for projection is only signifigant if you can project native"


I was going on the assumption that we were talking about projecting HDV as opposed to projecting DV.

I didnt' expect it to make much difference if HDV material was going to be projected at DV resolution.

" - our monthly screenings project a variety of stuff off DVD. Well shot DV always looks better than poorly shot HD""

No argument there.
I was also going on the assumption that we were talking about footage shot at equal levels of skill. Taking one extreme against the other isnt' exactly a scientific study on the effects of resolution.

I agree, well shot DV will always look better than poorly shot HD.

But how much better will well shot HDV look than well shot DV if each is projected in it's native format?

I don't care about HDV all that much, so I didn't mean to pull the thread off topic. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, most projects I've seen would be unengaging regardless of the format they were shot in. And, I'm under no delusion that my own projects would have been better if shot in a higher resolution format. I was just commenting on what was needed to get a cleaner projected image, and I do believe it comes down to pixels.

In the end, I'm just looking for a native 16x9 camera with XLR inputs, 24p, and interchangable lenses that is within my budget.

HDV would just be a neat addition.

Hopefully Canon will deliver.

-Luis

Well,

I'm not sure where my point was taken for DVD and direct to video, but I was talking specifically for screen blowup . . . which is where the subject was before my last post. And I still hold. If you're blowing up to a big screen, this HDV, plain and simple, won't hold up. Not at 25 Mbps it won't.

As for DVD or straight to video, well that's okay. DVX-100 looks pretty good on my TV screen. But again, that's not blowup. Projected in a theater, it will not hold up. And neither will the Canon if it's HDV at 25Mbps.

. . . unless your Sodenbergh . . . then you can make really lame DV flicks all you want and distribute them, god help us.

Just IMHO

<<<-- Originally posted by Mark Grgurev : I just figured out that I'm to young to go to DV Expo East(I'm 15). -->>>

That's interesting. My daughter is considered one of the most gifted up & coming filmmakers in the southwest (no kidding). She gets into every convention, SIG, and festival that we register for. She's nine. It seems that the younger you are and the more talented, the easier it is to get acceptance... case in point, Tiger Woods.

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : Well,

And I still hold. If you're blowing up to a big screen, this HDV, plain and simple, won't hold up. Not at 25 Mbps it won't. >>>


It's hard to see why that's true. I've projected miniDV that was filmlooked to aroudn 360 lines off a crappy projector (3 year 800 lumens Epson low end business projector) in a multiplex theater with a 50 ft screen and completely sold out the theater (albiet for a single night) Not a single audience member complained about the image quality. To my eye, it looked like low-rez video. Not to anyone else.

The problem is with our assertion is that what I think you are really saying "it to my technicial standards, it does not hold up". You earlier claimed that distributors won't pick it up, but given the number of DV films in theaterical release world-wide, I can't see that holds water either.

While your standard is perfectly valid for you, for many other, filmmakers, audience and distributors, proejcted video is just fine, artifacts and all -- if the content is compelling.

If you just shot Gigli, all the beatiful IMAX footage in the world is not going to help you at all.

And good artist will use the limations of the DV or HDV image to their advantage. I, for one. kind of liked the look in Soderberg's film - I tend to grunge up video for some projects my self - more like impressionism that realism.

No one complains that Van Gogh and Renior's resolution was too low of large paintings... :)

So I don't care too much if the XL2 is DV, HDV or HD. So long as it give me choices for various kinds of imagery - that's all I really want. The most choices for the dollar.

Thanks for responding Eric. I could probably pass off as 18 but I dont wanna take any chances. But I really need to know if you can take camcorders. My bro can just take pictures but if he could take video it would be ten times better. Oh, by the way, do you let your daughter use your cam or did you buy her her own?

Mark, I've done DV Expo for several years and have always seen personally owned camcorders on the show floor. Should be no big deal. Just check with the show's management at dvexpo.com for a legitimate ruling on that question.

Stephen van Vuuren wrote: ----and completely sold out the theater, albeit for one night only. Not a single audience member complained about the image quality-----
----------------------------------------

That's quite an accomplishment, getting that many of your family members together at one time. The most relatives of mine I've ever been able to coerce to sit through one of my videos was 4 or 5 and they were always very critical.

Steve McDonald