Available in August.

Guess I was right all along.

I'm ok that its not HDV. I'm just happy to see a hiqh quality widescreen mode. After translating the Canon Japan site it looks like the XL2 will properly display its anamoprhic widescreen mode as letterboxed in the viewfinder!

How much do you get for selling plasma?

The XL2 is now online on the Canon USA site:
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=10350

Thats more than enough pixels for a quality widescreen mode. I don't see a problem with those numbers!

I guess I was right about the viewfinder flipping mode to LCD:

" convertible LCD display " (click here to see it animate)

And:

" The XL2 has an EVF that is convertible between a standard eyepiece and a 2” high resolution LCD "

The viewfinder does flip open to reveal the LCD. Take a look at the Flash demonstrations on the Canon USA website.

No HDV yet. However, what do you want to bet that the GL2 replacement next year will have the HDV standard implemented as more and more consumers want it to match with their HD televisions.

Time to start a new rumor since all of our old ones are now obsolete (grin).

Here piggy, piggy bank...now where did I put that hammer.

Info Posted to Canon USA Web site
 

Information on the XL2 now posted to Canon USA Web site -- complete with flash intro.

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/con...&modelid=10350

Well, I'm glad to see that there is finally a DV camera will all the functions most of us have always wanted:

True 16x9
24p
XLR inputs

That alone automatically puts it at the front of the pack.

But, and not trying to bash on Canon here, what is the deal with
a "flip up" viewfinder to "reveal" an LCD screen?

Why not just say there is NO LCD screen on the camera.

That isn't exactly groundbreaking...or even a new feature.

Before Flip out screens, before DV even that's how we used to shoot with the old Panasonic SVHS 455s. Just flip the viewfinder open and look at the tiny little screen inside.

I did the same with my 8mm and Hi8 cameras.


That is the only feature that sort of seems like a joke to me.
But the rest looks incredible.

-luis

Next Year ??
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Greg Boston : No HDV yet. However, what do you want to bet that the GL2 replacement next year will have the HDV standard implemented as more and more consumers want it to match with their HD televisions. >>>

The new XL2 looks very, very interesting for mini DV. The specs appear to be quite an improvement over it's predecessor. Unfortunately, at this moment I can't muster myself to say "wow" and really mean it.

I guess I shouldn't have expected HD or HDV. The wiser ones on this forum warned that Canon most likely wouldn't be releasing such a beast at this time. I know that Canon is moving in what they believe is the right direction for them.

It's not that I won't be supporting or purchasing this little gem, but reluctantly, I'll have to go back and reconsider the expensive Panasonic Varicam HD lineup for true HD production.

My comments are not meant as a downer on a fabulous and historical release date for XL* fans, but only to reflect that HD is here to stay. A neutral sigh commeth from our production staff that Canon won't be serving HD or HDV on it's menu this time around.

Can someone clarify which lens the XL-2 will come with? Will it be the current 16x or the new 20x?

I may upgrade my DVX but only if this lens performs better than the 16x in my XL-1. That lens always hunted for focus when I was in AF mode. Also, my XL-1 sucked at white balance. My DVX-100 is flawless. If whatever lens it comes with works fine and the camera will correctly white balance, I'll buy one.

Greg

So, as I understand it, in order to keep the lenses backwards compatible, the chips had to stay the same "size" and ratio. The increase in pixels was necessary to give a "true" 16x9 while masking the top and bottom of the pixels?

Greg,

The new camera comes with the 20X lense. Also, you'll be able to buy a 'no lense' version for about 2 grand less. And, the 20x lense will be sold separately for the XL1 masses who want it.

Very, very good marketing design by Canon. They even retained the 'look' of the XL1/1s because they know that look has turned a lot of heads over the past 6 years.

Looks like the 'photo' button is now MIA...aw darn it. Like I ever used that function...not!

Everything but HD. Well I guess we can't have it all.

But other than interchangeable lenses and 16x9 CCD (nothing to sneeze at, granted), is this thing any more special than the DVX100A??

Peter: read the website's pages and find out. There is a lot more
to it then what you think from a first glance.

Canon and the rest will likely unveil their HDV, non-vaporware cameras next year, I'll bet.

The XL-2 is cool and all, but as an HDV user, I'm spoiled.

heath

I apprehensively was looking forward to possibly HDV at least something switchable as the compressed format still seems odd, and not too many people are asking me for HDV=== by the time canon updates to HDV they will. Although it seems completely and utterly consumer so far - from a marketing aspect to an engineering one.

Let's not forget, there are no 1/3" 3-ccd HDV cameras out there. Sony says they will have one, but they don't have one yet. Sony will announce in the future, Canon stays secret. My guess is, Canon's HDV camera will be a camera in a new line when 3-ccd 1/3" camera can be produced.

See my take on the HDV thing on this page.

Very nice, Chris.

heath

Man Chris, you have been busy this morning.

Well fortunately I can't afford a new camera now :) So I'll have the luxury of waiting to see what Sony comes up with in the HDV realm and see if Canon brings an XL2-HD next year.

The "super range OIS"is the same as used on the XL1s. It has OIS driven by gyro sensors and actuators and it interprets the motion vector on the CCD's, not for correcting the CCD read-out like EIS does, but for generating extra correction info on the OIS system for "slow"shakes which are difficult to be detected by gyro's

Really great work on the new XL2 Watchdog Chris!

A hell lot of information.... and pictures... whoa... but the greatest of all: It is all up and running on the day the cam was announced!!!

Andre is quite right. There are several flavors of OIS, and the Super-Range VAP type in the Canon XL series is the best.

Well shoot guys, now your making me all paranoid about Canon coming out with an HD version in a few months or next year! <=D

I dunno, I could stick with my GL1 for awhile longer I guess. It should be good enough for college projects.

nice....
 

great work chris for putting together ALL the info on xl2, i'm not into hdv editing yet, and i'm not sure who is out there and/or who is familiar with editing issues in hd, but i doubt half the complainers would not be able to afford an hd version if it did come out... the features look slick but still the price is pretty steep, i'm glad though because my xl1s will still keep it's value for a while longer... i may just have to go out and pick up the new pana gs400 to hold me over for a while...

-dr

<<<-- Originally posted by Scott Balkum : Let's not forget, there are no 1/3" 3-ccd HDV cameras out there. -->>>

For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...

I've been waiting forever for a 1/3" 3CCD with HQ Widescreen but ouch on the price.

How long did it take before the XL1S prices started dropping "legitimately" below $4000?

The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For that matter the XL-2 is the first 1/3" 3-chip camera with native 16:9...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The XL2 isnt native 16:9... its a 4:3 chip that is chopped.

Native 16:9 seems to have a lot of confusion, let's add some facts
in here, okay?

1) the CCD chips in the XL2 are NOT widescreen in ratio, they are 4:3 indeed (as Jarred says)

2) however, the 16:9 mode DOES USE MORE resolution than the 4:3 (which is also better than the XL1S 4:3 mode)

So in this case it IS native 16:9 since it is not made from electronic
stretching in which you LOOSE resolution. So the chips do not
have an actual 16:9 aspect, but they will produce native 16:9.

Perhaps true 16:9 is a better word than native 16:9 in this
regard. The XL2 does actually GAINS resolution in regards to it's
4:3 mode.

So it is simply not using it's full VERTICAL height of the CCD's.
Is this a problem? Not really since it still uses more pixels in its
16:9 mode than any of the competition.

It's just a bit less suited as a 4:3 camera, perhaps (due to
increase focal lengths and shortened DoF). It still has more
resolution in 4:3 mode than the XL1S does, however!

<<<-- Originally posted by Robert Knecht Schmidt : The real question with regard to the 16:9 function is how the extra pixels are written to tape. This resolution appears to conform neither to the DV standard nor to the HDV standard. Anybody have the straight dope? -->>>

It's still DV, there are no extra pixels written to tape, only extra pixels sampled on the CCD. The signal from the sensors is then converted to regular DV.

Rob, it seems the only element we are still missing is how this all translates in regards to the XL2's low-light capabilites. It would seem not to be a strong selling point for the XL2, since it is never mentionned as such by Canon.

However, for most indies, I believe higher resolution is much more important than higher low-light capabilities. You can always add some lighting...

Oh, and the GS400 claims to make use of 1156x646 pixels in 16:9 mode, which is a bit more than the XL2. Not that you could really compare both cameras...

Hmmmm. Not a home run Canon, but a double.

I think I would buy a dvx100a and add a anamorphic lens instead.

Still waiting on HD. Sharp, where are you?

Steven: the GS400 isn't 3 chip right? If so then they loose quite a
lot of resolution due to Bayer transforms.Source: Canon USA (just under the "Focal Lengths using the XL2" table)

Yes, the GS400 is 3CCD, although they are only 1/4.7".

So they do mention low light... but don't seem to make it a very strong selling point like for the DVX100 or the PD170.

Maybe Simon Beer can give us more insight on this since he has access to a XL2.

thanks guys this has all been very informative.

Chris you've been very busy and we all thank you, this really is a keen watch dog.

Bravo

XL@ 16 X 9 pixel count, squeezing it to tape
 

This shoots 16X9 and then loses resolution to fit it to DV tape, am I right about this? Too bad.

But then I see you can link it to a PC to record direct to disc. Does this preserve the higher pixel count? That would be fantastic. Not HDV, but certainly better than coming off the compressed signal on a DV tape.

Much better(if this is true) in the long run for out putting it to film. Can anybody address this if you are in the know?

Hopefully my speculation is correct, and they get a MAC version of the DV-PC software.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : Native 16:9 seems to have a lot of confusion -->>>

I agree with Rob, but really we're just into semantics. If you look at Chris' section on the CCD block you will see that Canon simply doesn't use the area above and below the 16:9 frame. For all practical purposes that part of the CCD doesn't exist, so I'd consider this "native" for all practical purposes. Why should you care about the unused portion of the CCD when the active area has enough resolution to form a complete 16:9 image.

Actually, if you've followed the multiple GS400 threads, it appears that the GS-400 uses the same 1,070,000 pixel chips as the PDX-10 and maps 16:9 in similar fashion. I'd also consider this "native", but I suppose we could quibble about the finer points.

Here's how the PDX-10 uses its CCD's to produce video in the different modes, very similar to the XL-2, except the area which isn't used for video is available for still photos.

Now if you want something to complain about, I suppose you could question why Canon decided to discard that area above and below the 16:9 frame instead of using it to form a higher resolution 4:3 image. I'm sure there was a solid engineering reason for this decision though.