Steven I can't see how you get to that conclusion when it clearly
states it uses more pixels in 16:9 than it does in 4:3. This is NOT
what "most" other camcorders do and is also NOT what the XL1
range did/does.

The other camera's and the XL1 range does electronic stretching.
So they use the same amount of pixels in both modes.

Sorry, I was being unclear.

What I meant is that the CCD probably aren't 16:9 shaped but 4:3. Since the overall pixel count is higher you can still get an enhanced 16:9 mode similar to that which can be found on the GS400 for example.

But, it also means that it lessens the effective CCD size and maybe the sensitivity.

However, the japanese site also boasts 540 lines of horizontal resolution in 16:9 mode, which is fairly good.

Edit: Just want to add that I may be wrong and that the CCD are true 16:9. But the site is unclear about that:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babel....html&lp=ja_en

It strikes me as strange that the effective pixels are so much higher than the 460K of 16:9.

Rob, yeah I noticed that little hinge there too. We really have to see some images with this thing to compare with other cameras, but I'm not too excited at the moment to be honest. And 350K pixels in 4:3? The DVX trounces that but then I know it's more than the pixels, it's how you use them ;)

Aaron

Steven: ah, thanks for that. I understand you know. The more
pixels are indeed puzzling and I have to agree that it sounds
like a 4:3 chip with more pixels. But who knows. Would be
interesting to see how the dynamic range is compared to the
XL1S. Can someone send me a model for review/testing please? <g>

Aaron San has wise words!

If this is not HDV, whee does this leave canon on HDV.

If people buy this and then in 12 months they release the HD version, it will not be good for Canon.

OR

Are they backing out of the race for the time being, and just waiting? Overall, I am a little dissapointed. Progressive is IT as far as cams go for me, but weve been waiting anxiously or more HDV since NAB.

<<<-- Originally posted by Aaron Koolen : It strikes me as strange that the effective pixels are so much higher than the 460K of 16:9. -->>>

Apparently, the XL2 uses a digital image stabilizer (which can be combined with the OIS found on some lenses), which could (at least partly) explain the higher pixel count.

Where did you find that, Steven? I've not seen any mention of
a digital stabilizer function anywhere or I must have not been
reading stuff correctly (which could be). Please point to the source
of this. Thank you.

You're right. After re-reading the press release I found that I mis-interpreted the following bit:OK, enough guessing for me ! LOL

The LCD display sounds nice (Although a measly 2") but I'm interested to see if they underscan. That would be a really nice addition.

Aaron

I've added the PAL info just now to the summary thread which
everybody can still read and see

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=28853

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 "