Geoff: no this will not work. All (pro)sumer 16:9 equipment works
like this. The image is always stored as 720x480 (NTSC) on DV
tape **AND** DVD. Just with a different pixel aspect ratio.

The increase is not in the horizontal resolution (that is still scaled
down to 720), but in the VERTICAL!!

This vertical resolution TRULY increases. It is not downsampled.
You capture 480 lines and you will get 480 lines. With electronic
stretching or letterboxing you would get something around 350
lines.

So that is the resolution that increased. The horizontal resolution
is always 720 pixels (although sampled from a higher source in
this case).

Real resolution increases vertically, spatial resolution increases
horizontally.

Boyd: that would result in dropping native/true 16:9 in regards
to 4:3. Ofcourse it still remains the same. I think this would have
not have sold well. Everyone would have said it did not have
native 16:9 even though the resolution have increased.

I guess the definition of true/native 16:9 is that it increases
resolution over 4:3.

Then again, the full 4:3 sensor would have to be sampled down,
so perhaps this would not constitute a higher resolution for 4:3
then. Perhaps it just took too much processing power to do at
a high enough quality? Who knows.

So the XL-1 and XL-1s create a cropped 16:9 image when working in that mode masking out the bottom and top portions of the CCD.

Now the XL-2 is the opposite. It is essentially a 16:9 camera with a 4:3 mode that crops the sides of the image. I would only use this camera in 16:9 so that appears to be okay, but I am curious as to how the image will look.

Greg

Yes, that is basically correct. After masking the XL1 range stretched
the image electronically back to full resolution.

Keep in mind that with the XL2 the 4:3 resolution is still higher
than the XL1S. So you actually increase your resolution, even
in 4:3 (especially in what was frame mode / progressive).

However you also increase focal length (zoom) and change
Depth of Field characteriscs as well. Those are more "problematic"
perhaps.

Then again, most people who want DOF also shoot in 16:9
(in this case).

Any idea why this camera was announced now and not at NAB? It seems to be aimed at much the same market as the Panny is and an announcement at NAB would have made a lot of sense.

Anybody want to buy a used GL1 and GL2?

That is simple to answer: they either did not want to or it just
wasn't finished yet. Canon has a clear history of just giving you
a camera introduction just shortly before you can buy one. This
camera is going to be out in August. That's just a couple of more
weeks from now!

Canon and HDV
 

Lots of people moaning about no HDV (me included, a little-though this cam seems sweet). On another forum(DVXUser I think) I read some rumor/speculation about Canon announcing/explaining why the XL2 is not HDV, tomorrow.

Makes me laugh. Here we are with a great new cam announced, and already speculation about a future cam! But I'm just as pathetic! I can't help it - now I am hoping we will see new Canon HDV tomorow! This is insane.

Still, XL2 looks cool. Can't wait for reviews.

Hey, it's obvious Canon knew they were a bit late to the game, their PR is already spinning "why it's not HDV"...*L*

I dunno, it's a nice unit, but it might have a much shorter shelf life than it's predecessor.

XL2 vs. SDX900
 

I know that the current debate some have in mind is the XL2 vs DVX100(A), but how does this stack up to the Panny SDX900? I realize that the SDX is obviously the beetr camera, but how much better?

Both are dv with native 16X9, both have alot of control over the image (Gamma, knee, master ped etc.).

Any thoughts?

HDV...

I don't think Canon will lose too many legitimate buyers (excluding dreamers) by leaving off HDV. For getting the job done (like the DVX100A) the XL2 is highly qualified and I can't wait to see its real world performance.

Besides, what good is a little extra resolution when it will take until 2008 for HDTV to be in 15% of homes? I'm all for an affordable (and quality) HD solution but I think Canon made the right decision by leaving off HDV.

Dealing with HDV, I feel, limits you in creativity. Especially in post and distribution.

btw - I love HDTV and I'm on my 8th HD set since 1998.

I know people are going to bag on me for being negative (1 day out from release) but I'm really interested to hear the take on the Xl2 from those with lots of experience with different cameras based on what you've read so far (And seen for those few who are lucky enough)

I'm sure you can put stuff in perspective for me, but looking at it on the surface it really does seem like an almost nothing offer. Sure, better than the Xl1s but hey that's 3 years old. Compared to DVX100a, not much there.

XLR been on other cams for years.

16:9 - Nice, but is it that much of a winner? We could chuck anamorphic lenses on the old ones.

DoF and magnification characteristics have changed (For arguably the worse) cause there isn't a full 1/3" 4:3 chip usage anymore.

DVX has had presets so nothing new there

Xl2 has no lens markings on barrel - ie. No real focus pull (And yeah I know about the focus preset thing)

2" LCD which is a flip out of the EVF

Progressive 24fps - Just catching up to the DVX here

So it seems that they offer, basically interchangeable lenses over the DVX. I'll be interested to see more about the audio specs. I'd imagine, like all camera manufacturers that they hardly even put R&D into it. But this is an area that would have been nice if they'd just gone hard out and put in some good audio circuitry.

Aaron

Aaron

Well I have to admit that I'm disappointed by the most exciting, and surprising piece of info in the lead statement of canon's press release

---new 680,000 pixel progressive scan CCDs--

appears to be not much more than a piece of bunk. When I read it, it really was a shock...so I was disappointed to find out that, well, it really isn't the truth...but lets imagine Canon didn't really feel the need to lie about what's in the camera....in fact what if they hadn't even told us about all the pixels that they "turned off". What if they had just said:

"The xl2 is an evolutionary design based on all the suggestions put to us by all the whiners over there at dvinfo.net (except hdv). Native, or true 16:9. Higher native resolution. 24p, 30p. Progressive scan. Expanded picture adjustment. xlr inputs. better low light capability....blah, blah, blah. We'd have put 680k chips in the thing, but no-one asked. (actually we did....oh, don't ask)."

Anyway, we'll have to wait till the frame grabs start popping up on all those japanese websites that I can't read...to see what the real improvements in image quality are. An I'll probably wait to sell my xl1s until I have my xl2 in hand...just so I can convince myself that it was worth it.

But I'm already convinced that this will put the canon flagship camera right back up there where it belongs, and it will relegate the dvx's of the world to the second camera, back up position. Why am I so convinced?

1. 16:9...functionally this may be very close to what you can do with a dvx and an anamorphic adapter, but in reality, anamorphics require more light, and introduce another layer of funk to the image. I think the xl2's solution will produce a higher quality result. Again we'll have to wait and see, but I think the math is on my side. From my experience the DVX looks great simply blown up (no anamorphic) on my HD set, so I have a feeling that this 'true' 16:9 should look significantly better.

2. the platform...the xl2 is still simply the best, most professional platform in this market segment. The mere fact that I can put a manual lens on this thing is the reason I'll buy the xl2 instead of another DVX. Also, I don't know of any other camera currently offering a 16 speed automatic zoom.

3. Ergonomics and the art of the button...I'm thrilled that you can switch from 60i to 30p to 24p right on the body, I love that you can switch from 4:3 to 16:9 without having to enter a menu. The DVX menu system bugs the crap out of me. The Xl2s myriad of buttons seem intelligently layed out. Easy to see and find.

In almost any way you want to look at it, the xl2 has the most advanced feature set of any camera in this market segment. So what if there is nothing hugely new about most of it. It still has all the right stuff, and more of that stuff than anyone else.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the DOF thing Aaron...I think the difference is going to be marginal, like it currently is between the gl2, and xl1s. If the new lens is truly an L, we all may be able to shoot wide open a little more often, giving us that lovely blurred background in every shot!!

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by Tommy Haupfear : HDV...

I don't think Canon will lose too many legitimate buyers (excluding dreamers) by leaving off HDV. For getting the job done (like the DVX100A) the XL2 is highly qualified and I can't wait to see its real world performance.

btw - I love HDTV and I'm on my 8th HD set since 1998. -->>>

Well, you may love it, Tommy, and have a lot of money to dump on eight tv sets, but the rest of the buying public is not so enchanted. The word I get from friends in Europe is that HD is a non-issue; they are happy with their PAL pictures. It seems the only real market for HD is Japan and the USA. And there doesn't seem to be a big rush to watch Jay Leno in HD.

Sure, eventually we will all get in line with HD, but it isn't the slam dunk the manufacturers were hoping for, so don't expect that XL2 in HD anytime soon. The word from rental houses has been, that except for rentals for 24P shows, HD cameras were a tough sell, and no one wanted to pony up the extra rental dough because there were no paying markets for HD product.

Still, the news from Canon is great, if for no other reason than to turn down the volume from the DVX100 people.

Thanks Barry. That's the sort of commentary I'm after. Some experienced guys trying to clarify the conjecture from us that don't have as much experience. I don't deny the XL2 is probably the best camera out there, it's entirely possible, but cause of the timing and the fact that it might not be too far off before Sonys's or who knows, Panasonics next cam comes out. Yes I know that you'll never be able to have the best for ever ;)

I'm probably not too worried about the DoF, I just know some peple will be. But I have some questions about the lens. Assuming that we'd need a manual lens (And that is an assumption because the preset focus/zoom might be fine and the programmability might add great power for focus pulls/rack zooms etc) then would the old 16x manual lens be any comparison (Image quality wise) to the flourite one of the XL2 standard lens?


Aaron

Another reason why HD may not be such a big deal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/te...4752b1&ei=5070

This kind of thing does not make people want to run out and buy sets, I imagine.

Chris--tremendous job on getting all that info together and up for everybody so quickly.

It does appear that the camera has true 16:9, which makes a non-Canon person like me want one.

In looking at the high res photos there does appear to be some sort of lens markings on the 20x lens. These are on the inner ring (the zoom?).

Jeff, these marks are for the two steps ND filter built in the lens. You engage it through the use of this ring like on the 16X manual instead of a switch.

Of course if you're in the market for a 40" or larger TV you're pretty much getting a HDTV.

I bet the XL2 is going to look great on a widescreen HD set or projector.

I can't find the pictures right now, but I think I remember seeing those markings and I think they are ND filter markings.

Aaron

Ahh... Huh! That's good news. Can't wait to see real thing. Hopefully it would come with LCD. If that's so, we can buy 1 for the office. I like the XL1-s design. I guess this one will be better. I'm sure the Canon people know how to design good cameras.

If you read the specs it does have an LCD, but a paultry 2" one that's actually hidden under the viewfinder.


Aaron

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman :

The increase is not in the horizontal resolution (that is still scaled
down to 720), but in the VERTICAL!!

This vertical resolution TRULY increases. It is not downsampled.
You capture 480 lines and you will get 480 lines. With electronic
stretching or letterboxing you would get something around 350
lines.

So that is the resolution that increased. The horizontal resolution
is always 720 pixels (although sampled from a higher source in
this case).

Real resolution increases vertically, spatial resolution increases
horizontally.

s. -->>>

Rob,

Can you clarify something for me. When you say "electronic stretching" are you referring to how the DVX100a now records a digital squeeze or something else?

It would seem to me that a digital squeeze or anamorphic adapter would utilize the full 720x480 as opposed to the 350 lines you mention. Maybe you are referring to yet another method of getting a 16:9 look other than with an anamorphic lens or digital squeeze.

Thanks.

Greg

XL2 Still-picture Capture Options?
 

With 30p and the extra-powerful lens possibilities, the XL2 should be more effective for generating footage that is good for still-picture captures, than any other camcorder. In addition to grabbing these from progressive-shot tape, it would be nice if you could capture them as J-PEGs on a memory-card, from a camera-direct signal. However, I've seen nothing anywhere, about a memory-card slot. Have I missed something or is a card slot too much of a consumer-type feature to have included on the XL2?

I've snapped hundreds of 640 X 480 J-PEGs
onto my VX2100's Memory-Stick and they've been very useful for sending on E-Mail and to newsgroups. I also frequently show them to people out in the field, using the viewscreen. During times when there's no action footage to shoot, I've amused myself a lot by taking them. They look very sharp for pictures of that pixel size.

Steve McDonald

Greg: sure. I don't know much about the DVX so I'm not sure
whether it has 16:9 chips or not.

An anamorphic adapter has an optical "stretch" so does NOT
have this issue! Neither will any camera with a true/native
16:9 resolution (like the XL2).

Every other camera (including the XL1 range, GLx range and
probably the DVX) do an electronic stretch to get 16:9 since
they do not have the higher resolution chips or the anamorphic
adapter in the lens or something.

What they do is this. They have a 720x480 pixel array whic is
of a 4:3 aspect ratio. They "somehow" need to change this to
a 960 x 480 image (x 1.33). That is the first stage.

Now you can't just resample the 720 pixels to 960 because all
the dimensions would look wrong (try this in a paint program
with maintain aspect ratio turned off). So for this to work they
will need to crop (yes CROP) your vertical resolution by 1.33 to
get a 16:9 aspect ratio image.

So 480 pixels become 360 pixels. Now you have a 720 x 360
pixel image which is 16:9. To prove see the following formula:

16/9 = (720 * 0.9) / 360

You need to the * 0.9 part because that is the PIXEL aspect ratio.

Now you can test this as well. Do a crop in your image program
and you will see it looks nice widescreen.

The DV standard only allows for 720x480 format so it then
stretches this back to 720x480 creating the famous stretched
look. Your NLE then displays this image as 960x480 (which is
easier to do and more compatible with true 16:9). However,
you have LOST 120 lines of information in that earlier crop.

The stretching adds some softening as well, but you'll see we
also have that with true 16:9 resolution, only horizontally instead
of vertically (which should be less noticable).

On a camera like the XL2 you have 960x480 pixel array to work
with. This simply gets sampled back to 720x480. Your NLE
stretches it back to 960x480 for display.

See how there is no cropping in there? So you loose no resolution.

The only "bad" (depends highly on algorithms and such) thing
still remaining is the resampling. You can remove this with an
anamorphic attachment, but it will probably introduce other
issues like vignetting, zoom through problems and light loss.

Now you want to know what the best would be? Capture that
960x480 pixel image and store it as is. Only problem is that you
can't do this in the DV format.... too bad.

I hope this explained things a bit better.

Well come on guys . . .

They haven't even mentioned color space or bit rates or MHz . . . this thing could be the biggest piece of crap we've ever seen. If someone knows of an XL-2 spec sheet with these things on it, please let me know.

And I doubt they will, and who cares. It's about the end product
anyway. And since it is plain DV bitrate is easy to answer: 25 mbps.

And MHz of what? Who cares if the colorspace is RGB or YUV?
It is stored as YUV in DV anyway.

So Laurence, what do these answers tell you and in what way
do they relate to the camera? I'm really interested in your MHz
question....

I'm keeping my eye on this thread. To judge final quality.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman :
I hope this explained things a bit better. -->>>

Rob,

That was a great explanation. Thanks for taking the time.

My DVX-100 only has the letterboxed 16:9 where the camera merely adds black bars on top and bottom of the screen. The DVX-100a has the digital squeeze and I always thought is somehow shot a wider angle image, compressed it horizontally and then recorded it to tape. Then the NLE would re-sample the image to the correct number of horizontal pixels and you are good to go.

I did not know the horizontally squeezed image was actually stretched vertically. Thanks for clearing that up.

Greg

The easy way to see if you have true 16:9 is if your FOV (Field Of
View) widens when you switch from 4:3 to 16:9. So you should
actually SEE a WIDER picture then before.

If it uses a fake 16:9 stretch you will either just see black bars
being added or everyone will suddenly look taller.

There is only one catch. If you have a true 16:9 camera (or anamorphic
attachment) but with a normal viewfinder your people will look
taller AS WELL, but the FOV should ALSO get wider!

Why not use the whole area?
 

Im just wondering why Canon decided not to use the whole area of the 1/3 ccd that they created. Since the XL2 (in the viewfinder) shows you the 16:9 with black bars on top and bottom, and the 4:3 covering the whole screen, why didnt they just use the whole 1/3 ccd to capture the 4:3 image? (Because it wouldnt change the shape in the viewfinder- it would just change the DoF of the 4:3 making it more of a wide angle, but that would be welcome) That would obviously give the 4:3 image a huge jump in resolution.
They went through all the trouble to put more pixels in the ccd, but now are only using this advantage in the 16:9 aspect. Obviously the 4:3 is elarged compared to the XL1s, but none the less, its still not using its full capacity technically (that is if they put the rest of the non-firing pixels into use).

I just wonder why they chose not to use that extra space.
Anyone have any theories or knowledge of why they didnt?

And I really hope that they didnt choose to not use that space because it "technically" wouldnt make the XL2 a true 16:9 camera.... that would be very pitiful to me- because obviously it wouldnt change the area on the ccd where the 16:9 aspect recorded from, thus not changing any part of how it now actually is. It would be the same, but with a better 4:3 version.

Kevin, as far as I understand it you don't need much over 340k pixels to get an excellent 4:3 720x480 picture. Just look at the VX2100 or other 1/3" 3CCD cams.

I think the extra pixels are there only for 16:9.

Kevin, my understanding is that in order to make the XL2 backwards compatible with the existing XL lenses and attachements, they were constrained to use a 1/3 chip. Now, Canon knew they would also HAVE to include native 16:9 in order to make the new camera a worthwhile upgrade in the customers mind. Obviously 16:9 was always going to take up the full width of the chip so to offer 4:3 on the same chip without altering the plane of the lens or the chip and incurring all the attendant focussing nightmares, this would HAVE to be acheived by chopping down the sides of the image.

Have I said that right??

Well, if the XL1s uses a 1/3 ccd then there should be no compatability problems if they wanted to use the whole chip. Though if its true that the extra pixels dont make a difference on the recording, then that may be why they chose to do it the way they did. But if not, then I guess the reason they did it was because they wanted a true 16:9.

I dont know.

What does HD record on? It doesnt use DV tapes does it?

thanks,

I'm trying to get my head round this myself.

So - same lens and a 1/3 chip in the same place as before, right? OK, so if we use the whole of the chip for 4:3, how do we get 16:9 out of the same configuration without employing squeeze or crop?

You see what I mean?

Canon have gone the other way round - ASSUMED 16:9 and cropped to get 4:3. That way, we don't have to think hard about loss of horizontal resolution when choosing to shoot 16:9 over 4:3.

Thing is, because they've managed to fit more pixels in, even wasting the top and bottom of the chip we still get better resolution.

Have I got this right? Somebody clever help me here!

I hear what your saying, but either way you have to crop. So if you're going to have to crop, why not crop with the bigger 4:3? The only thing that happens if you crop from 4:3 to 16:9 is that you cant say its "true" 16:9. But if you do it the way they did it, you can say its "true" 16:9.... either way though, your 16:9 picture remains the same.

About The Truth
 

I agree, Kevin. The method that canon chose is the true 16:9, but we 4:3 players could argue that we don't have the true 4:3 mode right now....


Shame for the DOF that's going to be sighnificantly worse I suppose.

Rob,

Good points, and I'll tell you what they tell me . . .

For all the hype, etc. . . . this camera SUCKS!

LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOL

Yeah, I get that the chip has been *hobbled* in that way. But if I were Canon I'd have done the same ...

Imagine them coming to market with a fine 4:3 cam with great resolution but that when you wanted 16:9 you were into the losing 25% res game all over again. Exactly the same frustrations of trying to find an anamorphic adapter to extract the resolution that you just *know* is there. It's a human nature thing. And it's a marketing thing. Canon had to bring *native* 16:9 to this release for it to be a worthwhile upgrade and they had to stick with a 1/3 chip to remain backward compatible. I can see their dilemma.

I hope that marketting isn't the reason. I've seen so many companies do this sort of thing. Release sub-par products (And for me, <1/3" 4:3 is subpar) just to have a tick on a box.

Aaron

<And for me, <1/3" 4:3 is subpar>

Even when it's way better than what we've got now?

Michael, I'm not bagging it. I'm just not impressed and just have this "gut" feeling that Canon isn't a company that's wants to break new ground. I love innovation and, companies outdoing each other with all these great enhancements. It benefits us, the end user immensely. I just don't (so far) see that the XL2 has really jumped up and kicked me in the nads to say it's here and gonna challange the DVX etc.

I'm sure it will be way better that the xl1s, but as far as CCD size goes I was thinking about people who want to squeeze whatever shallow DoF they can out of it, and also usually the smaller pixels on the CCD's mean lower sensitivity right?. If these aren't issues then it will probably be fine for people. I guess there's this mindset that 1/3" is the standard for a "prosumer" camera and to go back on that sounds risky.

As I keep saying "The proof is in the pudding". I want to see footage.


Aaron