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

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

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

LOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOL -->>>

Laurence
Certainly a well educated and biased opinion. On behalf of the rest of the forum, I thank you deeply for sharing it with us. Undoubtably, you have helped set back Canon's marketing department by years. XL2's will be collecting dust on the shelves.
Were there an award that I could give you for this great revelation, I would deliver it to your door in person, as well as a great big cheque for the $5000 you saved me by not spending my money on this "lame duck" of a camera.

Phew....

You 'da man.

Actually, I think you might be bitter because your DVX100 doesn't look like the king of the hill anymore. Pity.

PS, your "L" and "O" keys appear to be broken. I've noticed this in a few of your posts regarding the XL2. New keyboards are cheap these days, I suggest you purchase one.

PAL XL2
 

The PAL version has 960X576 pixels which is pretty good. This means it will acquire at higher resolution at 25P than NTSC at 24P. I wonder if the Indie filmakers will rush the PAL model.

Chris must have been on a huge NDA to have all this material ready at launch zero. In terms of marketing the symbiotic relationship between Canon and DVInfo Net have shown how to do it. In any event what a stunning resource. Thank you Chris Hurd and moderators.

As I have been saying for some time now, anyone that buys a prosumer 4:3 camera will be looking at a massive resale value drop... especially now.

Jim

Aaron, the way this cam is going to 'kick' is that it is the cheapest in its class to offer lens interchangability. This is a huge advantage when you consider that the XL system can use everything from still cam lenses to primes! Add to that a native 16:9 progressive image processing and you have a pretty impresive system.

If Canon had gone to larger CCDs they probably would have had to abandon the XL lens system. That would have required new lens development and ticking off a bunch of people with stables of XL lens products.

But I am with you on pudding proof. I suspect though that Canon has really taken great care with this system (heck they even have a dust seal on the tape drive cover).

Dust Seal
 

The XL2 certainly should have a dust seal on the cassette hatch. They're not that complicated or expensive to make. They put one on their LX100 in l991, so they've known all this time how to do it.

In some parts of the world, this dust seal could make a big difference. If I go out on the alkalai flats of the Alvord Desert later this year, I'd want to have one on a camcorder. I once worked around this area on a botanical survey and that nasty dust penetrated everything, no matter how careful we were. Everytime we wandered in from the desert, it took days
to get it out of our skin and noses. Think what it would do to the workings of a VTR.

Steve McDonald

Ive never used an xl1, and just wondering, if it can use prime lenses and stuff, why whould you need to get a mini35 to put those lenses on it?

Primes will adjust the focal length of the lens and hence cause magnification, and the Depth of Field associated with them is lost.

Aaron

Nathan, I guess you've hit it on the head. The interchangeable lens thing has never seemed to me to be a big bonus. With mini35's there are versions that work with fixed lens cameras. I do understand it for those that have a lot of investment in lenses that will work with it. If I was one of those people, it would probably be a no brainer.

Aaron

I got to use the XL2.
 

Hey everyone,
Owner of a GL2 here, I want to the New York DV Expo East yesterday, and got a chance to put my hand son the XL2. Its very nice, a little longer then the XL1S. Im not too farmiliar with the XL's But its a really, really nice cam, and its the same price and when the XL1S came out. If you want a real brochure I have one, I wont need it. Lemme know Ill send it to ya!

No HDV?.. so what!
 

What is it with all these whiners that didn't get their HDV?! I mean this is the best prosumer camera ( for the price ) out there, until I see a professional review that is. Anyhow I live in Asia and no one cares about HDV , only in the States. If you need HDV go buy a full 1/2 CCD HDV camera and quit whining!
I'm so excited about this new camera to the fine Canon family I hate these whiners raining on the parade!

Not quite so simple for the prosumer side at least. If you are using your XL2 to make videos for money then you have to consider your market. While there is still a huge market for SD there are some segments of the market that now require HD (some PBS for example). Now being able to buy a Viper would be really cool but outside of many freelancer's price range . A great sub $10,000 HD camera would be really nice.

That is not to say you can't upconvert material to HD but not all material will convert adequately. It will certainly help that the XL2 has improved resolution at 16:9 but you still have compression issues.

So it remains a trade-off between price, quality and size of camera. Sort of like the rule of 2/3 for making videos - fast,good,cheap - you can have any 2 of the 3 at the same time.

There will be some films shot with the Canon XL2, but I think SD has one foot in the grave, unless you are just making really cool home videos.

If you want people to watch/buy your work, you need as much rez as you can get.

First co that puts out a nice hDV cam gets my $$$.

>Anyhow I live in Asia and no one cares about HDV , only in the States.

In Japan HDV is a huge topic.

Sorry Michael, but that is just nonsense and one of the major reasons people tie themselves in knots ranting about whether one camera is better/worse than the one they haven't got.

Whether or not someone will commission/buy/watch your work has nothing to do with *rez* and everything to do with content, effectiveness, engagement, integrity and creativity. Audiences want to be moved and/or exited - corporations commissioning video want to know that what they are buying will do the job they want it to, not how many pixels they get for their money.

As a professional I will always strive to deliver the best technical quality I can - that's a given. - but they day has yet to come when one of my clients says to me "Hey, Michael - GREAT resolution yo got there!".

Well, actually, when I first got my new ED-Beta camcorder and VCR setup more than 15 years ago, most people were dazzled by the picture resolution it produced. As long as I did a good job of shooting it, people would eagerly watch anything I had to show and always remarked about how sharp and lifelike it looked. However, I did have some good subjects, mostly beautiful birds and other wildlife.

It shouldn't be a surprise that within a few months, the same people demanded some meaningful content and creative substance, if they were to sit through my video presentations.

Good content can overcome mediocre picture quality, especially with sophisticated audiences. But, high-resolution images will attract people for only a limited time and as they become more experienced as viewers and critics, the subject matter must improve and diversify, to keep them interested.

It's best to have both good content and resolution, although it's likely that if you dwell too much on image quality, you may dilute the effort you can devote to
even more important aspects of your production. I suppose that the more attractive you are physically, the more attention people will give to you at first. But, to keep their interest, you usually have to say and do some noteworthy things.

Steve McDonald

I have not read the whole thread.. please don't kill if this has been addressed before:

If the XL2 has a "true" 16:9 mode and records 960x576 (here in Europe) or 960x480 then shouldn't:

1. The output via Firewire have a higher data rate than 3,5mb/s? Does more resolution not require more data?

2. The tapes run shorter for the same reason?

I mean they cannot change the 5:1 compression, this is a standard, isn't it?


BTW.. I am really pissed off at Canon's pricing policy:

USA: 4,999 USD which equals 3,996 EURO
EU: 5,499 EURO which equals 6,681 USD

So here in Europe we are very happy to pay an extra 1,500 EURO for nothing. Which is a shame considering the currency exchange rate is acutally in our favor (even with the japanese Yen).

Peter

Peter, NTSC DV has an mbps rate of 25. It never occurred to me, but does PAL DV have a higher bit rate for recording and FireWire transfer? In any case and with either system, there's quite a bit of headroom in the amount of bits available and most DV video scenes would usually require somewhat less. Obviously, when the material that is shot in 16:9 mode is recorded, it is contained within the standard CoDec. It won't cause the tape to roll faster than it does ordinarily with each system. I'm curious how much a Pal XL2 will cost if you buy it from a U.S. dealer, such as B&H?

Steve McDonald

>>I'm curious how much a Pal XL2 will cost if you buy it from a U.S. dealer, such as B&H?


I haven't seen prices quoted. Generally, it is significantly cheaper for me to buy high-value items from a large US supplier like B&H than to buy in the UK, even allowing for the higher shipping costs. I'm fortunate in living in the Channel Islands, which don't have VAT or sales tax, so it may be different for other potential buyers in PAL-land.

With cheap air fares, it may well make financial sense for European buyers to have a weekend in NY and take the credit card - assuming no warranty issues.

This whole NTSC/PAL issue has been a miracle to me anyway...

PAL has a higher resolution but lower framerate but overall a 60 minute tape in PAL-country should have a different runtime when put into a NTSC camcorder and the tape in one of them must run faster.

Also NTSC uses 4:1:1 und PAL 4:2:0 sampling. As far as I know the output via firewire has the same bitrate.. do you mean with the headroom, that there will be 4-5mb/s instead of the 3,5mb/s we have now?

Cheers, Peter -confused

Duncan, you folks on Jerri do have the best of things. Warmer weather, big tax breaks and if anyone tries to invade you again, the Limeys will come running to help. A friend took one of the international ferries from Ireland and stopped there a few years ago and now wants to live there permanently. I understand the island has become a hotbed of computer-based activities. Have NLE and videomaking gotten popular there, as well? I know there's some great websites on the isle, as I've visited them a lot studying the native tongue of Jerriaise, an old Norman French dialect. If you're one of the few who can still speak it, that would be interesting. What do you do for TV programming? Is there satellite availability?

If you were to buy and have a shipment direct from the U.S., would there be any duties or taxes at all on it?

Steve McDonald

Let's stay on topic please.

Later this weekend I'm going to come in and split up this thread into its various topics. Too hard to follow as is and it's roaming all over the place. Please start a new thread if you have a specific statement to discuss. Many thanks,

This is why I think the camera sucks . . .

All the companies are far more cabable of putting out better technologies in their cameras, and they don't. They're claiming this is the new thing for indie filmmakers . . . my butt. It's not high enough quality to make REAL MOVIES (we're talking for big screen projection, a chance of limited to wide theatrical release images. Yet, they insist on saying this is the camera to revolutionize the indie film world.

The only way it will revolutionize the indy film world is by yet again expotentially increasing the number of sub standard films seeking distribution, and decreasing the chances of talented filmmakers shooting on somthing much better. The massive number of tapes coming into film acquisition offices will make it hard for anyone to get anything but a first glance at a title before it gets thrown into the trash can.

If this camera wanted to do something for the "indie community" it should have been at least 50 Mbps 3 full chip 720p (Really, 1080p) with 4:2:2 color separation. This is nothing more than a slightly better version of what is already out.

16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV, and isn't suitable for theater filmmaking.

Now if someone wants to shoot straight to video releases, maybe. Probably ok for that. But screens? No.

Why do I think the camera sucks? They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't becasue they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas. That's all. Personally, I think HDV is a joke medium, but they weren't even cool enough to offer that!

Laurence raises a good point many film makers will probably choose this format over a different one. I for one was seriously looking at renting an HD package for my next shoot, however for the cost of the equipment plus insurance I could buy an XL2.

I think that while 4:2:2 may have been an option (and still could be...) real HD was probably never a real option for this camera because HD glass is so expensive Cheap HD lenses are still in the 10's of thousands of dollars, and I think the only way for someone to make glass that would be HD quality would be for canon to throw away the interchangable lens function, which I think would not justify the switch to HD, but it would have been cool to have a vericam for 5k...

. . which makes me think .. have they got something wrong? . .

Grazie

Couldn't be further from reality, Laurence. Canon doesn't have any big boy tools. No Digital Beta, no 50Mbps format, nothing, only mini DV. Canon does consumer and prosumer cameras, that's it. In fact you even said so yourself;Don't expect Canon to suddenly produce a camera for a market that historically, they haven't produced cameras for. If your disappointed it's only because you let your fantasies get the best of you. Canon is an extremely well run company and they know their markets a little better than you do. They are the second largest US patient holder and the most consistently profitable Japanese camera producer.

SOOOOO please Laurence, study the facts and give your rhetoric a rest.

Lets not forget that, love it or hate it '28 days later' was shot on the Pal XL1-s using frame mode. I bet Danny Boyle would have liked to have used a Pal XL2 with true 25p progressive and 16:9 (not forgetting higher resolution than NTSC ;) to shoot his movie.

Surely the techniques like lighting etc and actual content of any low budget movie are the key factors, and having true progressive and 16:9 just adds to the way the story can be told.

Maybe this camera wasn't ready for HD, maybe it was, who knows. Over the next year hopefully the XL2 will drop in price enough to make it a better buy.

HD is probably in the future of indie filmaking, but I don't think SD is finished yet. When an affordable pro-sumer HD 3CCD, 24p, 16:9 camera comes out it could be the final nail in the coffin for SD, we shall have to wait and see.

You only have to see what people have produced with the DVX to know what SD is capable of. Hopefully the XL2 will extend the boundaries even further to the limit. After this has happened HD should step in to extend them even more.

Dave.

Laurence, from what I read on the Canon web site, they never claimed they were revolutionizing indy filmmaking. Those claims come from people who think the Canon is the greatest camera ever made.

Many excellent films have been made with DV25 format cameras in the past few years, but for a higher quality image, obviously you need 2/3" chip HD cameras, or stick with film. Filmmakers choose DV because it is affordable and because the small size cameras allow them to get shots they might not otherwise. They don't choose DV because it is the best quality available. If Canon had made a DV50 2/3" chip camera, they would be putting themselves into a totally different market. Several of those cameras are already out there and have the market pretty much dominated. Canon video cameras are consumer products, not broadcast products.

Even so, look at what talented people have done with consumer cameras in the past few years: Vinterberg's "The Celebration" (shot with single chip Sony consumer cameras, Hal Hartley's amazing "The Book of Life" shot for French TV with a VX1000, "The King Is Alive," shot with PD150s and one of the best looking DV-to-film films I've ever seen, Agnes Varda's amazing documentary, "The Gleaners and I," much of which was shot with the 1/4" chip TRV900, "Tadpole," shot with PD150's, the Academy Award nominated documentary "Spellbound," shot with a plain old NTSC XL1 with standard lens, and of course "28 Days Later," shot mostly with PAL XL1's. Oh yeah, then there's all the music and dance sequences from Lars Von Trier's Palme d'Or winner, "Dancer in the Dark," shot with one hundred PAL PD100's.

Those are just a few films I can think of off the top of my head that used the DV25 format with consumer cameras. I also thought about "The Anniversary Party," shot with two PAL DSR500's, which have 2/3" 16:9 chips and starring Jennifer Jason Leigh. Interestingly, I thought "The King Is Alive" had a much better look, even though it was shot with the lowly PD150. While the technical quality of "Anniversary Party" was better, several of the other films I mentioned above had a better look. It's all about lighting.

Would all these films have looked better shot in HD or 35mm? Hell yes. But they wouldn't have got made.

<<<-- Originally posted by Laurence Maher : This is why I think the camera sucks . . .

All the companies are far more cabable of putting out better technologies in their cameras, and they don't. They're claiming this is the new thing for indie filmmakers . . . my butt. It's not high enough quality to make REAL MOVIES >>>

Laurence, if you want to make movies for theatrical release, why don't you go pound the pavement, raise some money and shoot on 35mm? Or rent a Varicam? Most of the companies out there DO put better technology in their cameras, BUT THEY SELL THEM FOR TEN TIMES THE PRICE OF AN XL2.

<<< - The only way it will revolutionize the indy film world is by yet again expotentially increasing the number of sub standard films seeking distribution, and decreasing the chances of talented filmmakers shooting on somthing much better. The massive number of tapes coming into film acquisition offices will make it hard for anyone to get anything but a first glance at a title before it gets thrown into the trash can. -->>>

Now I know you are just pulling our legs. Thats possibly the more ridiculous statement I've read on this forum ever. Ever heard of content? It beats all. I cite Blair Witch Project and 28 Days Later as proof.

<<<-If this camera wanted to do something for the "indie community" it should have been at least 50 Mbps 3 full chip 720p (Really, 1080p) with 4:2:2 color separation. This is nothing more than a slightly better version of what is already out. -->>>

There are cameras like that on the market already, in the $50,000 price range. The lenses cost many times the price of the XL2. It would be completely naive to expect Canon to give you that setup for $5,000. That would be like me complaing that Ferrari doesn't make an F360 available for $20,000. If Canon really wanted to do something for the indie community, they would just give away free money to filmmakers....

<<<-16:9 chips are cool. Lenses cool. But please. It's simply MiniDV, and isn't suitable for theater filmmaking. -->>>

SO GO RENT A 35MM CAMERA SETUP AND SHOOT ON FILM. It isn't supposed to be a camera suitable for theatrical films....

<<<- Why do I think the camera sucks? They're capable of SOOOOO much more for that price with the technology they have. They could offer some serious butt kicking camera, butt don't becasue they need to separate the markets from the big boy tools to make money in both areas. That's all. Personally, I think HDV is a joke medium, but they weren't even cool enough to offer that! -->>>

How old are you? Canon is a business, in the business of making money. Sure they could offer more, hell, they could give them away for free. But that's not how the world works. For a measly $5,000 (chump change to any real indie film, compared to the cost of feeding a crew for a month) this is one hell of a butt kicking camera, and really a bargain for the money.

I think we should ease up on Larry, especially if he eases up on being a bit
brash/dreamy. He just wants it all at a price he can afford . . . so do I ;)

Yes Larry, I too am a bit disappointed that the XL2 is limited to
DV25, but OTOH, Canon has not left the XL1 customer base hanging
in the wind. Canon has made us an affordable upgrade that will work
with almost all the extras XL1 owners have afforded over the years.
There is a certain kind of loyalty there.

But, back to the XL2's short comings. In the XL2 wish list I outlined a bunch
of features that I wanted and two directions that Canon could go.
One was evolutionary and the other revolutionary.

This is the evolutionary track, NOT the revolutionary path (that could still happen).
But what is missing from my evolutionary model is the serial digital output
that I was really hoping Canon would include. HAD they put this feature
into the camera, we could at least "plug in" to uncompressed video 8 bit video
and do away with the macroblocks and mosquitoes.
That would be a clincher for me, but even so, unless something else
comes along soon, the XL2 is the MOST affordable solution out there with
true 16x9.

I also suspect that Canon is working hard on an HDV camcorder as we write.
The issue there is HDV is still ONLY 25mbps, but needs to produce an image
four times the size with only that same amount of bandwidth.
IMO, DV25 already walks the 'knife edge' of being too low res.

I hope to be proved wrong, but for what I do that isn't going to work.

What WOULD WORK is if Canon can put a 292M SDI jack on the XLHD camera.
Then you could plug into REAL HD video and bring along the NLE or
rent an HD VTR for capture. Yes, bringing along a cased
NLE capable of HD capture would be a pain, but _a lot_ less
money than a D5 deck @ $100K.

As has been mentioned, Canon makes the $100K HD lens that are used by
the big boys, so the chances of them coming out if a camcorder that
produces moving images as good as their 10D still camera is tiny. They aren't
going to hurt that side of the business by going too far and that's a shame
because there are companies like Olympus who are also working on HD
camcorders and have nothing to lose. Our best hope may be there.

Nikon are YOU listening?! Forget about the 'corder part of the camcorder,
just make us an inexpensive HD head.

What's improving are the conversion processes. They can make mini dv look pretty decent now, better than when Celebration came out. A film shot with an sdx 900 and blown up to 35mm movie would probably look great, especially the interiors. That's why I think a SD cam with 1/2 chips and 16/9 and 24p would be good enough.

That jVC gy 5000 has 1/2 chips for 5K, so you know it can be done.

LCD
 

Hmmm...The LCD sits in the viewfinder, so one has to flip one part of the viewfinder to view from the LCD. I'm just wondering how many positions can this LCD be moved.

Most of my work are interviews and most times I shoot and interview myself. I'm using the PD170 now and the LCD on that is really helpful when I sit / stand beside the camera while interviewing the subject.

Go Pro!
 

Get a separate external LCD monitor. I just constructed a system that uses a £99 TV/AV monitor. Works great! .. You can use it to show client work .. and if the filming is boring, you can always watch the latest football. . . . .

Shuf.
The viewfinder can be rotated up and down, but it can't move laterally such as the XM2/GL2
I personaly didn't rate the viewfinder in its open position for checking focus, but it's ok for checking framing etc.

Robin.

Okay,

First things first. Jacques, I really appreciate the "ease up" thing, just so it's said.

Second things second. Been a while since I was on this thread, but I read it today and see I've got a few people looking to defend the XL-2 with various examples of various . . .

So I'm back to support my arguements.

Jeff . . .

Never said Canon wasn't a good company at what they chose to do. Never said they weren't good at business. But they are part of the big wigs that are all in bed and in bred. What they chose to do is squeeze as much as they can out of their paying customers. Being a good company and being good at business doesn't mean they always make sound decisions for their customers. Canon can afford to make the cameras better for cheaper and don't. Not even HDV. How blatant does it have to be before some of us accept things like that were a marketing choice that helped the Canon milk more cash from customers before providing an HDV model? What I say is not rhetoric, it's obvious fact that I just find a little insulting. By the way, I laugh that you suggest I expected much more. I didn't figure what I wanted would come out, but I did figure at least the balls for HDV. (Which should have been the bare minimum with current technologies). No, I should point out that I'm just having fun laughing at the sadness of how much was expected of the camera, and how little it delivered.

Believe it or not, I don't think it's a bad camera at all. I mean true 16:9 and more resolution etc. That's great. Better than it was. Most likely an excellent, excellent mini dv camera, and is impressive . . . but again . . . only for what it IS, not what it COULD OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

Back to general . . . .

I should point out that films like "Tadple" with Sigourney Weaver and "The Anniversary Party" with Jennifer Jason Leigh are far from examples of something that should be cherrished as little engines that could. Let's throw out all films that got into theaters on celebrity status, shall we?
Also on todays agenday . . .

Also, let's remember that "Celebration" really got bigger hype than it deserved, due to the fact that it was one of the first mini-dv features around. Again, more novilty than craftsmanship (in my opinion anyway . . . don't kick me too hard, but I really thought it was fairly lame, just IMHO. If nothing else, I remember seeing it in the theater and cringing at the quality blown up to 35.

I should point out that I'm not saying a film shot on dv isn't a great effort and that it should not make one proud. It should. It takes a lot to make a feature, even on DV. Not saying these films shouldn't be made. Not insisting it needs to be 35 or nothing. Hell, if that's your only option, or even your artistic choice, go for it. Kudos to you. Life is about "doing it". My points are directed more at the generalities so often made with all the mini-dv hype. The fact remains that what it takes to finish a project now requires less, and combination of technology and hype (promoted by sub-standard products) has made many wanna be filmmakers (often ones that claim to know some of the very distinct boundaries between amateur films and professional ones) believe that mini-dv is the entry point to filmmaking. For the most part, it is not. It is the entry point of experimentation that might later lead to filmmaking. Only the select few extremely lucky or extremely connected mini dv films will make it as a commercial product. While HD, on the other hand, is actually starting to blur the lines between video and film. It is much more a true option, and could be provided by the likes of Canon if the company wanted to do so. No doubt about it. You can try to tell me that Canon only makes "prosumer" stuff . . . but hey, their still cameras sure are pro, now aren't they? Are you suggesting they lack the connections? The funds? Please. It's choice. Pure, simple.

Dylan . . .

You really did nothing but prove my point more thouroughly. Yes, the products we'd like are the more expensive ones, but again, the big-wig companies sell their merchandise for exuberant amounts more than it costs to make. Yes, Canon is a business. Never said they weren't good at the business side. A good businessman buys for a little and sells for a lot. That's what Canon (and Sony and all the rest) are doing. Can they afford to make such a humungous profit by not gouging us with inferior profits? No. But that's not the issue. The issue is, did they make a product inferior to what they could have for a $5000 price tag, (which would still have made a comfortable profit and even better still satisfy a more professional crowd)? Answer: Most definitely. The big wigs are all in bed with each other, and make decisions based on what is the overall good for the big wigs. They increase their fatty bellies by handing us watered down products, and charging us a zillion bucks for the not so watered down products. It's always been that way. Always will. As for Blair Witch, it did well because it had a pretty cool gimmick, but more importantly it was picked up by a mini-major and then marketed to the hilt. Films with far better "content" as you call it never saw the light of day, becasue they weren't so LUCKY. 28 days later was made by an established filmaker. That's why it was a success. Not saying they weren't good films over all, but they were also no where near the "norm", and mini-dv movies have a basically a non-existent chance of the big screen (with a relatively large release) until some kind of power is attached to it.

From the previous post, one must remember that old saying that someone's junk
is someone else's treasure and that the XL2 camera for certain people is a
disappointment. As I have posted, had the XL2 been only native HDV, I would
have had NO interest in it. Larry might have jumped for joy. We are
different people with different wants (but we both want cheap REAL HD!).

Last night I was able to finally able to ONLINE our nature documentary
to digital betacam. It was shot on an XL1 w/ EF lens and VX2K.
My system takes DV25 and uncompresses it, after which the video
is sampled into an (now old) Avid at AVR77 (2:1 compression).
I took my drive to a suite with a DVW-A500 deck and same kind of Avid. I
hooked up our drive, fired up and pooped.

When you pump out SDI from the Avid to digital betacam and monitor
analog component, you wouldn't believe how good DV can look. I am
impressed, except for NTSC's "twittering" I am happy with the quality vs.
the price. (IMAX 70mm would have been better and made me happier,
and even more broke than I am after funding this project.) The fact is,
I have many more "free" pixels to work with @ 90mbps than HDV's
GOP at 25mbps .

The next step up the 'quality ladder' is to be able to shoot in progressive scan
which should get rid of NTSC line twitter.
(though it may add some strobing at 24 or 30fps).

Larry, the XL2 gives me a better image, works with all my XL1 accessories
and is really not that expensive when compared to a varicam or the Panasonic
SDX900. For me the XL2 is a good choice. YOU, you have to wait for the next
generation HDV version that I am SURE Canon is working on right now.
If that version has an REAL HD SDI uncompressed output for under $6K,
I will buy that too. If it is HDV only, pass.

"USA: 4,999 USD which equals 3,996 EURO
EU: 5,499 EURO which equals 6,681 USD
So here in Europe we are very happy to pay an extra 1,500 EURO for nothing"

NOTHING - you get 100 more lines of resolution !!!! and 4:2:0 color space that has to be worth something ..remember NTSC nick name is Never the same Color ... PLUS you don't get the funky pull down cadence !!! that is worth some extra $$...

now isn't some of that price increase import/excise taxes because the camera records and anything that records gets those fine extra taxes in europe ???

Yes, part of that higher price in Europe related to (video) recording devices is an historical "gift" from France. They were afraid several decades ago that cheap consumer VCR's from Japan would harm their own (expensive) VCR products and developments, so they convinced their European friends to block the situation by introducing extra taxes.

Another reason for staying outside the EC? Well outside the legislation ..

Congratulations, you guys are officially WAY off topic.

Just to add some clarification to the questions asked in this thread:

1) the reason they are NOT using the full 4:3 CCD is to give the 16:9 mode MORE resolution than 4:3. Otherwise they would NOT have had native 16:9. 4:3 still has more pixels than with the XL1S though!

2) DV is *ALWAYS* 25 mbps or around 3.5 MB/s. The reason they can store both PAL (higher res) and NTSC (lower res) in this is due to the DIFFERENT FRAMERATES! 720x480x30 = 720x576x25

3) anamorphic signal is ALWAYS stored at 720x480 or 720x576. The difference with DV is in the pixel aspect ration and increase vertical resolution (not horizontal as everyone always thinks). See my explenation in the other XL2 threads.