A naive question
 

I understand that the XL2 will permit frame rates of 24, 30 or 60 frames per second, but can someone explain what the "i" (as in 60i) means and the "p" (as in 30p). Also what are pulldowns?

Thanks

i = interlaced

see pulldown chart at xl2 watchdog site chris put together

As Robert mentioned, the "I" stands for interlaced.
The "P" stands for progressive.

A 'pulldown' is the process used to make 24 frames per second into 29.97 frames per second,
so the footage can be viewed on NTSC systems.

It is the same way that film prints are transferred to video.

I found Adam Wilt's explanation of the pulldown process
to be pretty clear.

He is referring to the DVX100, but from what we've heard so far,
the XL2 should be performing it's pulldown in the same way.


-Luis

PS.
I couldn't find the pulldown chart on the Watchdog.
If anyone knows where it is, could you post a link here?

Thanks.

Steve, also be aware that it's not 60 frames per second interlaced. Standard NTSC video runs at 30 frames per second, which is 60 FIELDS interlaced.

Thanks for the answers. What it really means is that there's nothing new here except 24 frames per second. And I thought we were going to get 60 frames per second for some real slomo.
Sounds like another reason to save my money.

"What it really means is that there's nothing new here except 24 frames per second"

Well, there are 24 and 30 Progressive frames per second.
I think that's a pretty big jump from what was available
in the XL1s.

-Luis

<<<-- Originally posted by Steve Siegel : Thanks for the answers. What it really means is that there's nothing new here except 24 frames per second. -->>>

Hi Steve,

Hope you are doing well. What type of projects have you done so far and which camera(s) have you worked with? Would be interesting to know what new features you would like to see offered.


<<<-- And I thought we were going to get 60 frames per second for some real slomo. -->>>

If you are referring to 60P, there are really only a few camera platforms that offer 60P - the cheapest one being a minimum of $65,000. If you are referring to the capability to shoot at a high speed frame rate in order to achieve slow-motion (such as what is done in motion picture explosion special effects) 60P is not going to be enough. In fact, these type of effects are usually shot on special *film* cameras which offer high-speed frame rates significantly higher than 60.

Of course, a great deal of this type of work is now done via computer generated effects.

If you are referring to slow motion such as what news stations use for sports slow motion replays, you don't need 60P to do this. It is done all the time with standard 60i. Easy to do.


<<<-- Sounds like another reason to save my money. -->>>

Geez, I suggest that you focus on looking for ways to accomplish your goals in the here and now, rather than continuing to wait for the Holy Grail "perfect camera"... No camera is going to make or break your project, only you are responsible for that. If you have special shooting requirements which are not fully addressed by any of the current cameras under $10K, then why not hire the services of a DP who has access to a VariCam or is capable of shooting on film? Why not rent what you need? No sense in looking back five years from now with nothing to show and saying to yourself "Darn, why did I choose to wait so long?"

Thanks for your input though!

- don

What's really new is the 16:9 capability and progressive scan, especially 30fps, in my opinion. That would make it worth the money, I think, if you want to shoot el cheapo indy films, docs, etc., where you want 16:9 in a relatively cheap camera.

Don,
Well, as long as you're interested...and I think I may speak for a number of XL-1s users. I shoot exclusively wildlife with a long EF zoom. I get quite good slomo using the speed filter in Adobe Premiere, so that's not really a big issue. In my opinion Canon dropped the ball in:
1. That unremovable shoulder mount. The screw hole on the XL-1s that will be covered by the shoulder mount is invaluable for accepting a screw that stabilizes the camcorder on a tripod to prevent side-to-side movement of the camera on the tripod if you happen to jar the unit. Important as you follow a distant moving critter.
2. Nothing at all is being offered to allow auto focus through the EF adapter. Come on, its 2004. Who uses manual focus on wildlife any more? We XL1 guys, that's who.
3. It's the same good-for-nothing viewfinder.
4. When you're shooting small animals, you need close-up;
16:9 isn't very exciting. 3:4 (as opposed to 4:3), now that would have been a hoot.
5. When you go into standby, the camcorder defaults to f/5.6
every time. I wish I had a nickel for every second of footage I missed trying to reset the aperture coming out of standby.
There's more but it's already nitpicking. At least the new camera will have higher resolution. It will, won't it? Please!

Steve,

The XL2 might no be the right cam for you.
The XL2 is clearly aimed to the indie filmmaker.

The Sony PD170 seems like a better choice
for your kind of work...

Juani

Actually that's one of the more interesting features of the JVC HD1/HD10 -- they can shoot in "SD" mode at 720x480x60P. It's not DV, it's MPEG-2, but it is a full-frame 16:9 image at 60 progressive frames per second, in a cam that's under $2500 or so.

>In my opinion Canon dropped the ball in:
1. That unremovable shoulder mount. The screw hole on the XL-1s that will be covered by the shoulder mount is invaluable for accepting a screw that stabilizes the camcorder on a tripod to prevent side-to-side movement of the camera on the tripod if you happen to jar the unit. Important as you follow a distant moving critter.

Steve, I use an XL1 to shoot wildlife using the EF adapter too. Maybe the XL1S is different, but which hole are you talking about? When I use long lenses, I have a bracket that attaches to both the camera body and the lens mount: this prevents lateral movement. From what I can gather, the XL2 has 4 screw holes on the base to attach a quick-release plate. My hope is that this will allow the camera to be bolted rock-solid to the plate - so therefore an improvement.

>2. Nothing at all is being offered to allow auto focus through the EF adapter. Come on, its 2004. Who uses manual focus on wildlife any more? We XL1 guys, that's who.

If the XL2 offered autofocus using the EF adapter, I doubt I would use it. Autofocus is fine for still photography, but I never use it for video, since the lenses tend to hunt with moving subjects.

>3. It's the same good-for-nothing viewfinder.

Actually, it's a completely different EVF. Whether it's any good or not reamins to be seen, but you can always buy the FU1000 if it means that much to you.

>4. When you're shooting small animals, you need close-up;
16:9 isn't very exciting. 3:4 (as opposed to 4:3), now that would have been a hoot.

What has aspect ratio got to do with close-up? Unless you shoot giraffes, why is 4:3 better than 16:9?

>5. When you go into standby, the camcorder defaults to f/5.6
every time. I wish I had a nickel for every second of footage I missed trying to reset the aperture coming out of standby.

Hmm, can't say I have ever noticed this on the XL1. If you use the standby button, it should fire-up with the same setting you shut-down at.

>There's more but it's already nitpicking. At least the new camera will have higher resolution. It will, won't it? Please!

Yes, it will. Whether the image will be appreciably better remains to be seen.

In my admittedly limited experience, no prosumer cam comes even close to the XL series for shooting wildlife. The ability to fit EF lenses puts it in a class of its own: the only competitor to the XL2 is the XL1/S.

pulldown on PAL?
 

Now that I know about the pulldown process from the superb explanation of Adam Wilt, can anyone tell me what is happening in PAL system? Is there a pulldown in PAL? How does it works? Thanks!

Well, to be clear, as far as the DVX and the XL2 go, there is no
24p option on the PAL version. The PAL versions of both cameras
shoot 25p.

Now when film is transfered to PAL, the conversion is pretty
straight forward, the 24fps film is just sped up by about 4% to be
25fps.

When PAL video is transfered to film, the opposite is done, and it
is slowed down to 24fps (which is why it's often referred to as
a "slow PAL transfer").

I hope that made sense.
I haven't had my coffee yet this morning.

Thanks Luis! Clear enough!