Report from the field: XL2/XL1 Durability/Quality
 

Hello All!

Well I just got back to NY from a shoot in Miami and have some results to share.

First of all, I have written here of some concerns that I had with the quality of Canons' tape transport systems and the compatibility with other brands, in specific, their ability to playback tapes recorded with Canon Cameras.

I also weighed in on my displeasure with the Main Fuse problem that some here have had.


To continue; I left with a Canon XL1 (very low hours), a Canon XL2 (brand new), a Sony DSR-11 (in case my Canons had a hard time recording error free), 30K worth of lights and assorted grip equipment.

The conditions were so HOT and humid that the cardboard box holding my 100 Sony Excellence tapes was soggy and almost fell apart. I knew that these would be the ideal conditions to test the Canons durability.

OK, condensation was forming on the vents of the rental car !!!

Bottom line, we shoot for 6 days under these conditions, moving the equipment to diverse locations that went from Hot-Hot-Hot, to industrial level air conditioning Cold. I used a brand new crew and I am sure that when I wasn't looking, they bounced the equipment around more than I would have liked.

My observations:

I didn't have any recording problems with the XL2 at all. The XL1 lost timecode on playback and the tape looked blank, so I ran a head cleaner through it and that seemed to clear up the problem... although I haven't had time to inspect and test it yet.

The tapes all played-back on the DSR-11 without a hitch. This was a major concern of mine, if these units couldn't record reliably, I could never use them again.

No condensation warnings!

At one point, I was running the cameras on AC and my guys thought that they were on their own circuit (as per the facilities managers advise), but one of the guys ran an additional light on a line and tripped the breaker, and much to my chagrin, the cameras went down with the light :-(

Much to my pleasure, the cameras fired back up without any signs of the incedent... No Master Fuse Problem this time :-)

All-in-all the cameras ran pretty much as I expected when I purchased them, and for that I am grateful.

One odd discovery that I didn't expect that I would appreciate your comments on is this: The XL1 actually looked better than the XL2 ???

Weird, but I really think the XL1 gives a better rendition of the scene. I am going to switch lenses and run some tests in the near future and I will share my results, but do any of you have any experience with running an XL1 side-by-side with an XL2??

Thanks Guys !!

Anthony,

I'm one of those people who had a master fuse problem, and had his XL2 replaced. My new XL2 has been solid as a rock since December, so I'm not surprised by your experience.

Im in post production on my documentary "American Jouster" which was shot over the course of a year with an XL1 and my XL2. I can honestly say, that the images from the XL2 appear to me to be far superior to the Xl1. The 'default' settings of the 2 appear warmer, more vivid thant the 1, which always seems to 'green' to me. I can color correct between them in post, but I think the images from the 2 just look better. But thats MY opinion.

Define look "better"? I have used the XL series since literally day 1... had the XL1 when it came out, then the XL1S, now the XL2 (I still have them all as well as a DVX100a).

The XL1 and 1s are great cameras but in most cases show oversaturated colors. Some people prefer this, even though it is somewhat unnatural. The XL2 still has the color information but it is more gated, to be broadcast legal, natural or to represent a cinematic look. The XL2 also requires a little more skill in operation as far as the internal settings, ND stages, etc. so it can be harder to get exactly what you are after but when you have it down, it is superior.

In 16:9 mode the XL2 is FAR SUPERIOR than the 1 or 1s. In 4:3 it is much closer but I still prefer the XL2. Once you dump the XL2 footage into your NLE, it REALLY shines...




ash =o)

Hello,

Better is subjective, so I can't be definitive, but the XL1 footage looks cleaner, the colors seam to be more natural. I find that the XL2 actually had more saturated colors, and I had to de-saturate them in order to match the XL1.

The more I think of it, the more I feel that the XL1 gave me a picture that reminded me of what you would see looking through the lens of an XLR camera, so maybe the lens is the factor, but the clarity of signal seemed to be a factor as well.

I have to start editing this project again soon, so I will look at the footage with a more discerning eye.

What are your settings? 4:3? 16:9? Custom pre-sets? Frame rate? Something doesnt jive... if you search these and other forums you will see many people who get the XL2 and have issues out of the box (usually for LACK of saturation) but they solve them over time as they learn to manipulate the camera.

The XL1s added some custom image tools and the XL2 is LOADED with image control tools. When I do a multi-cam shoot I give my least experienced guy the XL1 or DVX100a, the more experienced shooter an XL1s and the very experienced shooter the XL2.

I always like the comparison to a musical instrument, the XL2 is a better guitar, it is just harder to play...


ash =o)

Hello,

I shoot 29.97 at 4:3.

I had the XL2 setup optimally, but I liked the image from the XL1 much better. The XL2 is very vestal, but I still think the image is better on my XL1.

Again, I'll have to swap lenses to see if that makes a difference.

I'll let you know!

"Vestal." Strange term for an inanimate object. :-)
What do you mean exactly?

XL-1 & Extreme Locations
 

I use the XL-1 system. Mine is 5 years old and has been exposed to all kinds of environments. In late June, I had to shoot a plane crash in a remote mountainous area in northwest Georgia. It had just rained and the air was very humid and hot. Once we got deep into the woods, I noticed that my camera was dripping wet. I mean water was actually beading on the lens hood and there was a slight film of moisture on the white body. I just knew it was going to error out and shut down if not damage the camera but there was nothing that I could do. I was getting real nervous. We finally reached the scene and I shot my footage. Some footage was of a helicopter rescue with a Huey just 50 ft above the tree canopy. It was like a hurricane on the ground with bark, twigs, dirt, leaves, you name it hitting us from all directions. I have always used a UV flat to protect the front element and highly recommend that everyone do that. I would not have shot the helicopter rescue without it because my lens element would have been ruined. The XL-1 performed without incident and I was pleasantly surprised. I was able to sell the footage to CNN and the local ABC affiliate which made the risk a little more worth it.

Vestal: A big round thing that swims in the sea :-)


Alas, I meant versatile

IMage quality judgements are as slippery as wine tastings "Robust, mellow, presumptive character, sharp..."

For what it's worth, as I matched up shots between the XL1 and 2, I personally found the 2 to have the more 'saturated' look, which appealed to my aesthetics. As I said, the 1 seemed to me to tend towards a 'green' look, while the 2 tended towards the 'red'. But there is no question the 2 shines best in 16:9 mode. The overall quality of the image is superior to the 1 and 1s versions. Alas, as I started the doc on 4:3 on the 1, I had to finish it in 4:3 on the 2.

I was using a 16x manual on both the xl1 and xl2 for my project.

Hey Rich,

I agree, the XL2 gives a more saturated look. The problem is that I needed the two to match as well as possible, and the saturation was a drawback for this particular shoot. Now on the short that I will be doing soon, I can use the flexibility of the XL2.

As far as the subjective nature of "what looks better", I also agree, it is in the eye of the beholder unless you incorporate certain benchmarks or criteria that can be judged objectively. To be more specific, the XL1 actually looked clearer... not sharper, but clearer, and in that regard I meant that it looked better...

I will do a test in a controlled setting soon.

Thanks for the continued feedback guys !!

If you want the images to match better you need to move the XL2 more to red and turn up the sharpness.


ash =o)

Hello Again :-)

I have been color balancing with cool and warm cards to get the white bal. as close as possible. Tweaking the XL2 will probably help whereas the the with balance technique may be lacking.

As far as the sharpness goes, I don't like the look that the XL2 demonstrates when the sharpness id kicked up too much, if at all. In fact the opposite is true in my experience, the XL2 looks better with the sharpness turned down just a tiny bit.

Obviously we just slammed into an area of subjective taste. The best way that I can describe it is that the XL1 looks and feels more like looking through a SLR camera, it is a more "Optical Feel" than I get from the XL2. Again JMHO.

Sorry, still haven't swapped the lens yet :-(

I dont like the sharper image either but that is what it takes to match the XL1s stock. In the first versions of the XL2 Canon actually had at least one of the custom presets to match the XL1s. I have the settings written somewhere.

Are you comparing to an XL1s? If so, what are the settings there? I am able to match my XL1, XL1s, XL2 and DVX100a pretty easy.



ash =o)

Hey Ash,

I have the XL1, not the XL1s, so no settings to speak of.

Don't get me wrong, I am close, but the XL1 seams to have a different aspect ratio, although ever so slight, if I film the same subject from the same location (cameras side-by-side) the pictures are different in a noticeable fashion. And although the slight difference in perspective caused by the inches between the 2 cameras will affect the perspective, this goes beyond that, and quite frankly, I think the XL1 is better looking.

Also the XL1 is a wider angle lens in its' widest position than the XL2. Now the perspective thing could be partly because of the lens, but the aspect ratio difference must be the CCD image block or the DPS circuitry I would hazard a guess.

I swear... I'm going to swap those lenses eventually :-)

In 4x3 mode the XL2 will definitely not be as wide. However in 16x9 the XL2 should match very closely to the XL1's wide angle.

Are you shooting in 4x3?

Also....I notice the XL2 is much sharper than the XL1 but the colors are de-saturated in comparison.

You know, I only shot 1 short film in 16:9 (which premiered to a sold out audience I must say) and that was with the DPs camera. I shoot mostly industrial documentary, corporate stuff and have been shooting almost exclusively in 4:3. I will be shooting another short with my Canons and will delve into 16:9 for myself for the first time.

I agree with you as to the sharpness, but my XL2 is more saturated than my XL1. But if you put 10 cameras of the exact same model side-by-side, you would probably get 10 different results anyway.

I'm goin to swap those damn lenses....

:-)

PS I am getting either a DVCAM (DSR-400) or a Panasonic DVCPro 50 soon, which I hope will give me results that are more in line with my expectations.

I have the PAL versions of XL1 and XL2, and my experience is the same as Matry's.

I've noticed that the XL2 has more precise colors than the XL1. This is to say, the colors of XL2 match better to what I see than those of XL1. Furthermore, XL2 seems to capture better small differences in colors and for me it looks like it produces more colors than XL1.

When Anthony says the XL1 is closer to the image of a SLR camera, I agree in the sense that the dark end of XL1 behaves somewhat similarly to films such as Fuji Velvia: black becomes easily completely black. (Still, I prefer myself the black tones of XL2.)

Ash,
Can you post those settings here? http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=46082

The XL2 is really a 16:9 camera, the 4:3 performance is good but no better than cameras that are half the price. The DSR-400 is a great camera as well but it will be similar to what you notice in the XL2. It has great resolution and superior performance in highlights AND shadows. People have been so accustomed to the super-crushed black saturated look that a good clean image somehow looks milky, when in fact, it looks much more like it would to your eye...



ash =o)

I'm with you buddy !

If you're shooting in 4:3, then the XL1 probably does look better, since you're using all of each chip. The XL2 crops down from the 16:9 aspect ratio to get to 4:3, so you lose some of the chip, in effect shooting with smaller chips.

You guys have me all psyched up to shoot 16:9 !!

Being a novice in this regard, I assume that if I shoot 16:9 for my present audience that will be viewing my work on standard TVs, either from a DVD player, tape, or TV Broadcast... that I will have to deliver it in MattBox format...

Is that true?

Seems like I will be delivering more horizontal data, but at the cost of the vertical data... meaning that ultimately the image is going to be smaller.

Help me out guys :-)

Anthony,

FWIW, there were several folks that noted when the XL1s came out that they preferred the image of the original XL-1 (I still have mine). I am with the folks who notice the XL-2 is much sharper but I love the color saturation and gamma curve of the original XL-1. My default XL-2 color rendition is a little flat.

Don't worry about shooting 16:9 because all DVD players can recognize the anamorphic flag and the viewer should set up their player to know what type tv is attached (4:3 or 16:9). This way, the DVD player will adjust its output accordingly. IOW, it will letterbox widescreen footage for you on a 4:3 set and leave it alone when playing on a 16:9 set.

regards,

-gb-

Yes, I really like the XL1 picture quality, especially for an inexpensive camera!!

Thanks for the feedback on 16:9 and how it works with DVD playback. If I am going to distribute on VHS tape, or other similar mediums, I will have to letterbox manually in my project I assume. Is that true?

Thanks Again !

The XL1 came stock with a more tuned picture since there are no manual adjustments, no doubt that it looks best out of the box. With some skill the XL1s can look even better and with more skill the XL2 even better than that. The learning curve can be pretty steep. Panny has it down better on the DVX because they give you 5 pre-sets out of the box so the learning curve is easier (though the image in 16:9 is not as good).

As far as 16:9... go for it, it really is what the camera was made for....




ash =o)

I have the XL1s. I live in Phoenix, AZ. Need I say more? We were shooting the other evening in the garage. It was still 100+ degrees out and shooting in a closed, non air conditioned garage with 800 watts of light made it an oven. We could only take it for about 10 minutes at a time, (then we'd turn on the fans and open the doors) but it was the only place we had for green screen work. It was easily 110+ degrees, beer helped. The camera worked without issue, the footage came out great!

We also shoot during the day once in a while, out in the 100 - 115 degree weather, I was worried at times as the cam was hot to the touch. I'd make feeble attempts to cover it with an umbrella, but in AZ even the shade is 100+. I try to NOT make this a habit as heat will shorten the life of microprocessors but I have yet to have an issue.

my 2 cents

I know that heat well. Back in the mid-'80s during the tube camera days, I had several shooting trips to the Phoenix area, always in the summer. When shooting outside in the sun, the heat would cause the camera to lose its registration in just a few minutes. We provided shade for the camera while we mere humans cooked in the 114 degree (F) heat. Shooting essentials included Gatorade and a registration chart. The strangest part of the whole shoot was the day I shot on a golf course. It was 114 degrees, for real. What was weird was that there were people playing golf. In that heat.

Well Bill, if you love golf like I do... Seriously though, it gets pretty warm here in Dallas and the golf courses throw out some nice perks to get us to play in the heat. A very nice golf course was offering breakfast, morning round of golf, luncn, another round of golf, cart, range balls for only $55. We played 36 holes and I noticed I was sucking on ice cubes between every golf shot. Turns out, when I got home I found that we had set a record high of 109 degrees for that day. Yikes!

The heat is managable if you keep hydrated and the beer cart personnel will have wet towels kept in coolers for you to wrap around your neck periodically.

stay cool,

-gb-

Anyone know off hand of the temps XL1s/XL2 were tested at? Or the max temp they can handle?

One interesting issue with the XL1 and its tolerances.... Last summer we shot a commercial for a non-profit out here at the beach at 6:30am. Typical Florida humidity, 90% or so. Temperature around 80 degrees. Camera was kept inside the night before..... big mistake. We get all set up with the lights and 45 extras, I get the camera out of the car and immediately the "condensation detected" error comes up and the camera won't function. Well, almost 20 minutes later, after running the heater in the car at full blast with the camera inside to hopefully get rid of the condensation, it worked fine. The best part, no one ever knew! We shot on time and it turned out great!

Lesson learned: The humidity tolerance of this camera (xl1) is NOT very high, in my experience, even when the temp isn't too high. Especially when it's left in A/C all night :P

My work around: Leave the cameras in the car the night before so they're the same temp when you take them out to shoot the next morning. Batteries stay inside with me.

Since this event, I've applied this work around on several occasions with my XL1 and XL2 with no issues whatsoever.

I'm sure this isn't news to many of you and certainly won't apply to you guys and gals in the lesser-humid climates, but anyone who shoots in FL should know these kinda things!

Condensation isn't an XL issue. Any camera will shut down due to condensation in Florida if you take it from an air conditioned environment out into excessive humidity. I've had that happen with a $40,000 camera in Ft. Lauderdale.

Had the same thing happen with a $200 8mm in Orlando.

I wasn't saying it was necessarily an "xl issue" only, just an issue. Something that one should be aware of shooting in different environments, which is what this thread is about :P

Condensation is not something you would automatically think of if you've never experienced it before. Just throwing it out there.

Well I have been in business for well over 25 years, and until I shot in Miami... I just didn't think it could be so bad.... WOW!

I appreciate everyones comments here... very enlightening!!