XL2 Wish List

Peter Moore · January 18th, 2003, 02:10 PM

If you're going to make the CCDs 16x9 and exclude current lenses, then go all the way.

- High Definition
- 1920 x 1080 (60i) - good interlaced HDTV format
- 1920 x 1080 (24p) - for filmmaking
- 1280 x 720 (60p) - good progressive HDTV format
- 2.35:1 and 4:3 guides
- XLR microphone inputs

About surround sound recording - why? All good surround mixing is done in post isn't it?

Ken Tanaka · January 18th, 2003, 03:31 PM

OK, we've collected a substantial "wish list" of enhancements for the successor to the XL1s. Now for the big question: what are you wiling to pay for this nirvana?

In USD terms:
- $3,500?
- $5,000?
- $6,000?
- $7,000?
- $8,000 or more?

Dylan Couper · January 18th, 2003, 05:25 PM

If it was HD with bigger CCDs? I'd pay in the $8,000+us range.

If it was very similar to the XL1s, with extra features but no huge breakthrough? I'd keep my XL1's.
I'll be very dissapointed if it doesn't come out with some major advancement in technology, or at least some super film look mode.

Christopher Hughes · January 21st, 2003, 10:55 AM

One thing I would love to see...If you could wish such a thing would be an XL2 with a switch to change between PAL and NTSC formats. Would save loads of hassle for travellers like myself constantly between Mexico and UK with filming in bothsides of the water, so would only need one cam not two!

And how a bout a camera that actually has a brilliant Kick-ass mic already with it as standard.

How about an eye piece that can be used as an eye piece, but the chamber can be flipped open to reveal a LCD screen under, so best of both worlds!!!

But I guess after my trip to the planet Altamira, I guess that realism has a bit more of a meaning. But It may be around soon, we never know what the next gen is capable of producing!

Rob Lohman · January 21st, 2003, 12:29 PM

Cristopher,

I already like the mic on the XL1s very much, that might be just
me ofcourse. PAL/NTSC switchable is a very nice suggestions and
I cannot imagine it would be that hard for them to implement
(I heard that the difference between the models now is simply
a different firmware. But I don't know if the viewfinder for example
is different as well). Interesting thought!

Scott Silverman · January 21st, 2003, 06:17 PM

Christopher,
About your view finder flip down idea. Panasonic has made cameras with that same idea. I believe the name of one cam is the "Reporter." I used it (but never owned it) for about a year and a half. Nice cam but it's not digital and records directly to VHS which is very nice for doing work that requires instant playback cabability across many systems. The viewfinder was black and white and you could flip up the eye piece to use the CRT as a "LCD" screen. It was actually reflected off a couple of mirrors first so you never really saw the true CRT image, only reflections of it. Good ideas!

January 22nd, 2003, 02:59 AM

I know we can all dream but a lot of these things are just SO unrealistic - HD and bigger chips, $8000 dollars +... come on!

This camera is not suddenly going to jump into the fully professional category, for one thing it is sold through Canon consumer division - a whole new division would have to be set up because they don't to my knowledge make pro cameras only lenses.

This camera does and will always compete in the prosummer/ DV filmaker category. If your going to pay $8000 + quite honestly your going to buy something better!

I think it is perhaps probable that the chips whilst they remain the same size will be upped in quality - to over 400k; I think it is possible that there might be some kind of full progressive; I think it is also possible that there could be true 16:9 or some kind of proprietry anamorphic adaptor; finally it is not inconceivable that settable timecode will be available - like the DVX100, JVC Gy300, PD150 et al - after all we got EBU/SMPTE bars didn't we?

Anything more than this IMO is not only wishful thinking, but would fall into the realms of science fiction.

Regards.

John Threat · January 26th, 2003, 11:39 PM

What about a radical technology and video framework that allows the camera to use interchangable CCD's.

You slot in 3 new ones, from the dirt cheap (1/18") to the outrageously expensive (2"!)

Dylan Couper · January 26th, 2003, 11:52 PM

Well that is definitely a new idea!

Robert Knecht Schmidt · January 27th, 2003, 11:00 AM

I suppose if Canon trusts their home/office customers to change their own inkjet print catridges, they should be able to trust their pro video customers to do CCD block swaps...

Chris Hurd · January 27th, 2003, 11:29 AM

Robert, you forgot to add a "just kidding" to that statement... frankly I couldn't imagine user-replaceable CCD's. Printers can run self-alignment tests, but a self-aligning CCD block? The expense would be prohibitive to say the least!

What I would propose instead is a built-in menu function to mask out hot/dead pixels as they occur.

In my estimation, once the Foveon chips start to hit, 3CCD camcorders will become obsolete anyway. Since the Foveon CCD can actually see color, I imagine the industry will shift to single-CCD Foveons, and I'll bet these will blow away any 3-chip configuration currently available under, say, $10K.

Dylan Couper · January 27th, 2003, 11:55 AM

Chris, how far away do you think the Foveon chip is from the prosumer market?

Chris Hurd · January 27th, 2003, 12:42 PM

See http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...=&threadid=917 for a discussion thread about this chip... there's a link to some info about a new Sigma digicam using it. I suspect we're still at last a year away from having it in the DV market, but what do I know.

Takeshi Fukushima · February 4th, 2003, 11:11 PM

How about a HD chip, sorta like what Victor(called JVC in the states?) is coming up with. Of course that would mean a change in gear all over again. but the pictures could bring up possibilities for the indie market. We'll see how Victor markets their camera.

On closer range enhancements.
definitely a bigger chip for shooting wider angles.
adjustable Viewfinder not only the brightness.
smoother zoom-speed servo. more than 5 steps.

Jacques Mersereau · February 5th, 2003, 08:06 PM

<<<I think if you go native 16:9 that will exclude the current crop of lenses. So, now you're going to have to decide if you want evolutionary growth of the XL1, XL1s or revolutionary change, XL2.>>>>

A tough question when we all (98%) still watch standard definition video,
BUT, having experienced HD first hand, and especially when projected
on the big screen, believe me, you want HD.

With the current track of technology, HD is coming at reasonable prices. Right now, Canon's D60 digital still camera can shoot 3072x2048 images
@ 3 per second in an 8 shot burst. This camera without lens is under $2.2K.
JVC is due out with their HD cam this May for $3500. It isn't too much of
a stretch to imagine a single CMOS chip XL2 that can record HD.

Okay, that's nice but there is always more to think about. When we
had an HD Varicam stop by the video studio, besides the $25K 8" monitor,
there are other issues inherent in HD production.

One of the biggest is monitoring FOCUS. Yes, you may think all is well,
but back focus is critical and needs to be set EVERY TIME you remove the lens. Pro shooters were finding that much of their footage was slightly out when it was brought back and put under close scrutiny.

GLASS. Has *real* glass come down in price? A real lens that can resolve over a thousand lines isn't, and most likely won't be, cheap in the near future . . . if ever.

Another report from the guys doing HD production concerns the PS Tecknik
adapter for HD. The idea being you could use a set of film lens and save some money (if you had a set lying around). Sorry, but because of all that extra resolution, you can see the spinning glass that makes the adapter work . . . argh.

So, I guess the bottom line is, even if you can eventually afford HD, it doesn't
mean it's good HD.

Ah, but I am rambling and will shut up now ;)

January 18th, 2003, 03:31 PM	#32
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	OK, we've collected a substantial "wish list" of enhancements for the successor to the XL1s. Now for the big question: *what are you wiling to pay for this nirvana?* In USD terms: - $3,500? - $5,000? - $6,000? - $7,000? - $8,000 or more? __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

January 21st, 2003, 12:29 PM	#35
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Cristopher, I already like the mic on the XL1s very much, that might be just me ofcourse. PAL/NTSC switchable is a very nice suggestions and I cannot imagine it would be that hard for them to implement (I heard that the difference between the models now is simply a different firmware. But I don't know if the viewfinder for example is different as well). Interesting thought! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 21st, 2003, 06:17 PM	#36
Scott Silverman Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Cupertino, California, USA Posts: 301	Christopher, About your view finder flip down idea. Panasonic has made cameras with that same idea. I believe the name of one cam is the "Reporter." I used it (but never owned it) for about a year and a half. Nice cam but it's not digital and records directly to VHS which is very nice for doing work that requires instant playback cabability across many systems. The viewfinder was black and white and you could flip up the eye piece to use the CRT as a "LCD" screen. It was actually reflected off a couple of mirrors first so you never really saw the true CRT image, only reflections of it. Good ideas! __________________ Scott Silverman Shining Star Digital Video Productions Bay Area, CA

January 27th, 2003, 11:00 AM	#40
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	I suppose if Canon trusts their home/office customers to change their own inkjet print catridges, they should be able to trust their pro video customers to do CCD block swaps... __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 27th, 2003, 11:29 AM	#41
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Robert, you forgot to add a "just kidding" to that statement... frankly I couldn't imagine user-replaceable CCD's. Printers can run self-alignment tests, but a self-aligning CCD block? The expense would be prohibitive to say the least! What I would propose instead is a built-in menu function to mask out hot/dead pixels as they occur. In my estimation, once the Foveon chips start to hit, 3CCD camcorders will become obsolete anyway. Since the Foveon CCD can actually see color, I imagine the industry will shift to single-CCD Foveons, and I'll bet these will blow away any 3-chip configuration currently available under, say, $10K. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

January 18th, 2003, 02:10 PM	#31
Peter Moore Trustee Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Arlington VA Posts: 1,034	If you're going to make the CCDs 16x9 and exclude current lenses, then go all the way. - High Definition - 1920 x 1080 (60i) - good interlaced HDTV format - 1920 x 1080 (24p) - for filmmaking - 1280 x 720 (60p) - good progressive HDTV format - 2.35:1 and 4:3 guides - XLR microphone inputs About surround sound recording - why? All good surround mixing is done in post isn't it?

January 18th, 2003, 05:25 PM	#33
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	If it was HD with bigger CCDs? I'd pay in the $8,000+us range. If it was very similar to the XL1s, with extra features but no huge breakthrough? I'd keep my XL1's. I'll be very dissapointed if it doesn't come out with some major advancement in technology, or at least some super film look mode.

January 21st, 2003, 10:55 AM	#34
Christopher Hughes Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Sunderland, England (y Merida, Mexico) Posts: 269	One thing I would love to see...If you could wish such a thing would be an XL2 with a switch to change between PAL and NTSC formats. Would save loads of hassle for travellers like myself constantly between Mexico and UK with filming in bothsides of the water, so would only need one cam not two! And how a bout a camera that actually has a brilliant Kick-ass mic already with it as standard. How about an eye piece that can be used as an eye piece, but the chamber can be flipped open to reveal a LCD screen under, so best of both worlds!!! But I guess after my trip to the planet Altamira, I guess that realism has a bit more of a meaning. But It may be around soon, we never know what the next gen is capable of producing!

January 22nd, 2003, 02:59 AM	#37
CUT Productions Posts: n/a	I know we can all dream but a lot of these things are just SO unrealistic - HD and bigger chips, $8000 dollars +... come on! This camera is not suddenly going to jump into the fully professional category, for one thing it is sold through Canon consumer division - a whole new division would have to be set up because they don't to my knowledge make pro cameras only lenses. This camera does and will always compete in the prosummer/ DV filmaker category. If your going to pay $8000 + quite honestly your going to buy something better! I think it is perhaps probable that the chips whilst they remain the same size will be upped in quality - to over 400k; I think it is possible that there might be some kind of full progressive; I think it is also possible that there could be true 16:9 or some kind of proprietry anamorphic adaptor; finally it is not inconceivable that settable timecode will be available - like the DVX100, JVC Gy300, PD150 et al - after all we got EBU/SMPTE bars didn't we? Anything more than this IMO is not only wishful thinking, but would fall into the realms of science fiction. Regards.

January 26th, 2003, 11:39 PM	#38
John Threat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York Posts: 322	What about a radical technology and video framework that allows the camera to use interchangable CCD's. You slot in 3 new ones, from the dirt cheap (1/18") to the outrageously expensive (2"!)

January 26th, 2003, 11:52 PM	#39
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Well that is definitely a new idea!

January 27th, 2003, 11:55 AM	#42
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Chris, how far away do you think the Foveon chip is from the prosumer market?

January 27th, 2003, 12:42 PM	#43
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	See http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...=&threadid=917 for a discussion thread about this chip... there's a link to some info about a new Sigma digicam using it. I suspect we're still at last a year away from having it in the DV market, but what do I know. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

February 4th, 2003, 11:11 PM	#44
Takeshi Fukushima Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 86	HD? How about a HD chip, sorta like what Victor(called JVC in the states?) is coming up with. Of course that would mean a change in gear all over again. but the pictures could bring up possibilities for the indie market. We'll see how Victor markets their camera. On closer range enhancements. definitely a bigger chip for shooting wider angles. adjustable Viewfinder not only the brightness. smoother zoom-speed servo. more than 5 steps.

February 5th, 2003, 08:06 PM	#45
Jacques Mersereau Trustee Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 1,334	<<<I think if you go native 16:9 that will exclude the current crop of lenses. So, now you're going to have to decide if you want evolutionary growth of the XL1, XL1s or revolutionary change, XL2.>>>> A tough question when we all (98%) still watch standard definition video, BUT, having experienced HD first hand, and especially when projected on the big screen, believe me, you want HD. With the current track of technology, HD is coming at reasonable prices. Right now, Canon's D60 digital still camera can shoot 3072x2048 images @ 3 per second in an 8 shot burst. This camera without lens is under $2.2K. JVC is due out with their HD cam this May for $3500. It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine a single CMOS chip XL2 that can record HD. Okay, that's nice but there is always more to think about. When we had an HD Varicam stop by the video studio, besides the $25K 8" monitor, there are other issues inherent in HD production. One of the biggest is monitoring FOCUS. Yes, you may think all is well, but back focus is critical and needs to be set EVERY TIME you remove the lens. Pro shooters were finding that much of their footage was slightly out when it was brought back and put under close scrutiny. GLASS. Has real glass come down in price? A real lens that can resolve over a thousand lines isn't, and most likely won't be, cheap in the near future . . . if ever. Another report from the guys doing HD production concerns the PS Tecknik adapter for HD. The idea being you could use a set of film lens and save some money (if you had a set lying around). Sorry, but because of all that extra resolution, you can see the spinning glass that makes the adapter work . . . argh. So, I guess the bottom line is, even if you can eventually afford HD, it doesn't mean it's good HD. Ah, but I am rambling and will shut up now ;) __________________ Jacques Mersereau University of Michigan-Video Studio Manager