XL-1S Wish List?
 

Chris as long as you are going to talk to Canon. One of the things I think would have been neat is a fully variable iris. Let the steps on the iris wheel actually change the iris in smaller steps. This would give the XL-1S a finer control over DOF (depth of field).

...Or...
Maybe I am just showing how little I know about controlling DOF.

Nathan Gifford

________________________
Saving the midnight oil and drinking decaf tea chained to 4 teenagers...

Are we talking XL2 here? Since the XL1s is already out.

Hmm, well I must say I doubt this will happen but I can always ask. One thing that might help would be if they either combine the exposure adjustment wheel (above the audio VU meter) with the iris wheel, or re-position the exposure adjustment so that it's closer to the iris.

One thing, you could always grab the older Canon 14x manual zoom lens as it has an analog iris control ring, exactly what you're asking for.

The XL1S has been out for a year now, so it's probably safe to fire up an XL2 wish list. Flip-out LCD viewfinder, anyone? Where would you put it?

XL-2 Wish List?
 

Okay, now the XL-1S is out, what would you like to see on the XL-2? Anything to avoid?

I'm going to restrict mine to three:

1. Native 16x9 CCDs. I know that is an ugly subect, but if this system 16x9 the only thing left would be High Def.

2. Better frame mode. I am still somewhat leary of using frame mode. For Internet pubs I find frame a better choice. However, I do not know what projects I may have to convert to DVD or broadcast and frame mode could cause a problem.

3. Fully adjustable iris. That one seems the easiest to do (depending on how the lens feeds back the iris position) since the processor code might be the only modification.

So lets see what else users would want on the XL-2. Oh, I am going to include a 3a -- Support the current crop of lenses!!!

Nathan Gifford

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. If you go revolutionary, some accessories may not be compatible. Maybe you should have two threads, to cover either possibility.

Jeff

list
 

3:2 ccd 1920 X 1280 photo capture

1920 X 1080 hd 50 mbit (Frame e/o field mode) 24 25 30 FPS

1280 X 720 HD 50 mbit (Frame mode) 24 25 30 FPS

1536 X 1152 to 720 X 576 pal 25/50 mbit (Frame e/o field mode) 24 25 FPS

1600 X 1200 to 720 X 480 ntsc 25/50 mbit (Frame e/o field mode) 24 30 FPS

4 audio ch 48Khz 16 bits
8 audio ch 32Khz 12 bits
8 audio ch 48Khz 16 bits 2:1 Compressed

surround recording

LeftBack LeftFront

Center

RightBack RightFront



Francesco

Well I meant XL-2...
 

A wish list is just that. I always wonder if the interview Chris had some time back with Canon was really true and the XL-2 will be high def?

One of the important things to take away from these lists is how powerful the XL package has become. From what I have read some of the lens adapters for XL are starting to look good like a good choice. One guy here on this list is using the EOS adapter and lenses. I think the concensus on the web was that EOS adapter was an accessory looking for a market.

Canon appears to have built a system that will truly be a winner due in no small part modular design that supports multiple lenses. If they are going to keep this system going and successful, then a good, realistic wish list will be helpful indeed.

Nathan Gifford

In addition to the above:

Integrated vibration dampner for the mic.

A REAL shoulder mount/support!!!

Built in dual-battery capability would be cool.

Built in XLR jacks is a must.

And... AND... I'd like it available in black, marine blue, competition yellow, fire engine red, racing green, artic white, or brushed aluminum.

And maybe a cup holder.

I don't see how they could fit an LCD screen into the body attractively, but they could make it mountable/removable to a second accesory mount on the top or bottom of the camera. This should be included in the kit, since they probably only cost $25 to manufacture, but they'd probably sell it seperately for $300.

I'd also like to see it ship with a lens that has real manual controls, which cuts out their aftermarket, so ain't gonna happen.

Oh yeah, and I'd like it to be native 16:9 high definition, and still be in the same price range as the XL1s! This IS a wish list after all. :)

I

True progressive scan and 24 fps would be on my wish list. A
higher resolution too. But those last two would break (mini)DV
standards, so that is probably not gonna happen.

Where to put a flip out lcd... Maybe they could make a system
where you can replace the viewfinder with an LCD. Perhaps they
should change the XL1s form factor anyway.

Real shoulder mount would be nice too. XLR always nice to have.
Phantom power anyone?

I would like to see:

1) A picture that is significantly better than the GL-2. Maybe pack 500,000 pixels into each CCD? I know the XL-1s has a lot of features that set it apart from the GL-2, but I would like a better picture for the $1,300 price difference.

2) How about three ND filter settings? Or at least one setting that is usefull. Right now I get about six stops which is just a little bit better than useless.

3) The front heavy design makes tripod balancing a little bit of work. This is more of a form factor and may be tough to resolve.

4) Can miniDV record four 16 bit 48khz audio tracks? I don't know if this a limitation of the XL-1 or the MiniDV format.

5) Make it available right now.

Nathan,

Where did you read Chris's discussion about an XL-2? I read one a long time ago, but I don't remember HD being discussed.

Greg Matty

No, miniDV standard doesn't allow for 4 16-bit audio channels.
They allow for the following:

- 2 16 bit 48 kHz channels
- 2 12 bit 32 kHz channels
- 4 12 bit 32 kHz channels

That is it unfortunately... They didn't design it with too much
mind on the future. It also doesn't allow for different framerates
and resolutions (as far as I can tell).

Time to bring on DV version 2 that allows custom resolutions,
frame rates, compression algortihms, unlimited audio channels
and what not....

-24p recording, obviously. If this was implemented, then the true progressive scan CCDs required for it would also give a much better 30fps Frame Mode as well, which I think the XL2 should retain.

-True manual focus and zoom on included lens. Also compatibility with XL1 lenses.

Low, low low on my wish list but still under the "It would be cool" file:

-Flip out LCD screen with adjustable parameters to get that correct NTSC color, and a black and white viewfinder.

I think it was a Real Interview
 

I haven't cruised the site, but (and pardon me if I am wrong Chris) Chris was asking a Canon guy about the XL-2. In essence the Canon guy then ( a couple of years ago) said there would not be an XL-2. If there were it would have to be hi-def.

BTW, I like the idea of custom colors for the XL-1 body...

Nathan Gifford

Well I'm a little late on the subject but being as the camera isn't out yet why not.

Here's my list so far.

1. 24p

2. 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 guides

3. Virtual stock: the ability to use a computer software program to create presets for gamma, color curves, contrast, brightness and several other filters. Then saved as a certain file type to be stored on a removable media card (CF card?) and then put in the camera and dialed in. This would be nifty since we could all trade virtual film stocks over the internet to uptain certain "looks".

4. Ability to record video upside down. To be used with an external (optional) Canon EF lens adapter that has a piece of 24x36mm spinning ground glass in it. To use Canon EOS lenses at their true Depth of field. This would probably put the mini35 out of business when it comes to the XL2 but it would be a smaller unit making hand held shooting true 35mm DOF possible. Plus it's feasible and doesn't put the other XL1 lenses out to pasture.

5. Maybe a different color scheme to separate it from the XL1(s). Perhaps blue and silver and black.

Standard Black and White Viewfinder---or one that is interchangeable and not so expensive.

Since Miike and Kelley resurrected this list I'll throw in a nit or two.

Scene Match / Continuity
The ability to use an onboard flash card to store a snapshot of a scene and then to overlay an onion-skin of that snapshot onto the viewfinder image. This is a feature available on the Sony DSR570 (and perhaps other pro camera) and is extremely useful for ensuring continuity between shots.

Given that the GL2 already has a flash card facility I would think that this might not be a painful stretch for Canon.

Storage of Settings
The ability to store all of the camera's programmable settings on a flash card and to then recall those settings later. This is also a feature on some of the pro cameras. It would also be a far more useful feature than the current custom buttons which can only invoke one of a limited number of features.

For Kelly, re: the B&W viewfinder... the current B&W viewfinder, adapted from an existing Ikegami EVF, is no more or less expensive than any other B&W CRT viewfinder in its class. In other words, it shouldn't be considered as expensive, since it's priced just like any other B&W CRT viewfinder. Hope this helps,

Harddisk based recording instead of tape! And high quality
flipout LCD screen that shows the ENTIRE picture and is switchable
to different widescreen aspects...

Higher resolution and variable framerates would be in my top
5 too!! Definitely

1. flipout LCD
2. true progressive scan
3. variable framerate
4. higher resolution
5. harddisk based recording

that's my top 5! Perhaps we can turn this into a poll....

Maybe I am wrong, but:
Everyone is saying they want higher resolution. This would be better for crisper pictures, however, wouldn't decrease low-light performance? I guess if they made the CCDs bigger and also increased resolution that would be better. But if the CCDs stayed the same size or only got slightly larger it would do more harm than good. Am I right here? Thanks.

I would defiantely vote against a LCD. I think they are misleading in composing a shot and they take a lot of camera resources. It's also the hallmark of a hobby camera. I would rather the XL1s stay center or move toward pro, then move backward toward consumer toy.

I would like the battery monitor to work with the B&W viewfinder.

I might be reaching here (please have pitty on me). In camera keying. That would be cool to setup a blue/green screen with an actor. Then select a "key mode" to shoot in. And be able to shoot bg footage right onto already shot footage of the actor.

John,

I think an LCD is very handy in the case off running around with
the camera and trying to keep someone framed. Or when your
shooting handheld. Don't forget that even the big boys put a
monitor on their steadicams!

And why would it look like a "hobby" camera? I think that
depends on how you make it. Ofcourse I would NOT want to
get RID of the viewfinder. Lets have both....

Scott,

Can you explain why a bigger LCD block would lead to a decrease
in low-light performance? It does have an advantage in that you
can mount some more lenses without conversion adapters
(hopefully -> because of the 35 mm vs. CCD size etc.). Ofcourse
the mount itself might still need an adaptor.

I for one would love an lcd and/or bigger crt...
more camera weight shift to shoulder,
full frame in frame mode ala new panny 24p...
built in phantom power and xlr
in screen uv levels...a must
on tape recorded full settings so you can see on playback ala sony (i know xl1s already does something like this)
16:9 borders
real manual switch, no servo...for times when there is no time to switch lenses...
bigger ccd would be great, lets get rid of pixel shift and just get 1/2 ccds or 2/3

is this asking too much, maybe maybe not, most of what i want is already in a combination panny/pd150

**ohh i almost forgot one of the most important features, NO MORE AUDIO SAMPLING at anything but 48kHz, lets keep it in sync**

I now want high defenition with bigger CCDs.
Don't care about anything else like 24p or true progressive scan.

Although I like the idea of the flash card to save levels in. That's great!

The one other thing I want is a switch from video mode to film mode, where a magic genie inside waves a wand and makes your footage look like it was shot on 35mm film.


FWIW, some of the higher end Sony DSR series of pro camera come with external LCD monitors built in.

Dylan: "FWIW, some of the higher end Sony DSR series of pro camera come with external LCD monitors built in."

Indeed they do, as does the new JVC GY-DV5000U, which is a real honey of a SD camera. Small LCD's place very little drain on the battery, probably much less than a servo zoom motor.

Rob,
The reason I believe that higher resolution would decrease low light performance is because you are increasing the number of pixels on the CCD meaning you have to fit more in the same amount of space (assuming they kept the CCDs the same size). More pixels in the same amount of space means the pixels have to be smaller. Smaller pixels means each pixel can absorb less light. I don't know if this is right or not. I think it was brought up in another thread somewhere on this forum...

Scott

You are right in your explanation of the phenomenon of "more pixels equals lowered sensitivity"...it's similar in photography, as big grain makes a faster film than fine grain for exactly the same reason. On the other hand...I think progress in ccd technology would most likely negate any reduction in sensitivity...ie the smaller chipped, higher res gl2 has much smaller pixels than the xl1s, and is nearly equal in terms of sensitivity, at least in lower light situations (it is about 1 to 1.5 stops less sensitive at normal daylight levels).

BG

Hmm... I never understood the term fast vs. slow in film terms.
Can someone enlighten me on this?

If I think about it I'm thinking they choose it for the reason that
if you want the same exposure on the different films one would
need a faster or slower shutter??? (big gamble here)

Explain this please... Thanks.

Rob, it confuses me too sometimes.
As far as I know... :)

Faster film is a film that absorbs more light, so you can use a faster shutter speed at the same aperture.

A faster lens is a lens with a bigger aperture, which means you can open the lens up more to let more light in, and in turn use a faster shutter speed to obtain the same exposure.

I think film/photography guys like to make up all these terms so they can secretly laugh at us video guys while we try and figure it out.

And slow is just the opposite.

Dylan,

You got it. The only slight correction is faster film does not absorb more light. The faster film (i.e. 800 is faster than 100) is more sensitive to the same amount of light. When the light strikes the faster film more chemical reaction takes place.

Given a certain amount of light the faster film will require less light for proper exposure. This results in letting less light hit the film (larger F#=less light, more DOF) or light hits film for less time (faster shutter speed, less blur, less shake from hand holding).

Faster film (more sensitive to light) is not as sharp, and the colors are less saturated and less accurate. These are generalities and should help you get the concepts.


Jeff

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?

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?

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.

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!

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!

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!

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.

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"!)

Well that is definitely a new idea!

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...