Any XL1 sample footage?

[Bjoern Sonnenschein]

Hello,
I´m going to buy that cam or the vx2k for event-filming.
the xl1 seems to be better for events because its manual controll but has a softer picture.
unfortunately there´s no much uncompressed footage or framegrabs in the net to see if the picture is too soft for good filming.
can you give me any framegrabs or footage for reference please?

thanks a lot and sorry for my bad english ;-)

[Chris Hurd]

Buy or rent a copy of the movie "28 Days Later," shot entirely on the XL1.

[Bjoern Sonnenschein]

but that material is edited.
no chance to see the real quality.

[Chris Hurd]

The raw video was good enough for a feature film that had a world-wide theatrical release... so don't you think it'll be good enough for your purposes? Especially considering that your both of camera choices (XL1 and VX2000) are several generations old and are no longer manufactured. In other words, if you're limiting yourself to outdated camcorders that can only be bought in used condition, what difference does it make? Thousands of people have been satisfied for years by the XL1 and VX2000 back when they were new, so why would your experience be any different?

[Roger Rosales]

How much more "real" can you get? An entire blockbuster movie shot on the camera you're looking into buying...It's only a testament to what the camera is capable of. It goes beyond your needs, if you know how to use it right and edit good.

A camcorder is only as good as its user. Don't expect magic if you don't know how to use it. Read up on it, study its features, rent one if you can and play with it as much as you can. Tweak the settings.

You can have the most expensive film camera in the world, or even the top of the line DV camera, but if you don't know how to rig one up, it's useless.

[Cole McDonald]

With 28 days later, if you'd like to see the comparison between the XL1 footage and 35mm, watch the movie and compare the ending to the beginning...the end is shot 35mm for artistic reasons as is the beginning in DV.

my stuff on my site (see sig) has XL1s footage.

This footage starts with XL1s footage:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=66451

if you go to www.imdb.com and search out 28 days later, you can click on technical specifications and click on the xl1 link in there for more listings of movies shot with the xl1.

[Chris Hurd]

Try this link:

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?CAM:Canon%20XL-1

In my browser it times out after 200 listings, right around "One Angry Dwarf" or so.

"28 Days Later" is mistakenly listed as being shot with an XL1S. It was actually shot with (several) XL1 camcorders.

[Djee Smit]

Did they by the way use a 35 mm adapter and objectives for 28 days. I did see this film, but can't really recall how it looked.

Also, for some extra xl1 footage, a short film i shot on a xl1 with the standard lens,

http://www.grijzewolken.nl/vzion/pro.html

[Alan Larsen]

even with a hollywood movie being shot on an xl1 doesn't show the real quality of the camera....because they use totally different lenses that are souped up and many more items to make it look like that. It doesnt give a sense of what it's gonna look like in the real world.

[Ben Gurvich]

What you guys are missing is the fact that 28 days later has been transferred to film and then telecined for DVD release.

Film is a huge part of the equation i guarantee you. This is probably 60% of why it looks filmic, grainy, flimlike basically.

Yes the xl1 is great, yes it can look filmic,
but transferring to film makes it look a whole lot more like.... Film.

If it had no bearing on the look, then why would they bother doing an expensive telecine when they already have the video files in the first place.

i have brought this up many times before, and it tends to really annoy me that Canon likes to think that if you have an XL1, then you can get that look, all things being equal.

Now XLh1 thats a different story.

Ben Gurvich

[Jason Varner]

More useless info:
Shot on Pal XL1-higher resolution better colorspace IMO, easier/better transfer to film than ntsc in the pre 24p dv era.
More useless opining:
You could give 99 of 100 camera guys XLH1's Mini 35 adapter's and all the free telecine in the world and the footage is not even gonna come close without all that pro lighting. The XL1 is a great starter cam. When you can make the footage look great with a camera that's nearly 10 years old you'll be a superstar when you upgrade.

P.S. If you had a movie planned for theatrical release in 2002 it pretty much had to be on film.

[Mekhael Trepanier]

to help understnad what i think is being said
correct me if im wrong

the movie is shot entirely in DV then once its all edited and so on they convert it over to 35mm film so that it can be shown on the big screen ??

[Ben Gurvich]

Basically yes. But doing that conversion introduces several qualities that are not inherent in DV, which is what this arguement is about. Just briefly i was playing with an XL1 the other day, and the picture is still fantastic! If you could get something like reel stream on there it would be an HD contender.

[Djee Smit]

They also did shoot some parts on film i believe, at the end of the film.