xl2 will include 24p at DVinfo.net

Robert Mann Z. · April 7th, 2003, 03:06 PM

a recent interview with Tim Smith indicated 24 frames progressive will be added to the list of features however will not be released till next year... 04...currently i'm very happy with both of my xl1 and don't mind the wait...

Jeff Donald · April 7th, 2003, 03:39 PM

Do you have a link to the interview?

Robert Mann Z. · April 7th, 2003, 03:56 PM

i'm not a fan of this web site it is filled with pop up ads so please be aware if you have a slow connection...

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/canon_xl1s_replacement_04_07_03.htm

just as a side note in jan my sources at canon have told me xl2 was 18 months away, they have not indicated any spec though...

John Threat · April 7th, 2003, 04:55 PM

24p might be old hat in 18 months

Maya Taylor · April 9th, 2003, 09:29 PM

from another forum

"Canon reps said that the XL2 is in developement right now. It will have true progressive scan and will also shoot at 24P. It will not be announced until NAB 2004 and most likely not released until september 2004. They were very honest in their replies and pretty much said that they do not want to bring a product out until they are sure it is ready"

Dylan Couper · April 9th, 2003, 10:30 PM

The thing I'm most curious about is whether they will be keeping the same body style and lens mount.

Nathan Gifford · April 10th, 2003, 11:03 AM

I think the biggest issue will be the lens mount. As long as they can remain compatible with the previous lenses, they will have a winner.

I wonder how honest some of the people are being about rumored XL2? Most people in a position to know have signed NDAs.

Heath McKnight · April 10th, 2003, 05:24 PM

At 2-pop, some guy at UPS (who also is a video head) alleged he saw an XL-2 box and lo and behold, it was a 24P camera with 3 ccd's and each ccd had 680,000 pixels, that's per ccd (had to say it twice). Wishful thinking? Lies? Said it looked like an XL-1. If it's true (or not), is 680,000 pixels HD?

heath

Jeff Donald · April 10th, 2003, 07:42 PM

It's tough to sell products that aren't announced. Why not announce it at NAB and get all that free press. Canon is one of the shrewdest marketing companies out there. If they had it, they'd have shown it.

Now it might have been shown under glass to a select few. Camera companies have done this for years. A mock-up is shown in a glass case. It is just a shell, no electronics, nothing. But it looks like the real thing. This is meant to convince higher ups of their sincerity in actually building a new model and for the VIP's to keep Canon in mind when it comes time to order XL2's.

I would take Canon at their word and not expect a replacement to the XL1S until after the first of the year. It might be shown at PMA in 2004

Nathan Gifford · April 11th, 2003, 11:23 AM

The Panny DVX100 when shown at some shows was nothing but a mockup.

Most of the guesses about what an XL2 will have are probably pretty good because Canon wants to give them what they want. Besides since the XL1 is an established system it gives Canon the advantage of an installed customer base wanting to migrate to the XL2.

Heath McKnight · April 11th, 2003, 11:26 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nathan Gifford : The Panny DVX100 when shown at some shows was nothing but a mockup.

Most of the guesses about what an XL2 will have are probably pretty good because Canon wants to give them what they want. Besides since the XL1 is an established system it gives Canon the advantage of an installed customer base wanting to migrate to the XL2. -->>>

If the XL2 really does have 680,000 pixels per CCD, does that make it HD? Do they work in tandem, producing a 2 megapixel image or not?

heath

Boyd Ostroff · April 11th, 2003, 12:35 PM

This is interesting. I was just looking at the specs for the Sony PDX-10 which has 3 - one megapixel chips and states that the effective resolution for 4:3 video is 690,000 pixels. That camera can do "real" 16:9. I'm assuming however that this is written on videotape as anamorphically squeezed 720x480; the camera's stated horizontal resolution is 530 lines. What resolution do higher end DV cameras like the Sony 570 record to tape? Is it also anamorphic 720x480? I'm confused as to whether any camera that records in the DV or DVCAM format can offer higher resolution than this.

I've been doing some outdoor shooting of landscapes recently and am frustrated by the lack of detail afforded by the 720x480 image, especially after suffering from DV compression.

Heath McKnight · April 11th, 2003, 12:41 PM

Boyd,

Go hi-def, man, that's where the future is and the resolution is KILLER! And the future, apparently, is now! I'm looking at the JVC mini-HD camera, but I'm thinking it's garbage for now. Go to the DVinfo.net page on the camera and read the reactions to it, not so good. But it's a start. And it may force Canon to do go 24 p hi-def with the XL-2.

heath

<<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : This is interesting. I was just looking at the specs for the Sony PDX-10 which has 3 - one megapixel chips and states that the effective resolution for 4:3 video is 690,000 pixels. That camera can do "real" 16:9. I'm assuming however that this is written on videotape as anamorphically squeezed 720x480; the camera's stated horizontal resolution is 530 lines. What resolution do higher end DV cameras like the Sony 570 record to tape? Is it also anamorphic 720x480? I'm confused as to whether any camera that records in the DV or DVCAM format can offer higher resolution than this.

I've been doing some outdoor shooting of landscapes recently and am frustrated by the lack of detail afforded by the 720x480 image, especially after suffering from DV compression. -->>>

April 7th, 2003, 03:06 PM	#1
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	xl2 will include 24p a recent interview with Tim Smith indicated 24 frames progressive will be added to the list of features however will not be released till next year... 04...currently i'm very happy with both of my xl1 and don't mind the wait...

April 7th, 2003, 03:39 PM	#2
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Do you have a link to the interview? __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 9th, 2003, 10:30 PM	#6
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	The thing I'm most curious about is whether they will be keeping the same body style and lens mount. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 10th, 2003, 11:03 AM	#7
Nathan Gifford Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tickfaw, LA Posts: 1,217	I think the biggest issue will be the lens mount. As long as they can remain compatible with the previous lenses, they will have a winner. I wonder how honest some of the people are being about rumored XL2? Most people in a position to know have signed NDAs. __________________ Nathan Gifford Southern Cyclist Magazine & Productions For quick answers try our Search! To see me and Rob Lohman click here

April 10th, 2003, 05:24 PM	#8
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	XL-2 Rumors At 2-pop, some guy at UPS (who also is a video head) alleged he saw an XL-2 box and lo and behold, it was a 24P camera with 3 ccd's and each ccd had 680,000 pixels, that's per ccd (had to say it twice). Wishful thinking? Lies? Said it looked like an XL-1. If it's true (or not), is 680,000 pixels HD? heath

April 7th, 2003, 03:56 PM	#3
Robert Mann Z. Skyonic New York Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 614	i'm not a fan of this web site it is filled with pop up ads so please be aware if you have a slow connection... http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/canon_xl1s_replacement_04_07_03.htm just as a side note in jan my sources at canon have told me xl2 was 18 months away, they have not indicated any spec though...

April 7th, 2003, 04:55 PM	#4
John Threat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York Posts: 322	24p might be old hat in 18 months

April 9th, 2003, 09:29 PM	#5
Maya Taylor New Boot Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 21	from another forum "Canon reps said that the XL2 is in developement right now. It will have true progressive scan and will also shoot at 24P. It will not be announced until NAB 2004 and most likely not released until september 2004. They were very honest in their replies and pretty much said that they do not want to bring a product out until they are sure it is ready"

April 10th, 2003, 07:42 PM	#9
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	It's tough to sell products that aren't announced. Why not announce it at NAB and get all that free press. Canon is one of the shrewdest marketing companies out there. If they had it, they'd have shown it. Now it might have been shown under glass to a select few. Camera companies have done this for years. A mock-up is shown in a glass case. It is just a shell, no electronics, nothing. But it looks like the real thing. This is meant to convince higher ups of their sincerity in actually building a new model and for the VIP's to keep Canon in mind when it comes time to order XL2's. I would take Canon at their word and not expect a replacement to the XL1S until after the first of the year. It might be shown at PMA in 2004 __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

April 11th, 2003, 11:23 AM	#10
Nathan Gifford Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Tickfaw, LA Posts: 1,217	The Panny DVX100 when shown at some shows was nothing but a mockup. Most of the guesses about what an XL2 will have are probably pretty good because Canon wants to give them what they want. Besides since the XL1 is an established system it gives Canon the advantage of an installed customer base wanting to migrate to the XL2. __________________ Nathan Gifford Southern Cyclist Magazine & Productions For quick answers try our Search! To see me and Rob Lohman click here

April 11th, 2003, 11:26 AM	#11
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	<<<-- Originally posted by Nathan Gifford : The Panny DVX100 when shown at some shows was nothing but a mockup. Most of the guesses about what an XL2 will have are probably pretty good because Canon wants to give them what they want. Besides since the XL1 is an established system it gives Canon the advantage of an installed customer base wanting to migrate to the XL2. -->>> If the XL2 really does have 680,000 pixels per CCD, does that make it HD? Do they work in tandem, producing a 2 megapixel image or not? heath

April 11th, 2003, 12:35 PM	#12
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,787	This is interesting. I was just looking at the specs for the Sony PDX-10 which has 3 - one megapixel chips and states that the effective resolution for 4:3 video is 690,000 pixels. That camera can do "real" 16:9. I'm assuming however that this is written on videotape as anamorphically squeezed 720x480; the camera's stated horizontal resolution is 530 lines. What resolution do higher end DV cameras like the Sony 570 record to tape? Is it also anamorphic 720x480? I'm confused as to whether any camera that records in the DV or DVCAM format can offer higher resolution than this. I've been doing some outdoor shooting of landscapes recently and am frustrated by the lack of detail afforded by the 720x480 image, especially after suffering from DV compression.

April 11th, 2003, 12:41 PM	#13
Heath McKnight MPS Digital Studios Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Posts: 8,531	Boyd, Go hi-def, man, that's where the future is and the resolution is KILLER! And the future, apparently, is now! I'm looking at the JVC mini-HD camera, but I'm thinking it's garbage for now. Go to the DVinfo.net page on the camera and read the reactions to it, not so good. But it's a start. And it may force Canon to do go 24 p hi-def with the XL-2. heath <<<-- Originally posted by Boyd Ostroff : This is interesting. I was just looking at the specs for the Sony PDX-10 which has 3 - one megapixel chips and states that the effective resolution for 4:3 video is 690,000 pixels. That camera can do "real" 16:9. I'm assuming however that this is written on videotape as anamorphically squeezed 720x480; the camera's stated horizontal resolution is 530 lines. What resolution do higher end DV cameras like the Sony 570 record to tape? Is it also anamorphic 720x480? I'm confused as to whether any camera that records in the DV or DVCAM format can offer higher resolution than this. I've been doing some outdoor shooting of landscapes recently and am frustrated by the lack of detail afforded by the 720x480 image, especially after suffering from DV compression. -->>>