• You are welcome to promote here, but members are also welcome to reply with their opinions.

Canon XL2

Thank you Knightly for the link, and after reading through it seems that Canon XL1 is slightly better than Sony VX1000, however both are capable of doing the job.

Spinner, i would like to buy new, but 3CCD camcorders are so excessively expensive! For example, last wednesday i was down in London and saw a brand new XL2 in the shop window for sale at £3299. I was considering the DVX but theres none listed on ebay and the UK dealer prices are much more expensive than the US. So i have found a UK dealer whose selling second hand equipment and is offering a Sony VX1000 for £550.

However theres no rush to buy anymore as my next film "about the nutcase filmmaker called Richard Head" is now on hold, as i've now been cast in someone elses film and rehearsals are going well.
 
Last edited:
Eddie Rex said:
Spinner, i would like to buy new, but 3CCD camcorders are so excessively expensive! For example, last wednesday i was down in London and saw a brand new XL2 in the shop window for sale at £3299. I was considering the DVX but theres none listed on ebay and the UK dealer prices are much more expensive than the US. So i have found a UK dealer whose selling second hand equipment and is offering a Sony VX1000 for £550.
Click to expand...


...well, this is why I was asking....

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=1919

...its about $2,000 (american), but you are UK, right? This is a PAL camera...

-- spinner :cool:
 
it has a 16 x 9 option in the menus, but it just masks the top and bottom of the chip rather than doing any actual magic to it...you're better off shooting 4 x 3 and matting it in post...that way, you can adjust headroom in the editor.
 
Its all about the filmmaker

MdiFilm is absolutely right. Any of these cameras is good enough to get the results you want. Personally I own an XL2 and I am very happy with it. I had to wait years to get it, so needless to say, I am thrilled with it. I have a good who owns the Panasonic DVX100B (which is PAL, as is my XL2). The XL2 has a few cool advantages like programable focus settings which allow you do do very cool racks (half racks anyway) since neither camera has focal length markings on the lense barrel. At least with the XL2 you can set the rack up by eye and it will execute perfectly automatically.. There are a few technical advantages on the side of the XL2 like quite a bit higher pixel count, and highest resolution at 16:9, The Panasonic has its greatest resolution at at 4:3, so think about what is best for you there. The Panasonic also works better with low light levels than the XL2which can be a huge advantage. There are pros and cons on both sides, but the bottom line is, either way, you get an excellent camera capable of absolutely pro looking results. The technical differences look bigger on paper than they do on screen. Keep one thing in mind... many pros using Mini DV are actually ordering PAL versions from Europe, because PAL has segnificantly higher resolution than NTSC. In the end, the biggest difference in your final result wont be determined by the XL2 or DVX (or NTSC or PAL for that matter)... it will be determined by your lighting, your framing... and most of all, your story and performance of your actors. Even a Panaflex HD production camera wont look good without great lighting. And the greatest lighting wont matter without a great story. Just get what you can afford and be happy that we live in an age where pro quality is at least somewhat affordable. Just buy what your heart tells you and then forget about all the techo comparisons. Put your mind on what really matters; You movie. Either way, you won't be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
segnificant upgrades

There is a big difference between the XL1 and the XL2. The camera was completely redesigned from the CCD up. I would stick with the DVX-XL2 dilema rather than go back to older models. The newer technology has really put these new cameras on the playing field of the pro game. Also you have zero hours on the heads and transport. Check out DVcreaters.net and you can see an excellent promo for the XL2. it will also distinguish clearly between the XL2 and the XL1 (as well as between the XL1 and XL1s).
 
Thunderclap said:
As Breeblebox said, it comes with two mics but if you're going to be shooting a feature I highly recommend a boom mic. Never use the camera mic unless absolutely neccessary other wise expect your sound editor to end up hating you.
Click to expand...
To be more specific, you want to use a "shotgun" mic attatched to a boom arm. Hold the mic pointed at the subjects chest from as close as possible without entering into the frame and you will have good results. A shotgun mic is designed specifically for this purpose. It picks up sound very directionally (rejecting sound coming from the sides) and is meant to pick up sound coming from a greater distance than a standard mic. The best sound you hear however is done in an audio production studio. Usually all dialog and foley sounds is re recorded in a studio and replaced over the location sound.
 
To clarify the aspect ratios between the XL2 and the DVX100.. The XL2 PAL has 3 CCDs, each with 800,000 Pixels. The full width of the CCD is used in 16:9 mode, making this the highest resolution mode. Basically the left and right edges are cropped off to make a 4:3 Ratio. After cropping to 4:3, the XL2's pixel count is about the same as the DVX100 in its 4:3 ratio, being the DVX's optimal format. If you plan to shoot at 4:3, there is less of any difference between the two. But at 16:9 mode, the DVX100 simply blacks out the top and bottom of the frame to simulate 16:9 at the expense of those pixels being blacked out. Furthermore, this is not true 16:9! this is 4:3 with a little mask across the top and bottom of the frame.Therefore at 16:9 in both cameras, the XL2 has about twice the pixels of the DVX100. An other way to look at this is; When you export the AVX100 "16:9" into say, Final Cut Pro, you must import it as a 4:3 file or it will be stretched horizontally. The XL2 is true 16:9 in this respect and should be imported as a 16:9 file. By another comparison, when you display a "16:9" shot, directly from the AVX100 on a standard 4:3 television, you will see a perfect 16:9 picture in letterbox form. The XL2 shot at 16:9 displayed on the same tv direct from camera will fill the 4:3 screen with a virtically stretched image, showing no black bars. I think the XL2s advantage might be more distinct when it comes to the newer 16:9 flat TVs. The 16:9 image of the XL2 fills the screen perfectly on these new tvs. The 16:9 shot from the DVX will still have to be displayed in 4:3 mode, placing the letterboxed 16:9 image into a 4:3 frame on the screen resulting in a small 16:9 picture surrounded by a large black box. There is a stretch mode in the 16:9 aspect mode of the DVX100 that would be more appropriate for this scenario and should fill the screen properly. Remember though, all this will go through editing and all this aspect ratio issues can be sorted out there. Plus from there, it will be compressed segnificantly to fit ono a DVD format anyway. Both the XL2 and the DVX images are greater than DVD can utilize, so the difference between them is not as great as it might sound.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top