Standard rods for Chrosziel or cavision are 15mm spaced 60 mm centre to centre. I really don't think that you're going to get exact measurements re the lens axis centre to rods as all of the support brackets and associated mounts are adjustable. Are you thinking of machining your own?

Yes I will be machining my own. I never thought of the possibility of having them adjustable, and would want to avoid it really as I am hanging something heavy in front of my lens, so that ideally the thing would be as few parts as possible. Also it will make machining the thing easier/quicker...

Many thanks for your info.


Kai.

Back again!

Jeff mentioned a lens support for the 35-350.

While reading this site I noticed this:

http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/rods.htm

Anyone think this will work for the 35-350?

I don't want "junk" or something that I have to send back.

Input??

Thanks

I have a problem.

I have project Im committed to this weekend and am currently without a viewfinder for my Xl1s. I have untill friday to figure out a solution to my problem. I am thinking of getting a tv from walmart and using it as a monitor, then returning it after the shoot (I know its dishonest, but Im in a bind!). Is there any way to get the zebra pattern to show up with an external monitor?

Thanks,
Stephen

anyone using a 1.6 extender out there how do they like it, and is it still clear looking for something to use outdoors and when im in the back of room shooting at a podium.

I have a 16x manual lens which i wish had a doubler but perhaps the 1.6 could be of help any thoughts. thanks in advance for any feedback.

M

Michel, I use the 1.6 all the time. I use it primarily for wildlife and close-ups. Even with the 16x stock lens I get great video. I also use it with close-up adapters for incredible macro shots of insects. I have NOT tried to stack 2 or more of the 1.6's but maybe other have. I have not had and distorsion or focus problems with it. Bob Safay

(For a wedding video environment) what would be the optimum input configuration for my wireless (EW112)---


1) conneted directly to the on-board mic input...or

2) connected via XLR connector(s) to my MA-100...or

3) connected with RCA adapter to the audio 1 or 2 inputs

Thanks in advance

Does anybody have any input on this particular topic? Thanks,

The shutter speed affects the light getting into the cam, not the frame capture. Frame capture is still 25/50. As shutter speed decreases, though, motion will appear blurred and the image will be lighter (assuming that aperture is not compensated). Faster shutter speed is good (assuming enough light) for 'freezing' motion, i.e. reducing blurring in faster action shots.

I bought a 1.6 and used it quite a bit. That is until I ponied up the big
bucks for an EOS adapter and a 100-400mm USM. The difference between
the two rigs is dramatic. The 1.6 looks pretty good, but it does soften the
image (which can be a good thing). The EOS combo is tons better
in both sharpness, color saturation and in ease of focus imo.

The EOS/100-400 rig fully zoomed out is about what the 16X/1.6 does
fully zoomed in.

Have fun!

I remember someone asked this question a while ago and the answer was to look for a discontinued Canon... I think. We are in Haiti so don't have the possibility of scouring used-camera shops, sites, etc.

We need a 2nd camera we can afford -- $1000 or less? -- to do some two-camera shoots. We'd like to match the "look" of the XL-1S at NIGHT or in low light. Impossible? We would love any advice.

The XL1(S) has 1/3" CCDs, and plays back 460 lines. If you want an older 3 chip miniDV cam with similar resolution, LUX requirements and color saturation, look for the Panasonic AG-EZ1. This cam also has 1/3" CCDs and a big lens.

The sub-$1000 discontinued camcorder mentioned on this board in the past is the Canon Optura Pi, which is very hard to find now. Be aware that it is a good match for the older XL1 only in broad daylight, but not the XL1S under any circumstances. The best match for the XL1S would be the Canon GL2, however you'll need to spend about $2200. One option available to you if you're on a limited budget is to borrow or rent the second camera. Hope this helps,

Dear People of DV Community --

Would anyone happen to know the wiring layout of the stock Canon XL1s stereo microphone inputs? I would like to build an external microphone to utilize the balanced inputs not otherwise available. There are five pins - has anybody identified these? I gather than there is one ground, two positive, and two negative signals to feed the stereo channels. I just don't know which is which.

Thank you!

I don't follow what you're trying to do. Can you elaborate a little more? Are you using the MA-100/200 adapters?

The standard stereo mic (supplied with the XL1/XL1s) is single ended (unbalanced) as is the mic input.

There is a 3.5mm stereo mini phone jack/plug that provides the audio connection and ground. Tip is left channel, ring is right channel, and sleeve is ground.

There also is a 2.5mm mono submini phone plug/jack that provides ~5 VDC power to the standard Canon mic. Tip is +5 volts, sleeve is nothing. The ground return is via the audio conenctor. (This reduces the chance of shorting the powersupply if someone accidently inserts a conducting item such as a nail. wire, pin, etc.)

Over the weekend, I experienced a few power outages, twice with my XL1S running off the power adapter while connected to my PC.

I'm concerned about the possible damage this may cause. I suppose it's technically no different from just turning off the cam, especially in my case since I did not have a tape in the camera at the time.

What kind of damage would this do to an XL1 if a tape was running in the tape transport?

Usually power outage is not a real problem with electric levels
because they will fall instead of rise. However sometimes there
can be some spikes that in theory could damage your equipment.

Now the tape transport would be a more difficult question to
answer. In theory the heads would still be on the tape and
only get off when you power up the camera again. But then
again they might have some circuitry in place that detects a
power loss and then quickly turns the equipment off. I've never
had this problem or tested it so I can't tell you what the camera
will do exactly. I'm not gonna test it out either.....

I'm shooting theatrical productions (constantly zooming from long shots to close-ups) using an XL1 with a Canon FU-1000 Monochrome CRT Viewfinder. I used to use it with the dual battery pack because you supposedly can't power it with AC...however recently I have been running it with AC power using a Canon CA-910A Compact Power Adapter MB9. Everything seemed to be doing fine until recently when I noticed that the left channel of my audio (using standard on camera mike) kind of drifts in and out. The right channel is fine, but some sort of ghost or goblin seems to be playing a cruel joke and turning the left channel soft or even off and then back on again. It doesn't just click in and out like there is a short it just drifts in and out. I though for a while it may be somehow connected to one of my many zooms because at times when I'm zooming in for a tight shot the left channel comes back in...but this doesn't consistantly happen. Does anyone have any ideas? Could it be related to powering the monochrome viewfinder with AC...am I doing something wrong...or is it time to send it into the repair shop? Thanks.

AGC or manual audio mode?

Does it happen with the standard viewfinder or standard battery pack?

Loud aduio signal induced in one channel might cause a similar effect in the other channel if using AGC mode. But that may not be you rcase.

I was watching one of the documentaries in the "Dancer in the Dark" DVD and saw how they used anamorphic lenses (which they made themselves) on thier shoots that consisted of 100 little sony's linked together for the musical parts. I always heard that this can be a real distortion issue around the outside of the frame but this stuff didn't look that bad. Does anyone have any experience with the anamorphic adapters for the xl1 series?

Secondly, I'm new to shooting DV and possibly using an anamorphic adapter so I'm confused about something:

If your forcing all the light information of a 16:9 image onto a 4:3 CCD with an anamorphic aren't you still restricted to the maximum information a 4:3 CCD can handle? So when the 4:3 image is stretched back out to 16:9 on a screen wouldn't having only the info a 4:3 chip provide result in degraded image?

If the above is true, would one get more resolution just cutting the image down to 16:9 in post or is going from 4:3 to 16:9 less of a loss of resolution?

You're right that the DV will only give you 720 x 480, no matter how you stretch it. To be true 16:9 you'd need 854x480 (with square pixels), but that's not an option. Actually it's even a little worse, because your camera will only give you about 500 horizontal lines. But such are the limitations you have to work within.

But your logic fails in the final sentence "would one get more resolution just cutting the image down to 16:9 in post". To do this you will be throwing away an area of 720 x 120 pixels to end up with a 16:9 image that's 720 x 360. So in other words you've thrown away 25% of the image data which the 4:3 CCD is capable of capturing. That's why the anamorphic lens gives you better results. Even though you must stretch it out, you're working with the full 720x480 frame.

But anamorphic lenses have limitations too and are expensive. I gather they're especially problematic on the XL-1 due to the 72mm size. You can't zoom through the full range, they vignette at full wide, you need expensive matte boxes for a lens shade or filter holder, you can't add a wide adaptor to them, etc.

Several new cameras offer "real" 16:9 by using higher resolution CCD's, like the Sony PDX-10. This camera overcomes all the shortcomings mentioned above with anamorphic lenses, but is a smaller camera with smaller chips. And even in this case, your image is still anamorphic 16:9 at 720 x 480. Unfortunately, you need to spend some big bucks to do any better than this...

Thanks Boyd,

I'm just going to hope that in six or so months Canon comes out with 16:9 native XL series camera that's under ten grand. You can probably spend half that just getting an adapter setup with a matte box and filters.

Hello,

I am looking to purchase some close-up Achromatic filters for my XL1s and I can't afford the Century Optics filters.

Has anybody tried the Tiffen set of +1, +2, +4?

What I'm hoping to do is not have to open the lens all the way so I can achieve super soft backgrounds on extreme close-up shot images.

Any advice is welcomed.

I've used the Tiffen lens for shooting small items; e.g., color slides on a light table and closeups of small items, stamps, coins, etc. Works well for the price. I mainly have used the +1 and +2.

But the modest cost Tiffen's are not achromatic. Not sure if they will give you the depth of field effect you are seeking.

i filmed an entire tape this sunday, outdoors. after reviewing the footage, there appears to be this fuzzy blue line going across the entire bottom edge of the entire tape. is this a known problem? i was using an xl1s with the stock lens and a tiffen uv haze-1 filter. thanks.

Hi Forum,
I asked Cavision the following question:

Hi Cavision,

I bought a Cavision bellows Matte box a while ago, and now I am interested if it will work together with an anamorphic adapter either from Optex or Century?

I have a Canon XL1S PAL camera. Thanks!!!

Here is what Cavision answered:

Dear Thomas,

An anamorphic adapter lens can be used with our matte box.

Regards,

Cavision Enterprises Ltd.

Recently a few people have recommended cleaning video heads between changing tape brands, or if the heads are dirty.
It appears that the preferred materials (better than abrasive cleaning tapes) are a chamois swab and a fluorinated hydrocarbon solvent. That's all fine, but can someone explain how to do it. As I look into my XL1-s, I think I can see a (one) video head, but surely couldn't reach it safely with a swab, and even if I could only about 25% of the head surface is exposed. You can't get it to turn with the chamber open. Is this really something ordinary people can do?

Steve Siegel,
Miami

Steve,
I'd really recommend sticking with a cleaning tape. (No pun intended.) As long as you don't overuse them (ex: daily, weekly) they'll pose no trouble at all. They're not quite the sandpaper that you may have been led to believe. Leave the swabs work to Canon technicians who have the tools and skills to perform such cleaning properly, generally with the transport subsystem removed from the chassis.

One of the longest threads on this board is about this "problem".
Yes, it is a known problem. Most people don't have much problems
with it...

The thread can be found here (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1743)

Why isn't this usually a problem:

1) output for TV: the line is outside the TV safe area and will not display on a TV

2) most people letterbox their movies to make them more cinema like. This will overwrite the line with a black bar

3) for web output you need to lower the resolution. Crop the last couple of lines before resizing and the problem is gone

4) if you are going to view the full resolution video on a computer in DV/DiVX/QuickTime/MPEG etc. you will see it. Depending on the situation it might not be such a bad thing to either overwrite that couple of lines with a little black bar (just a couple of pixels high) on top and bottom of the picture or crop it out.

Has anyone tried or used the wide angle converter made by OPTEX, one with full zoom through??

How does this perform in relation to the similar or equivalent one by CENTURY OPTICS???

Or is the difference only really noticeable with expert equipment or under very tight tests????

Does anybody have any tried and true techniques to shoot in regular movie mode with cinema-like results? It seems that the partial loss of resolution/picture quality in frame mode irks me. Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

The how-to-get-a-film-look question is so prevalent that we've dedicated an entire forum to it (see Towards a Film Look Using DV (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=34)). Although all points are arguable, my own feeling is that the quality of content and production values far outweigh a "film look" anyday. That said, put your money into filters, a matte boxs and careful lighting. I'm sure others will have additional advice,

We shot a graduation ceremony in a large pavilion that uses fluorescent lights. One of our XL1s' was, I'm guessing, 40-50 feet from the stage doing medium shots, plus some zoomed close-ups. Our other XL1s was off to one side shooting close-ups, while another company's GL2 was front and off-center doing medium shots.

Everything looks good except for the medium shots from the far away XL1s and the GL2. There seems to be what looks kind of like color desaturation that goes in and out intermittently. Can't speak for the GL2, but our cameras were set on Av, with the gain at +6.

What happened?

Using aperture priority exposure mode. Check the shutter speed on the recording from the data code. You may find that the shutter speed has changed from 1/60 or 1/20 during the time of shifting color.

This might be cause by a beat between the pulsed light output of the flourescents (120 Hz arc) and the camcorder field rate (59.94) If this is the case, using shutter priority at 1/60 or perhaps 1/120 would probably avoid the problem.

New user here just thought I would ask a few questions.

I am currently weighing the purchase of an audio set-up for my film work. I do not wish to have audio locked in cam, prefer to have audio and video separated until post. Looking at something like this:

-HHB portadisc or Tascam DA-P1
-Sennheiser me66/k6 or MKH-416/418 (stereo)
-sennheiser, Lectrosonic, or Azden Wireless system (x2)
-Shure FP-33 field mixer

Now, the goal here is to create a complete audio system that will endure camera change and time, so that I do not need to purchase extra widgets and doohickeys in the future.

Question time: For those of you on this board, am I missing anything? Are there better set-ups? Personal Set-up recommendations, etc. I am open for suggestion; it has been my experience that buying high quality equipment saves a lot of headache, in the long run. Also, has anyone used the beachtek DXA-6?


Cheers,

Dick Steele
3rd Coast Cinematics

I used the Korg D12, and it was great- 12 channels, 4.5 gig HD that would record like 18 hours of cd audio on one channel, digital in/out, 1/4 / xlr in and out... it was perfect. Except for the fact that it needed to be plugged in. If the power was interrupted, you lost everything that wasn't saved. If you will have reliable power, I'd say this was the way to go.

I use a Sennheiser 416 for my own stuff, it's a lovely sounding mike and solid as a rock. Most of the recordists I work with on a pro level use Shoeps or newer mikes I've never heard off, but naturally they are much more expensive. The 416 is sort of "old school", but works just fine for me.

anyone use this bag for their xl1s? i'm really considering this bag because of its size. does the viewfinder and mic have to be removed in order for the xl1s to fit in there? thanks.

Does anyone know about this stereo shotgun mic, the MKH-418 M-S Stereo Mic?

Sennheiser uses a 5-pin XLR connector to carry a stereo signal, instead of a 3-pin and states that it is designed for film and broadcast use. What would be the effect on sound when using a stereo shotgun for a boom mic or camera mic. How does it work? Is there anything on the market at current to facilitate the use of 5-pin XLR? Would it be necessary to step it down to 3-pin?

Lot of questions, little info on the net.

Cheers,

Dick Steele
3rd Coast Cinematics

Never mind thread already moving and shaking.

Hi all
I have an XL1 but find I am increasingly needing something far smaller but with a similar picture quality. I have been considering buying a Sony TRV950 but I am not sure if it really is up to what I need. It will be used in the Cambodian jungle and in the rainy season, I find my XL1 copes with the humidity quite well, anyone
know what the sony is like. Apparently a guy recently used a PD150 here and it packed up almost imediately.
I am also looking for a camera to take time lapse (at present I am looking at filming a carcase being reduced by vultures over 5 or 6 days. Power is obviously a big problem as this is well away from any electrical supply and I couldn't go near the camera for around 14 hours during daylight, anyone any suggestions?
cheers
Allan

Maybe use a llaptop PC with softwware that can to timelapse frame grab (e..g., Premiere, check index under "Capturing Stop Motion"), a camcoder in camera mode (no tape) and a large, high capacity battery (e.g., automotive 12-volt battery-with appropriqte power adapters) for the PC and camcorder.

went with the portabrace rb-1 bag because it's the only one that looked like it could fit the xl1s, without breaking my bank. got it today and it fits the camera perfectly snug, but the vf and mic need to be removed in order to prevent the bag from bulking too much at the side. nevertheless, it's a great bag, definitely not as big as the hiker pro. there's enough pockets to comfortably fit my vl10-li light, 3 bp-945 batteries and charger.

Anyone using the Beachtek DXA-4C with their XL1s? Question...what is the best configuration for a line-level input from a mixer...do you set the XL1 for mic input and set the beachtek for line or set the XL1 for line input and set the beachtek for mic...or both at line level (although I have noticed too much attenuation at this setting...)
Mark

Hey, listen up. I was standing at the finish line for the Peachtree 10k Road Race in Atlanta, GA. The cameramen that were videoing from the back of the motorcycles and following the leaders were using Canons. This was for FOX-5 news. So if you got to see the first place male and female crossing the finish line on the TV, they were both being videoed with Canons. The one for the men was the GL and the female was the XL-1s. Oh, they were using the 16x standard lens as they were on the back of motorcycles. Bob Safay

Sorry, my english isn't good.
I want to ask, can audio 1 connect to mic without MA-100???
What kind mic, I must use ???

Yes, and your english is fine. Open the door over the audio controls and turn the switch from 'MIC' to 'Audio 1'.

You can use almost any MIC you want that can drive a low impedance (600 ohm) input. Also it should have a about -55 dBV output with the material you plant to record to obtain adequate record levels. All you need is an appropriate adatper to connect the mic to the RCA connector.

If the mic is not self-powered (i.e., it requires phantom power), you will have to provide that. Note that the MA-100/200 and XL1/1s DO NOT provide phantom power.

I usually use a DXA-6, but I have used the 4 quite a bit as well.

It depends on the mixer. Most will output +4dBu, so I switch the
beachtek to line level and keep the XL1 at mic level input. If the mixer
is sending -10dBu signal, then I would keep the beachtek at mic level
and put the XL1 over to -10dBu line level input and use the gain
controls on both units to achieve the proper gain.

This is my one complaint about beachtek, that the -50 pads they
use in their boxes are TOO much attenuation. I would far prefer
-30 or even -20 pads. Hot mics like the Sennheiser ME66/K6 combo
either have to be barely cracked open when using mic level input
(not enough control of signal strength) or turned up all the way
which doesn't give you quite enough signal IMO.

Your mileage may vary.