<<Funny how that works.What they found out was that windshields ALL OVER the US were pitted. What had taken place was not an increase in pitted windshields, but an increase in LOOKING AT WINDSHIELDS. What people had been looking THROUGH all of their life, they were now looking AT.>>

This would be the source of a great thread in and of itself Richard. It really speaks to one of the core issues of discussing the technology of, in this case, a video camera, versus the percieved results it delivers, because after all perception is everything and especially when we're producing stuff for the masses (no matter how big those masses).

I understand but still shake my head at post after post here and a couple of other places (music and film/video production). It's been a given to me for a long while that if you have tools that deliver at a certain level, it's encumbent upon you to "play" them well.

I've known so many great players who could bring tears to your eyes on a $100 Silvertone guitar, and yet people with a fraction of that talent will spend years of their short lives debating the finer points of the most expensive instruments and criticising every little fault of the less than top shelf stuff. All the while the great creatives continue to do great creative with whatever tools they have at hand or can afford.

My personal read is this: whether the XL2 exceeds or falls short of beta or digibeta quality, whether it's percieved as "better" in some aspects that a DVX or whatever camera, or worse, we're counting the number of angels on a pin head here.

The XL2 has acheived a level as a creative tool, that for me at least, exceeds my and most people's ability to maximize. The images are just wonderful, and the freedom of it's simple power system, lens capabilities, monitoring etc. create just exactly that...freedom to grow creatively without the encumberances of more "involved" technology.

I guess what I mean is that if you're a really good shooter, film maker, what ever, you can certainly bring tears to peoples eyes with this camera, and that's all that's ever really made sense to me creatively.

oh...

so true...

I'm a musician, and i perfectly understand what you mean.

great wisdom words Jim

regards

Amen to that Jim!
(I think I'll be quoting from you - if you don't mind ...)

Robin

It's been a given to me for a long while that if you have tools that deliver at a certain level, it's encumbent upon you to "play" them well. Jim Giberti

Jim, I couldn't agree with you more! I recall a story from my college days back in the late 60s or early 70s. As a commercial art majors, we studied, among others, Ansel Adams. After a very few days many of the students began to claim that if they had a large format camera, 4x5 or better, like Adams, their photographs would be better than those taken with their 35mm Pentax. Hearing enough of this nonsense our wise professor, Darryl Degelman, pulled out some copies of beautiful b&w photographs and showed them to us. "Who do you think took these?" he asked. Well, it was obvious from the style these photographs were taken by Adams. Then he showed us a picture of the camera Adams had used--a simple, self-made pinhole camera! Mr. Degelman went on to say that it's not the equipment that makes beautiful photographs, it's the artist.

At the risk of sounding like I'm tooting my horn, I'll tell you about the greatest "professional" compliment I ever got. It was about a year ago. The phone rang. I answered it. It was someone inquiring about our work, mentioning that they had seen the sample footage on our web site. During the course of our conversation, the fellow paid me several kind compliments about how nice the images were. Then he asked me a question that both floored me and elated me, "Did you shoot this footage on film?" It has never been a goal of mine, to make video look like film, but I was deeply honored that he felt like he had to ask to be sure. I explained that the footage was shot with the XL1 and XL1s cameras.

Now, some reading this will say it's obvious that guy had no experience, since the differences between film and video are obvious, and on and on and on. But the man on the other end of the line was (and still is) a long time member of the DGA (Directors Guild of America) who has done extensive work in film and video directing and shooting thousands of television commercials that we've all seen and loved.

My point is, I've read so much crap here, and elsewhere, that the XL cameras are not all they're hyped up to be. The auto lenses are garbage. MiniDV is a joke. Video images suck compared to film. You can't shoot anything serious on video. Don't use any of the XLs, you'll have to rent something costing tens of thousands more. Blah, blah, blah. You've read it all before, too. And it just goes to show how little these wannabes really know and/or understand about creating images.

The bottom line is: Know your instrument. Just learn what it can and can't do, then do the best you can with it--whatever it is!

My apologies for being so long-winded. And thank you, Jim, for your consistently wise and well-balanced input here!

Jay

Amen

Thanks Jim and Jay.

<<Amen to that Jim!
(I think I'll be quoting from you - if you don't mind ...)>>

Thanks from Robin, Charles, Jay, some of my favorite listers all in one thread...I've got to drink and post more often <g>.

It would be fun to have a link on the site just to see a few seconds here and there of the work, technically perfect or not, that people feel is some of their most visually "emotional".

This whole thread has really been an eye opener. When I originally posted here, I was hoping to find someone who had perhaps had a chance to spend some time with the camera.

Obviously not. Instead, there was a huge amount of guesstimating and a form of heavy corporate bias towards Canon which shocked me completely. Professional forum? Professional at what exactly? Cinematography or Canon sales?

The reason I pulled out of this thread was that I simply couldn't see the logic in being told by a load of people who hadn't even touched the camera that I was wrong. That's not professionalism, but plain patronising arrogance.

Yes, I know full well what moire is but my original concern was that it was appearing for too much to the extent of being practically unusable. Period. Not just my opion but pretty much every DOP I spoke to in writing my article both in the UK and US who had spent some time with the camera. YES, it is a known problem to the extent that Canon in Japan have been addressing the issue. I admit that the images didn't show this clearly enough but at the same time, is that enough to say the problem doesn't exist?

The answer we found was the lens. Sticking an Arri film lens on via the P&S Teknik adaptor sorted out any serious moire. The supplied lens is a jack of all trades but not a master at 25p.

There was no agenda or tactics. It was simply being close to deadline and wanting to speak to people who knew what the hell they were talking about about the XL2 which clearly wasn't here. Simple.

What the heck did you expect, Clive, the bloody camera hadn't even been released yet, when you first posted!

Too, if memory serves me correctly, several of us asked--pleaded with--you to post a raw image, which you never did. So what was anyone to think?

Jay

So clive...so your solution to eliminating the moire was to put an $8000 adapter with a $xx00 cine lens on the camera. hmmm. I have a tiffen soft fx filter I can sell you for about a grand. Even cheaper I can send you a DVD on how to lower the sharpness and detail on the camera...for say $500.

I apologize if anyone attacked you personally in this forum (it certainly wasn't me), but perhaps your assumption that we're all a bunch of idiots paved the way. The fact that you ran away when people were just asking for some evidence of the problem you exposed also wasn't much help...

Many of the users of this forum have been in this business for years, certainly a few know a little bit more about video than you do. Most of us pointed to the fact that if the moire isn't in the actual camera image...then it can't be the camera's fault. Many of us saw NBC's $100 high definition cameras moire-ing all over the olympics this year. Most of us who have been working with digital capture devices for the last 10 years know that moire is a fact of life, and that's what most of us said. Sounds like a professional discussion to me.

Barry

FWIW, watching Inside the NFL the other night, a niclely lit and staged HBO series, I was struck by an extreme vibration in the small checkered lights at the front of the set. It was during a pan up to the talent. It was high end video...that's what it does.

Bush's big national press conference earlier this year, he chose a tie pattern that looked, even to millions of regular viewers, like he was wearing a nucular (sp intentional) device around his neck. It was high end video...that's life.

Barry for the record I don't believe those were NBC's camera's, a large number of them were rented from house's in and around L.A. but i don't think that changes the point any.

Clive: wat this the article in showreel magazine?

Clive (or anybody)

Could you explain how using a higher resolution lens can reduce moire. I don't understand the physics, but I would have assumed that it would have actually exacerbated the effect if anything. I also don't understand how a lens can or can't be a "master of 25p". How does the quality of the optics interact with frame rate (or use of progressive v interlaced) to produce moire?

Just to be clear, these are genuine questions, not an attempt to cast doubt on what you say.

Thanks
Duncan

**certainly a few know a little bit more about video than you do**

Thank you for precisely proving my point. You know nothing about me and what I know and you certainly hadn't touched the XL2 yet you have a habit of sounding off Barry. Not impressive.

The solution is simple. If you want to make a film, get a DOP who knows what they're doing and HIRE some film lenses. That's if you HAVE to use the XL2 at all which is debatable.

Anyone who tries to say that the standard lens is fine because moire is part of life is selling you the XL2. The moire was excessive with the standard lens in 25p with the camera we were given. FACT.

This argument is over because everyone is getting so hung up on words in posts and missing the actual point.

GET THE CAMERA AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES rather than listening to Barry and other Canon kissarses who are trying to play down my observation THINKING that its corporate scaremongering.

Byesie bye

Clive: I understand your point but I would like to know if the
article in showreel magazine is from you (just interested) per
my question above.

I personally have no doubt in whether you saw the moire or
not. A lot of people here are trying to see if this happens on
all the camera's or not. That is the main interest.

If I'm not mistaken you had a pre-production model? So this
might not be as sever a problem on the current models out
than it was with yours (not saying it isn't there). I think most
people are trying to assess that among other things.

Your last piece of advice is always sound. Get the camera
yourself before plunking down that much cash. I would not
take anyone's word for something as personal as camera
quality but myself. Ofcourse others can guide you, that is no
problem.

I would like to keep it civil here people.

I'm not rooting for Barry here, but I think he meant to say he
knows some very knowledgable folk here on the forum (there
are, I do not count myself amongst them in regards to these
issues, just to make that clear!) and he feels they might know
more. Probably just worded a bit "wrong" which easily happens
with text.

I agree that as it stands now it sounds like you don't know
anything about it, which we indeed do not know since we don't
know who you are.

Let's all try to keep it professional and discuss the issues in a
professional and technical (with proof preferred) manner and
we can then all make up our minds about everythink.

Thank you.

Clive, I have to disagree with you. You blame Barry for the very thing you've been doing. You've made it sound like the XL2 is the only video camera having any moire issues. That simply isn't the truth. That is all that Barry is saying.

You have and still do ignore the request for uncompressed images from your footage. Why?

Explain why I (and others here) see moire patterns when I/we watch movies on a 36" Vega television that were shot by a DOP that knew what he was doing with FILM lenses.

You claim that the rest of us are "Canon kissarses." When you avoid direct questions and refuse to provide images for others to study and attempt to duplicate--a true scientific method--you leave us with little alternative thought than you are indeed attempting "corporate scaremongering."

Jay

<<<-- Originally posted by Clive Collier : GET THE CAMERA AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES -->>>

Clive, I should get my XL2 PAL version within a few days. At least yesterday the local Canon rep. told the XL2's will arrive today to the country. Guess I should be able to detect if there's excessive Moire, or say, if there's more than with the XL1.

You may have raised an serious issue which has to do with the PAL version or your observation may have been something specific to the preproduct version you had. Back in 1997 I also got the preproduct XL1 for tests from Canon, and it showed some problems the standard product didn't. (The image on a standard TV had also strange kind of Moire effect.)

The slight problem of this kind of forum is that from reading the posts one is not able to hear the tone of the person behind the message. As far as I can say, Barry's comments appear very professional and gentle. So, stay cool, this question will certainly be sorted out with time. I'm pretty sure nobody has any reason to be a "Canon believer". We simply use their product for various reasons, that's all.

I have had my XL2 since sept 2. I have had serious issues with moire and aliasing. It seems like spectacles and straight lines are jagged and dance around. Brick walls will throw you into a siezure if you watch it long.

The features on the camera are fantastic but the picture is horrible. I had a shot where a couple was walking down a path in the local mountains and the whole picture was dancing.

I have shot on the XL1 since 1998, I compared the cameras side by side and the XL1s had a better picture because it does not have a mind of its own.

I hope that Canon can work this issue out.

I don't have anything to do with this discussion, and I really don't know anything about it, but I really have to say these things:

Clive, indeed, people here requested many times for pictures, and you never gave them or a link.
Most of them tried to help, Barry especially, but if you ignore them also, then don't say they are all ' a bunch of Canon kissarses'.

And I have to say, with al the comment here on the forum, I just wanted to tell everybody I really love it here and I think you are all (well, many of you :-)) real pro's, and very, very friendly and helping.
Just wanted to state that with all the comments here on the forum. I've learned more reading these message boards, then I ever learned in my classes of Video.
Maybe I just use this thread to say a big thank you to everyone here, and don't believe it when people come here and say this forums sucks :-) I'm very proud of it, even if I don't have a big speaking roll in many threads.
I learn things here every day.
If people say: I'll go to REALY SERIOUS DV FORUMS, well, I wish them many many lucks, but I'm very happy with this one.

Sorry if it's off-topic, I really had to say it.
Good luck to everyone here :-).

Max,

Have you tried any of the methods discussed in this thread and others to rectify the problem, (unfortunately this thread turned into a mudslinging affair, but I think there is at least one other that might offer some advice)

The moire artifacts you are seeing are a by-product of higher resolution and the progressive scan system employed by the xl2, and are not, in fact a defect of the camera. In truth, they are more typically caused by the output device (monitor, TV) than the camera itself, but the higher resolution of the xl2 will cause more moire with more output devices than the xl1s (simply because it is more capable of "seeing" fine patterns than the xl1s is.)

The way to make the image look like the xl1s is to, well... lower the resolution of the camera by a variety of methods including the sharpness and detail settings, adding some light diffusion (or low pass filter) over the lens, or moving/zooming to alter the frequency of the offending pattern.

Hope this helps.


Barry

I agree with all that Barry suggested but have to say that if the problems you are describing are indeed as severe as you say, there could be a problem with your partiular unit. Obviously there is no way to know for sure by just your description. Do you have access to a store that has an XL2 that you can compare it to so that you can assure yourself that the camera is indeed working properly?

It's not a particular xl2 unit issue. Moire is definitely more noticeable in 24p. It does jump out at you, expecially in a handheld situation.

I for one am not worried about it. This thread has been a hoot to read! Good to see lot's of heated discussion. Hopefully Canon will weigh in at some point.

Ken

I know it is not an XL2 issue but the way it was described sounds much worse than what I have experienced with the DVX for 2 years and now the XL2.

The problem is not just the moire. The camera is also having serious aliasing issues. I was shooting an event and some kids glasses were jagged. The straight lines were dancing around. I tried adjusting everything on the camera but it did not change.

I have looked at the footage I have shot on an HD monitor and I am still seeing the same moire and aliasing.

I have returned the camera and went back to my old XL1s for now until I make the switch to HD here soon.

I have worked with higher end camera's that had a higher resolution than the XL2 and did not have a problem.

I am really disapointed with the XL2.

I am sorry to hear that. I really feel that there must have been something wrong with that particular camera. Good Luck!

Thanks.

I think I am going to switch to ocuar implants that records in real life ;)

I think I will see if they will swap the camera out and see if it is the camrea.

If anyone has some space where I can post video, I can provide few xl2 (uncompressed) avi examples of this moire problem at 24 fos. It's not just a minor, "sometimes it happens" issue. It is something a dp has to be aware of and must work around.

It is also not just one camera. Many people have experienced it, as I said before, if you shoot 24 fps with an xl2, the moire jumps out at you. Anyone who says it doesn't has solved the issue and should share their solution here.

On the plus side, the camera is still incredible. Not perfect, but incredible.

Thanks, Ken

Kenneth,

If the issue is moire and/or aliasing, we should be able to see it in a still frame. If you want to email me a few grabs, I'll be happy to post them for you.

I'm not sure I agree with you though. I've been using my xl2 for almost as long as anyone, and I'm familiar with moire in its many forms. Any issue I've seen can be tied to two things...the higher resolution of the xl2 (as compared to the xl1s) and SD monitors when dealing with progressive footage. But really I have almost never seen a problem, except when I know I should...like shooting bleachers at a baseball stadium, or a vent grating...things with definable patterns of specific frequencies.

As for the "aliasing" issue, I would go as far as saying that it has the lowest aliasing of any camera I own (3 different canons 3chips and a DVX).

And I've never made a single adjustment to affect the camera in terms of controlling moire or aliasing.

In reality, most of the issues I've seen have ended up being almost completely related to the monitor's processing of progressive footage. I shot and posted footage of san diego a few months back. When viewing the raw footage in my hotel room, I experienced exactly what everyone is commenting on. My shots of an empty Petco Stadium were a moire makers dream. But when I viewed them on my HD set at home, the problem was almost a non issue, even less on my computer (remember that this was a situation that should cause moire, and would have on any camera capable of focusing). That tells us something about the nature of moire's: always caused by at least two overlapping sets of patterns ---stadium seats>>CCD Block>>monitor array.

Yes you can argue "so what, I'm still getting moire, and I never saw it before". There are two answers to that. The first is that all of us who saw the crazy moire coming off the very expensive HD broadcast cameras at the Olympics track and field events this year are beginning to understand that moire is a fact of life with higher resolution cameras. (I doubt that the camera operaters were all begging NBC to give them back their old cameras...they'll learn to deal with the moire in exchange for the incredible detail that the new HD cameras can provide)

The second answer is this...now that you've seen it (it was always there before, you just weren't looking for it)...and you're probably very unlikely to be able to look past it now...so you can take steps to resolve it in the situations that warrant it...and because of that you are a better videographer with a better tool than you ever had before.

Anyway, please send along your frames...I want to see what you are seeing.

Barry

Hi everyone, what an interesting thread. A lot sounds complicated to me as I'm still learning the ropes but informative nonetheless. I have yet to shoot on tape but I have been switching on the camera and looking through the viewfinder monitor. I have a PAL cam by the way. To me when you view in wide mode it looks a little "jaggy". I'm not sure if this is just down to the little monitor or not though. is there an option on the cam to shoot in progressive or non progressive, or does it shoot in the best method as standard?

I'd definetly like to see more pics and this has made me want to go out and just film footage of brick walls as a test.

On a final note, I just wanted to say I respect everyone's opnions here. They know far more than I and I don't think there was any need for that fella (who's name I've forgotten) to be so rude to everyone trying their best to help. It is a worrying thing, but one that I hope is easily fixed through learning about the cameras abilities.

There's always the obvious steps to avoid moire and similar type of distortions. No fine line patterns, of any kind, at any time, on the set.

This was actually my first request to the girl that is in charge of costumes and accessories on my next project (that and no white).

No fine stripped ties, pants, shirts, etc. No blinds (they're fine in close up but when shot wide they become a nightmare) and as a general rule of thumb, nothing with a strict and regular pattern (lines, grids, etc.).

Organic and irregular patterns are fine with video (to some extent) but repetitive and identical patterns tend to cause problems so far from what I've seen.

If you're shooting fictional stuff, this is something you should test BEFORE the shoot, since you have the ability to change it if it causes problems.

Thanks for the offer Barry, but...

When I play the captured aviin Premiere Pro 1.5, the moire is there. If I still the picture from the captured avi in Premiere Pro 1.5, I can see the moire patterns. When I choose Export Frame and open the bitmap, the pattern is gone. This is very interesting. Can someone explain?!

<<<-- Originally posted by Kenneth Irvine : Thanks for the offer Barry, but...

When I play the captured aviin Premiere Pro 1.5, the moire is there. If I still the picture from the captured avi in Premiere Pro 1.5, I can see the moire patterns. When I choose Export Frame and open the bitmap, the pattern is gone. This is very interesting. Can someone explain?! -->>>

Are you viewing on the PC or on the NTSC monitor?

Kenneth,

this is exactly the issue that colin first encountered when he started this thread...he was seeing it on his monitor, but when he looked at a still frame it wasn't there...at which point he produced deinterlaced frame to show what the problem looked like....as if this proved something.

De-interlacing is like halving the resolution(vertically)...essentially you are placing another lower frequency pattern over the the existing pattern...this will bring out moire's where none actually exist in the original pattern (you may like to try this with your image...I tried it with some that I did myself trying to figure out what created the effect colin was seeing.)

can someone explain?...this issue is the one I keep harping on...in clinton-ese...its the monitor, stupid...(no offense meant here)...why you are seeing it in premiere and not in the still frame is that thay are most likely being viewed at different resolutions...let me offer you an illustration

go to my public folder

http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing23.html

in it is a file called moirebit.tif

open it in photoshop or some viewer that will allow you to zoom. Start by viewing it at 100%. you'll note that it is just lines...no moire...just lines, none in the image...this is equivalent to a camera image that doesn't have any moire in it. Now zoom out step by step...and you'll notice that gradually small moires will start to appear, and the more you zoom out that the moire will gradually get more noticeable and change its form. This is a very coarse example of what is going on in your case...the moire isn't in the image...its in the monitor's interpretation of the image based on certain pattern frequencies (image and monitor).

I hope this helps.

Barry

edit: don't try this in apple's preview program, it won't let you zoom out far enough, and it has a neat little anti-aliaser that will smooth things out...the effect is much more obvious in photoshop.

thanks Barry none taken :)

So...the recorded image is fine and the moire is simply a monitor interpretation? If so, then the viewfinder on the xl2 has the same problem. I just played back the tape and the patterns are visible in the viewfinder. What type of monitor would not interpret the footage as having moire?

Ken

I'm curious about the monitor thing too as I will be purchasing one at the end of the month. Would most 7" or higher TFT monitors show this kind of thing? I'm asuming this is all trial and error really and knowing how to account for such problems

Yes the viewfinder on the camera, being relatively of low resolution will exhibit much more moire than say my sony wega HD set. Theoretically a monitor that displays in progressive scan at the same resolution as the source would be the optimum. So, for instance a quicktime file played through the quicktime player on a computer monitor at full size wouldn't have a problem (if there was no moire in the image to start with). I don't know that there is a "perfect" monitor out there, but the higher the resolution the better is a starting point.

The other ( and more realistic ) option is to shoot for your intended monitor. Canon's old frame mode did this...essentially lowering the vertical resolution 25%. We all thought it was a defect until Panasonic came up with it as an "option" on their progressive scan DVX to help eliminate line twitter and other problems related to moire. You can lower the vertical resolution on the xl2 in the same way, or employ a number of other ways to lower the camera's ability to see fine detail and patterns.

Barry

are most monitors labelled "high resolution" progressive scan? I haven't really seen any with progressive scan listed as an option.

will lowering the camera resolution be harmful in any way later on when editing?

The problem is most people do not have a high res monitor to view the the nice images that come from the XL2 so all of you wedding and event people out there are going to have a tough time getting a good looking product for your clients.

Unless you could give away a nice monitor with each wedding package so they could enjoy the nice picture on the XL2.

I have been shooting on a Sony DSR 570, 2/3 inch chips, I would expect it to be as high if not higher in resolution than the XL2 and I do not see the same problem. I shot them side by side at the same image and did not get any aliasing or moire on the Sony and the canon was going crazy. Both were viewed on the same monitor.

Max

A few questions...the comparison you made...was the xl2 in progressive mode or interlaced? There is a substantial difference in resolution between the two, and most people who have seen problems have reported it in progressive. The DSR-570 is a 60i camera, so regardless of its potential resolution, it is a different animal. Interlaced video uses a pixel averaging scheme which effectively blurs fine details like those in a moire inducing pattern. (there used to be an explanation of this linked at adam wilts site, but I doesn't appear to work any more).

Second did you try the low detail setting? Both canon and Panasonic recommend it for viewing on an SD monitor.

Finally, are you shooting in 4:3 or 16:9? If you are shooting in 4:3, my experience is that the in camera sharpness is set too high on the xl2, and needs to be lowered to achieve a truly "neutral" sharpness position.

wait...I found the article...I think it might help explain some of this...

http://videosystems.com/shoot/video_progressive_need_know/index.html

cheerio

Barry

Thank you so much for that info. I think I will swap out the camera for another one and see if I just have a bad model.

Thanks again.

Well put Barry, a good and sensible explanation.

I've often wondered myself when people report about different findings, that there are so many issues left open that it is almost certain that we will end up of talking of different things. For instance in this thread, when Kenneth said he captured an avi image to Premiere Pro 1.5, the issue of whether his monitor window was set to 100% magnification was not cleaar. And still, as Barry explaination clearly shows, this is the crucial point when discussing of what we see on the monitor.

What comes to the Xl2 viewfinder, it has obviously its shortcomings. Just recently I had the camera outdoors for several hours (in a insulated bag) and it was bit cold (around -5C), and I noticed the viewfinder became rather slow. As a result anything which was moving did not appear smooth. But, back home the recorded image was just perfect on the monitor. (My first experience suggests the Xl1 viewfinder tolerated better cold conditions in this sense. I had similar problems with the Xl1 only when it got below -15C.)

Lauri

thanks for the info on the viewfinder...I never would have suspected that the viewfinder would have problems with the cold. It gets cold here too, last night was a blustery 50F (+10C)...I had to put on long pants!.

Barry

I noticed what I thought was a moire problem with my XL2 when shooting in areas with a lot of grass or trees and a lot of times on rooftops. I have done a lot of research and found out that the more accurate term would be arftifacting. I sent my camera off to canon, which they replaced with a brand new one, I found that I had the same problem with the brand new camera. After much research, heartache and a long chat with the Canon regional rep I tried playing with the settings. I found this helped significantly. I lowered the sharpness and turned on the noise reduction which helped out significantly. I now can shoot an acceptable image in a grassy area which I could not to before. Just wanted to share with anyone else who might be experiencing the same problems.

Welcome aboard DVInfo.net Keving and thanks for sharing that tip!

Would you happen to have comparison frame exports?

I am unable to post any right this second as I am already behind on 2 projects but as soon as I get caught up I will definitely share some comparison pics.

<<<-- Originally posted by Marty Hudzik : Find it hard to believe that there would be problems already and it's not even officially released. -->>>

WOW these images are beautiful !!

I have never seen such images pulled from MiniDV !!

How did you do it... How can I do it ??

Thanks!

<<<-- Originally posted by Anthony Marotti : <<<-- Originally posted by Marty Hudzik : Find it hard to believe that there would be problems already and it's not even officially released. -->>>

WOW these images are beautiful !!

I have never seen such images pulled from MiniDV !!

How did you do it... How can I do it ??

Thanks! -->>>

Anthony,
What images are you referring to? I am asking because you quoted me in your post but I have no idea what images you are talking about.

I got a Canon XL2 PAL in december 2004. I love it, but noticed this moire on my pictures ( roofs and brickwalls) I phoned every expert here in Denmark, but coud´t really explane the problem. Then I was "lucky". A guy told me to submit this forum and so I did. I used days inside my head to create a question about my problem ( my english is limited ). And just before I started to write I found this discussion exactly about the moire problem that I was looking for. I´ve been using days to read all this. Wow, this was really professional experts words. But the more I read the more confused I got.
Am I stupid. Is there no conclusion to the moire problem.
Can I do anything, buy anything, change anything to minimize this moire thing.

Hello Per,

Welcome to DV Info Net.

<< Wow, this was really professional experts words. >>

Well, not all of it... the song lyrics I wrote, that was neither professional nor expert.

<< But the more I read the more confused I got. >>

Me, too. And I own this place!

<< Am I stupid. Is there no conclusion to the moire problem.
Can I do anything, buy anything, change anything to minimize this moire thing. >>

You are not stupid and there seems to be no conclusion. What is interesting is that this conversation ended last December and nobody has said anything since then. If anybody else has this problem, I sure would like for them to post about it here.

Meanwhile, I wonder if this is of any help:

I don't know if this will have any effect at all, but trying switching the Vertical Detail setting to the opposite of whatever it's set at right now. In the camera, this is on the 4th menu page under Custom Presets. In the owner's manual it is described on page 69. You might try Noise Reduction as well.

Remember after these settings are changed you have to activate the Custom Preset (a lot of people seem to forget that step for some reason). Let me know if this helps,