XM2 aspect ratio is wrong at DVinfo.net

Peter Butler · August 25th, 2002, 10:21 AM

I've just done a few tests and can confirm that the picture on the XM2 is a little wider then real life. I read the thread that Barry wrote intitled GL2 review and in it he shows comaparisons of the GL2 and the VX2000 and goes onto say that the GL2's picture is a little wider and he suspected that the VX2000 was probably more accurate. Well I done a quick test by filming a square I drew measuring 10cm by 10cm. I made sure the camera was set on a tripod and placed directly in front of the paper. Measuring the square on the TV gave me a different result. The width was 21cm while the hight was 20cm. I've only tried this on two consumer TV's one was a Panasonic the other a Sony. I'm going to try and connect it up to a monitor but need an adapter first. The other thing I'm going to do is to borrow a friends VX2000 and see how that measures. Anyone else tried this if so what results did you get?

I'll report the results of the VX2000

Peter B

Peter Butler · August 25th, 2002, 11:35 AM

Ok just checked the VX2000 and the aspect ratio on that is out as well. Does anyone know why this is, is it to do with the TV's?

Barry Goyette · August 25th, 2002, 02:56 PM

When I did my comparison test, both the xl1s and gl2 showed nearly identical images in terms of height vs. width, both being slightly wider than reality..My hunch is that the PD150 was closer to matching the test pattern, but might be a hair taller than reality.

I'm sure that most televisions have a certain margin of error that may contribute to the problem, as most computer monitors have geometry adjustments that allow you to fix their factory presets. But, my guess is most chips in the consumer market have a certain bias, due to manufacturing limitations. Although I wonder, in the case of canon, if this may be the source of the adage "the camera puts on 10 pounds."

How important this is, is a good question..seeing as the xl1 has had this characteristic probably since its beginnings...and I've never seen another mention of it, at least on these boards. The only way you'd know is to hold a ruler up to the screen every time you saw something you knew was square.

Barry

Peter Butler · August 26th, 2002, 09:54 AM

It's funny you should say that because I didn't notice. It was actually my sister who said it looks like it makes your face a bit fat. I thought she was just being really vain in till I filmed something that was really slim (sorry that makes it sound like my siters fat, she's not by the way) that I noticed that on the tv it looked a bit squashed (height ) so I then done the test. Incidently I've also tried the test on a Monitor and the results are better but still slightly on the wide side. I zoomed in so that the picture on the screen matched the measurements on paper and got these results width 10cm height 9.7cm. So a lot more accurate on the monitor but still slightly out. I also went one more step and tried it using the flip out, obviously it was a bit more difficult due to the size of the screen, but I did find it was the right aspect ratio you can actually tell by looking as well but you have to look carefully. Anyway I'm not bothered it was just a minor thing and like you said not many people would notice or care... apart from my sister :)

Peter B

August 25th, 2002, 10:21 AM	#1
Peter Butler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 61	XM2 aspect ratio is wrong I've just done a few tests and can confirm that the picture on the XM2 is a little wider then real life. I read the thread that Barry wrote intitled GL2 review and in it he shows comaparisons of the GL2 and the VX2000 and goes onto say that the GL2's picture is a little wider and he suspected that the VX2000 was probably more accurate. Well I done a quick test by filming a square I drew measuring 10cm by 10cm. I made sure the camera was set on a tripod and placed directly in front of the paper. Measuring the square on the TV gave me a different result. The width was 21cm while the hight was 20cm. I've only tried this on two consumer TV's one was a Panasonic the other a Sony. I'm going to try and connect it up to a monitor but need an adapter first. The other thing I'm going to do is to borrow a friends VX2000 and see how that measures. Anyone else tried this if so what results did you get? I'll report the results of the VX2000 Peter B

August 25th, 2002, 11:35 AM	#2
Peter Butler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 61	VX2000 result Ok just checked the VX2000 and the aspect ratio on that is out as well. Does anyone know why this is, is it to do with the TV's?

August 25th, 2002, 02:56 PM	#3
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	When I did my comparison test, both the xl1s and gl2 showed nearly identical images in terms of height vs. width, both being slightly wider than reality..My hunch is that the PD150 was closer to matching the test pattern, but might be a hair taller than reality. I'm sure that most televisions have a certain margin of error that may contribute to the problem, as most computer monitors have geometry adjustments that allow you to fix their factory presets. But, my guess is most chips in the consumer market have a certain bias, due to manufacturing limitations. Although I wonder, in the case of canon, if this may be the source of the adage "the camera puts on 10 pounds." How important this is, is a good question..seeing as the xl1 has had this characteristic probably since its beginnings...and I've never seen another mention of it, at least on these boards. The only way you'd know is to hold a ruler up to the screen every time you saw something you knew was square. Barry

August 26th, 2002, 09:54 AM	#4
Peter Butler Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 61	It's funny you should say that because I didn't notice. It was actually my sister who said it looks like it makes your face a bit fat. I thought she was just being really vain in till I filmed something that was really slim (sorry that makes it sound like my siters fat, she's not by the way) that I noticed that on the tv it looked a bit squashed (height ) so I then done the test. Incidently I've also tried the test on a Monitor and the results are better but still slightly on the wide side. I zoomed in so that the picture on the screen matched the measurements on paper and got these results width 10cm height 9.7cm. So a lot more accurate on the monitor but still slightly out. I also went one more step and tried it using the flip out, obviously it was a bit more difficult due to the size of the screen, but I did find it was the right aspect ratio you can actually tell by looking as well but you have to look carefully. Anyway I'm not bothered it was just a minor thing and like you said not many people would notice or care... apart from my sister :) Peter B