Canon Xl2's native 16:9 looks like Sony PDX10's true 16:9

[Bora Yenal]

I guess XL2 is not native 16:9 camera.

I have Sony PDX10 and it is true 16:9.

Check this links
http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article06.php and also this http://external.fullcompass.com/Imag...982&srctbl=doc

Sony PDX10 and XL2 uses the similar CCDs for 16:9.

CCDs are actually 4:3 and there are some non firing pixels on the top and bottom. 4:3 uses the center and 16:9 only expands the right and left sides.

Am I right ?

[Bora Yenal]

Hmm I looked some other web sites some says true and some say native for my pdx10.I guess both are the same. Any way it looks like PDX10 uses more pixels than new Xl2 for 16:9. It is still good but i just expected true true 19:9 CCDs :)

[Nathan Gifford]

Check Chris' article Canon XL2 CCD Block Overview. I think as far as SD cameras go, the XL2 is a hard cam to beat.

[Boyd Ostroff]

I guess we'll have to wait and see examples from the XL-2, but it sure looks at least as "native" and "true" in the 16:9 department as the PDX-10. There are some other threads on this topic if you look around. But the XL-2 uses large CCD's with larger pixels. One might think this would yield cleaner results than we see on the PDX-10.

How much better?... stay tuned... But also realize that you could just about buy three PDX-10's for the price of one XL-2, so one would hope the quality is a bit better...

[Juan Parra]

Boyd,

The lower lux rating indicates also that the XL2 should render better and cleaner pictures than the PDX10's. The XL2 is still far from the PD170's 1 lux rating. It's clear that the XL2 with all its features was designed for indie filmmakers where in most cases lighting is controlled. The XL2 is not for event videographers like the great PD170.

Juani

[Rob Lohman]

As I have explained a couple of times already the camera is
native 16:9. Why? Because you will get a true increased (vertical)
resolution when switching to 16:9 from 4:3. That IS the definition
of true/native 16:9. It has NOTHING to do with the size of the
chips.

If Canon had just physically chopped off the pixels not being
used or just had told us the CCD's where 16:9 in size no-one
would've complained or wondered. I know it "feels" weird, but
it all boils down to whether the resolution increases (correct)
instead of decreases (incorrect, ie frame mode).

[Zack Birlew]

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if it shoots TRUE 16:9 or has 16:9-size CCDs, us prosumers gotta wait for that technology to trickle down more. All the XL2 has done is make our puddle into a pool, all we need now is the rest of the lake.

If 16:9 is SUCH an issue, SUCH a need, then I suggest that you pay $20,000+ for a full 16:9 camera that the pros use. Thats why they are called Professionals and we are called Prosumers. It's truly all about the Benjamins. =)

But in any case, I'll be getting an XL2, maybe not when it comes out, but probably around Christmas time or my next birthday (but by then all the new HDV cameras and possible XL2s camera should be out, so I may as well wait).

[Dave Perry]

16:9 IS a big deal and as a "prosumer" one should be aware of that. 16:9 SD TVs are starting to show up in consumer outlets such as Best Buy and Wal Mart. I'm not talking about Plasma HDTV that costs multi thousands of dollars, I mean sub $500 CRT sets. Those sub $500 sets in a year or two will be $200 sets.

I know wide spread adoption of HDTV is a ways of, but the introduction of 16:9 TVs is something I'm excited about as a consumer and a movie maker. I shoot nothing but 16:9 any way.

[Chris Hurd]

Some people manage to skip right over one of the first things I chose to clarify in my XL2 CCD block article: that there is no such thing as a one-third inch CCD shaped in the 16:9 aspect ratio. They are all made, without exception, as 4:3 chips. My article should clearly state (hopefully) how this 4:3 CCD is masked to a 16:9 target area.

Why didn't Canon just make a 16:9 one-third inch image sensor? Because they're not in the CCD-manufacturing business, that's why. They make mask aligners for the entire CCD industry, but not the CCD's themselves. Nobody makes a 16:9-shaped CCD any smaller than 2/3rd-inch.

By the way, the Sony PDX10 / TRV950 does indeed incorporate more pixels for the 16:9 target area. However there's more to the "better camera" equation than the number of pixels. It still uses a 4:3-shaped sensor just like everything else. The target area for 16:9 is a portion of that sensor, just like the XL2. Hope this helps,

[Joe Carney]

Just to keep things in perspective.
Those of us using the dv953/mx500 with their 1/6 inch chips...
The actual area of the chip used to capture video is smaller then the actual size of the chip. 4x3 the least, 16x9 the most by expanding the capture area and then anmorphically squeezing the video into 4x3 anyway.

The whole chip is used only for still image capture.

So...whether capturing 4:3 or the expanded 16x9 mode on these cameras, you are using considerably less than a 1/6 inch chip. And they make great video to boot.

I think it wasn't until the issue came up with the new XL2 had anybody really thought about it.

[Barry Green]

Originally posted by Rob Lohman : If Canon had just physically chopped off the pixels not being used

Now that's an interesting way to look at it. Had they gone in with some tin snips and lopped off the top and bottom 12.5%, the result would be a physical 16:9 CCD that wouldn't behave any differently than the one in the camera now. So why shouldn't it be considered "true native 16:9"?

Perhaps the only remaining realm for griping would be in the terminology used to describe the size of the chip. People might gripe that the chip is smaller than the 1/3" diagonal, and I guess they'd have a case. So, measuring the diagonal of a 16:9 patch extracted from a 4:3 CCD, you come up with a diagonal that's 90% the length of the 4:3 diagonal.

So let's just say that the XL2 has three 1/3.3" native 16:9 CCD's. Surely nobody can argue about that?

[Rob Lohman]

They are native/true 16:9, so that's how it should be considered
indeed. The size of the chips is completely irrelevant in the
discussion of 16:9. The increase in field of view and resolution
when switching from 4:3 to 16:9 is what matters and what
is the difference between a true 16:9 signal (yes, I want to
move away from CCD here) and a faux one.