XL2 first impression

Barry Goyette · September 4th, 2004, 08:19 PM

The full resolution footage is up on my .mac public folder...you can access it here.

http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html

If you have problems downloading it, it is also available on an Imovie viewing page (see top of page)

The shots were made at Pismo Beach, California on friday afternoon. You can see from the first shot that an inversion layer was settling in, which accounts for the lack of color in most of the images...

Lens used was the 20x Is-II lens. All shots were made with the camera set to defaults, manual exposure, and autofocus. 30p mode was used in the 16;9 aspect ratio.

I highly recommend that you download this to tape and take your vtr down to Best Buy and watch it on the biggest HD set they have!!

Barry

I'm off to San Diego for some R&R. Hopefully I'll come back with a little XL2 Shamu!

Mark Grgurev · September 4th, 2004, 09:15 PM

Barry, that was awesome footage!!!

Jaime Valles · September 4th, 2004, 09:55 PM

That looks great, Barry! Very impressive. Thanks for the footage.

Greg Boston · September 4th, 2004, 10:44 PM

Barry,

How far away were you from the bird to get that full headshot? Was it a full 20X to pull him in?

Just curious. Thanks for posting the footage.

regards,

Antoine Fabi · September 4th, 2004, 11:32 PM

Barry,

is it possible for you to compare footage with the DVX100A, because there is a significant difference between the DVX100 and the DVX100A (color and dynamic range).

The XL2 looks better in 16:9 than in 4:3.
I think you're right, in 4:3 mode i see a edge enhancement (sharpening).
The 16:9 is smoother, more natural luma and chroma.

do you remember what was the vertical detail setting ?

thanks

Greg Matty · September 4th, 2004, 11:56 PM

Barry,

Regarding your still life frames of the dolls and vase:

The 16:9 image shows the tops of the vase being cropped. I always thought 16:9 was like a wider angle lens so to speak that squeezed additional horizontal information into the frame as opposed to removing vertical information.

Any chance someone can explain this to me since I now have no idea how this 16:9 on a 4:3 DV tape works???

Greg

P.S. Can someone tell me what FCP settings I need to use to get this video to play back without rendering? I have the sequence set to 16:9 and also flagged the video clip as anamorphic. I still get the red render bar!!!???

Rich Lee · September 5th, 2004, 01:48 AM

Yeah, the difference between the 16/9 and 4/3 stills have me stumped as well.

framing wise it looks like any sort of 16/9 frame you would get from any other dv cam that will do a crop and stretch.

would definitly like so more info on this.....

Marty Hudzik · September 5th, 2004, 02:50 AM

I'm guessing he reframed when in 16x9 mode to try to match the original shot horizontally. I have the XL2 and can verify that when I aim at a target in 4x3 and then switch to 16x9 the field of view definitely increases. I can see 33% more area horizontally without touhing the zoom.

Robin Davies-Rollinson · September 5th, 2004, 02:57 AM

Agreed on that Marty. You can see the effect here:

http://www.simplydv.com/Reviews/canon_xl2.html

There's quite a difference!

Robin.
Simplydv.com

Rob Lohman · September 5th, 2004, 03:17 AM

Greg (and others): the camera was just positioned differently or
more zoomed in for the 16x9 shot. It will definitely increase
horizontally when going from 4:3 to 16:9.

Tape is not 4:3. Tape is tape. In this case a digital DV signal is
layed down to tape. This signal will ALWAYS be 720x480 @ 29.97
fps for NTSC. Whether it is interlaced (I'm not saying your footage
is turning into progressive this way!), 24p or 16:9.

16:9 simply uses a different pixel aspect ratio but it is still reduced
to 720x480 (for NTSC). The increase in resolution (after encoded
to DV) is in the vertical, not horizontal (although it will probably
benefit from the increased CCD resolution to get a better detailed
picture).

Also see the following thread if you are going to watch the beach
footage on your computer:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=31220

p.s. it looks like the movie has been saved with the high quality
flag already enabled. So you might not need to set it, but good
to check it anyway!

Lauri Kettunen · September 5th, 2004, 04:31 AM

Barry, thanks for the highly interesting samples.

Does the XL2 have the same property as XL1 that the power is automatically switch off if the camera is not used for a while? If so, is it possible to bypass this feature?

Kevin Lee · September 5th, 2004, 05:38 AM

A little offtopic...
i noticed the codec used on this clip was dvcpro50. Is there any quality benefits to using this codec to the normal quicktime dv one?

Chris Hurd · September 5th, 2004, 07:47 AM

Lauri

Just like the XL1S, the XL2 has a "VCR Stop" feature which will bypass the automatic shutdown if you want it to.

Barry Goyette · September 5th, 2004, 08:12 AM

You guys (sorry laurie), I mean, you all, were busy last night.

Kevin,

the codec was dvcpro (not dvcpro50). I'm not an expert in this, but I think this is just the standard DV codec.

Greg- as marty suggested, I just zoomed in to fill the same horizontal area. (I left the camera in place). As you suggested, if I had left the camera alone, then we would have more info on the sides. (but the center info would have essentially remained the same). I wanted to show the resolution increase of 16:9, so I did it this way...I guess if you wanted to show the wider angle of view, you would do it the other way.

As for getting it to run in FCP without rendering...you might try opening it in quicktime and taking the stretch out of it...I don't know if that will do it or not. FCP does have the automatic 16:9 preview, but I don't think the QT player does, so I added a preview stretch in QT so everyone could see it in 16:9.

Antoine--can you send me your dvx100A for the test?! :)

Greg B -- I was 6-8 feet from the gull, I think I was at 20x.

I'll see you all in a few days.

Barry

Marty Hudzik · September 5th, 2004, 08:40 AM

Barry,
Do you think you could post a few images that are shot in better light? what I mean is better color. I am experiencing poor color with the XL2. The footage I shot of the hawk in the tree reproduced the greens horribly...very muted and flat. IT looked like a horrible overcast day on tape but in the real world it was bright and sunny. Also.....I know it's not a scientific measurement, but I shot footage of my almost 3 year old daughter in my living room which has one incandescent light. I white balanced on the white wall as I have always done with my former DVX and shot 1-2 minutes and the colors are way off! And the image seems incredibly soft.

I even showed the footage to my wife and she thought the color reproduction and the overall softness was terrible! She mentioned that it looked like when I used to use a Canon ZR10 for filming my daughter. I had the XL1, The DVX100 (non a) and now this and so far something seems wrong! I have read the manual thoroughly and didn't miss anything obvious.

All of my footage has that lack of real color that your beach footage has. YOu mentinoed it was the time of day or whatever that actually caused that and I understand. But I have been in broad bright daylight and the colors just don;t Pop! And sometimes seem wrong.

Please advise....

Thanks

September 4th, 2004, 08:19 PM	#31
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	XL2 full resolution footage posted The full resolution footage is up on my .mac public folder...you can access it here. http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html If you have problems downloading it, it is also available on an Imovie viewing page (see top of page) The shots were made at Pismo Beach, California on friday afternoon. You can see from the first shot that an inversion layer was settling in, which accounts for the lack of color in most of the images... Lens used was the 20x Is-II lens. All shots were made with the camera set to defaults, manual exposure, and autofocus. 30p mode was used in the 16;9 aspect ratio. I highly recommend that you download this to tape and take your vtr down to Best Buy and watch it on the biggest HD set they have!! Barry I'm off to San Diego for some R&R. Hopefully I'll come back with a little XL2 Shamu!

September 5th, 2004, 01:48 AM	#37
Rich Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Los Angeles Ca Posts: 126	Yeah, the difference between the 16/9 and 4/3 stills have me stumped as well. framing wise it looks like any sort of 16/9 frame you would get from any other dv cam that will do a crop and stretch. would definitly like so more info on this..... __________________ Rich Lee http://www.rich-lee.com

September 5th, 2004, 03:17 AM	#40
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Greg (and others): the camera was just positioned differently or more zoomed in for the 16x9 shot. It will definitely increase horizontally when going from 4:3 to 16:9. Tape is not 4:3. Tape is tape. In this case a digital DV signal is layed down to tape. This signal will ALWAYS be 720x480 @ 29.97 fps for NTSC. Whether it is interlaced (I'm not saying your footage is turning into progressive this way!), 24p or 16:9. 16:9 simply uses a different pixel aspect ratio but it is still reduced to 720x480 (for NTSC). The increase in resolution (after encoded to DV) is in the vertical, not horizontal (although it will probably benefit from the increased CCD resolution to get a better detailed picture). Also see the following thread if you are going to watch the beach footage on your computer: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=31220 p.s. it looks like the movie has been saved with the high quality flag already enabled. So you might not need to set it, but good to check it anyway! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 5th, 2004, 07:47 AM	#43
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Lauri Just like the XL1S, the XL2 has a "VCR Stop" feature which will bypass the automatic shutdown if you want it to. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

September 4th, 2004, 09:15 PM	#32
Mark Grgurev Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Fairview,nj Posts: 137	Barry, that was awesome footage!!!

September 4th, 2004, 09:55 PM	#33
Jaime Valles Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York City, NY Posts: 316	That looks great, Barry! Very impressive. Thanks for the footage.

September 4th, 2004, 10:44 PM	#34
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Barry, How far away were you from the bird to get that full headshot? Was it a full 20X to pull him in? Just curious. Thanks for posting the footage. regards,

September 4th, 2004, 11:32 PM	#35
Antoine Fabi Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: sherbrooke (Quebec) Canada Posts: 108	Barry, is it possible for you to compare footage with the DVX100A, because there is a significant difference between the DVX100 and the DVX100A (color and dynamic range). The XL2 looks better in 16:9 than in 4:3. I think you're right, in 4:3 mode i see a edge enhancement (sharpening). The 16:9 is smoother, more natural luma and chroma. do you remember what was the vertical detail setting ? thanks

September 4th, 2004, 11:56 PM	#36
Greg Matty Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 177	Barry, Regarding your still life frames of the dolls and vase: The 16:9 image shows the tops of the vase being cropped. I always thought 16:9 was like a wider angle lens so to speak that squeezed additional horizontal information into the frame as opposed to removing vertical information. Any chance someone can explain this to me since I now have no idea how this 16:9 on a 4:3 DV tape works??? Greg P.S. Can someone tell me what FCP settings I need to use to get this video to play back without rendering? I have the sequence set to 16:9 and also flagged the video clip as anamorphic. I still get the red render bar!!!???

September 5th, 2004, 02:50 AM	#38
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	I'm guessing he reframed when in 16x9 mode to try to match the original shot horizontally. I have the XL2 and can verify that when I aim at a target in 4x3 and then switch to 16x9 the field of view definitely increases. I can see 33% more area horizontally without touhing the zoom.

September 5th, 2004, 02:57 AM	#39
Robin Davies-Rollinson Trustee Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gwaelod-y-garth, Cardiff, CYMRU/WALES Posts: 1,215	Agreed on that Marty. You can see the effect here: http://www.simplydv.com/Reviews/canon_xl2.html There's quite a difference! Robin. Simplydv.com

September 5th, 2004, 04:31 AM	#41
Lauri Kettunen Major Player Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Kangasala, Finland Posts: 445	Barry, thanks for the highly interesting samples. Does the XL2 have the same property as XL1 that the power is automatically switch off if the camera is not used for a while? If so, is it possible to bypass this feature?

September 5th, 2004, 05:38 AM	#42
Kevin Lee Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 224	A little offtopic... i noticed the codec used on this clip was dvcpro50. Is there any quality benefits to using this codec to the normal quicktime dv one?

September 5th, 2004, 08:12 AM	#44
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	You guys (sorry laurie), I mean, you all, were busy last night. Kevin, the codec was dvcpro (not dvcpro50). I'm not an expert in this, but I think this is just the standard DV codec. Greg- as marty suggested, I just zoomed in to fill the same horizontal area. (I left the camera in place). As you suggested, if I had left the camera alone, then we would have more info on the sides. (but the center info would have essentially remained the same). I wanted to show the resolution increase of 16:9, so I did it this way...I guess if you wanted to show the wider angle of view, you would do it the other way. As for getting it to run in FCP without rendering...you might try opening it in quicktime and taking the stretch out of it...I don't know if that will do it or not. FCP does have the automatic 16:9 preview, but I don't think the QT player does, so I added a preview stretch in QT so everyone could see it in 16:9. Antoine--can you send me your dvx100A for the test?! :) Greg B -- I was 6-8 feet from the gull, I think I was at 20x. I'll see you all in a few days. Barry

September 5th, 2004, 08:40 AM	#45
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Barry, Do you think you could post a few images that are shot in better light? what I mean is better color. I am experiencing poor color with the XL2. The footage I shot of the hawk in the tree reproduced the greens horribly...very muted and flat. IT looked like a horrible overcast day on tape but in the real world it was bright and sunny. Also.....I know it's not a scientific measurement, but I shot footage of my almost 3 year old daughter in my living room which has one incandescent light. I white balanced on the white wall as I have always done with my former DVX and shot 1-2 minutes and the colors are way off! And the image seems incredibly soft. I even showed the footage to my wife and she thought the color reproduction and the overall softness was terrible! She mentioned that it looked like when I used to use a Canon ZR10 for filming my daughter. I had the XL1, The DVX100 (non a) and now this and so far something seems wrong! I have read the manual thoroughly and didn't miss anything obvious. All of my footage has that lack of real color that your beach footage has. YOu mentinoed it was the time of day or whatever that actually caused that and I understand. But I have been in broad bright daylight and the colors just don;t Pop! And sometimes seem wrong. Please advise.... Thanks