New Full Res XL2 footage online

Jeff Rosenberg · September 9th, 2004, 10:28 PM

Obviously I appreciate this (I posted that earlier tonight) but I also really do want to see some stuff shot with 24p. For your next test if that is possible, that would be awesome.

Evan Fisher · September 9th, 2004, 10:33 PM

The footage looks real nice. I brought it into FCP so I could look at it on my 27" Studio Monitor. Considering it came from DV, compressed Mpeg 4, the compression changed back to DV and the footage distorted and rendered to play back on my monitor, there were surprisingly few artifacts. Barry, I noticed that the aspect ratios of the video from the 2 different sequences were quite different. I'm curious if what you did added to the grayness of the first clip or was that just the effect of the marine layer?

Jaime Valles · September 9th, 2004, 11:09 PM

Barry, the footage looks stunning! I really cannot believe the quality. I have a DVX100 and I love it's image, but I think this is spectacular. I'm looking at it on an NTSC monitor through FCP, and the colors look so vibrant... Remarkable!

Just to be clear: This was the XL2 NTSC? Or was it PAL? 30p, right? Maybe later you can post some 24pA footage? Thanks so much!

Barry Goyette · September 10th, 2004, 08:55 AM

Good morning.

One of the reasons I posted this new clip is that I realized while the first beach stuff showed the resolution aspects of the camera, it was somewhat lacking in color. The scene at the beach was truly colorless (I do have some shots with color, but I chose not to include them because my camera work was lousy--ego is a terrible thing).

The second clip was shot in three bursts,-- early morning--dusk--midday. All colors are as seen...a polarizer was used on most shots. One clip (wide shot of the lily pond with botanical building in background) was corrected as the original white balance was off compared to the rest of the clips.

Lens used most is the 20x, also used are the 16x and the 3x (slightly soft pan of the convention center).

The last two cuts show the effect on greens of a white balance adjustment.

I think the problems some people are having with stuttering motion is due to the high bit rate mpeg4 encoding.

On the 24p thing....I've always been anti- 24p...but I'll try...may be a few days before I can put something up...My feeling is that it will look the same except jerkier...

This was the NTSC version of the xl2.

Later today I'll post some stills from a still life with gamma, knee and black adjustments.

Barry

Greg Patch · September 10th, 2004, 09:23 AM

You've got to be kidding me, that looks awesome, looks like I know what I'm buying for Christmas now.....

Yeah, let's see some 24p footage....

Keep up the great work.....

Marty Hudzik · September 10th, 2004, 09:35 AM

Barry,
NIce work! Looks really good and really clear in comparison with what I was originally seeing with my XL2. Well I have had a little more time to work with it and tweak the settings and must say I love the results. I took it into the shop with me and filmed some of our crew in the warehouse and I'm now convinced of the huge resolution boost in 16x9 mode.

Now...onto the colors. Even having seen your footage I still feel like the colors are a little muted when compared with the DVX. BUt they still look great...they just don'y pop the way the DVX does. BUt...that is without turning on cinegamma. I have found that the XL2 will produce the same brilliant colors as the DVX when I enable Cinegamma and push the clolor gain up a few notches. SO far so good.

I still stand by the fact that the XL2 seems to be less forgiving in average to slightly below average lighting conditions. There is no doubt that the XL2 has great controls and can deliver great results. BUT just as easily the thing can give you a not so good picture if you use it wrong.....with great power comes great responsibility.

In my case I used the DVX professionally during the day job and as my personal camera to film my 2 year old around the house in my spare time. And the DVX......in progressive without gain......can and does shoot acceptable video in almost all of the normal house lighting shots I've done. The XL2 does not deliver the same quality of image in those situations without bumping up gain or opening the shutter to1/24 for them. Is that bad? No. I just have to use the features that are there for me.

But remember I come from a background where you never ever use gain! Gian is the enemy. In short....I now see the quality that the XL2 can and does deliver if you provide it adequate light. I also see that there are controls at our disposal within the cam to get good if not great images in less than desirable lighting.

I will be filming by daughter 3 year birthday party tomorrow and we have a pony coming. All of the kids are dressing like princess's and knights. So i should have some real nice footage with lots of colors shot ouotside on what is supposed to be a beautiful day.
I hope to post some samples.

Oh.....and of course this party must be shot in 24p 16x9. After all....it is an epic!

David Lach · September 10th, 2004, 12:38 PM

Barry, if you ever shoot 24p, I'd like to see it shot with the 2:3:3:2 mode so I can grab the footage, remove the extra frame and experiment with editing in Premiere, as I don't even know yet if it'll be stable and properly working (it should be, just want to make sure).

For those shots, 1/48th and 1/24th shutter speeds with some basic motion (pans, tilts, etc.) would help determine the quality (and utility) of this mode.

Don't feel pressured to go out of your way and answer every little request like mine, it's really great you took the time to provide this footage already. But if you ever got the urge to look at the 24p option, those are some things I'd be very interested to see.

Thanks

Arnaldo Paixao · September 13th, 2004, 05:29 AM

Naah... Didn't like it. Too good. Awfull good. It makes me feel bad that people put such things on the net for others to see. You shouldn't. Bad boy. I was happy with my XL1s and XM2(GL2). But no Sir, you had to spoile it. :)

Take care and thank you for sharing.
Best regards,
Arnaldo

Dave Perry · September 15th, 2004, 07:26 PM

Barry,

I was under the impression that 16:9 equaled 854x480. Wat am I missing?

TIA, Dave

Barry Goyette · September 15th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Well dave...this is a question that I've been asking myself, and I'm not sure if I've got it right...so this maybe up to some smarter heads than me...

yes 16:9 in NTSC is 853x480 (at least by my calculations)...just as 4:3 in NTSC is 640 x 480. The DV format, however uses non-square pixels...so the DV NTSC format for 4:3 is 720 x 480...thus by my math...16:9 in DV should be 960 x 480....and this is also the dimensions of the Xl2 sensor in 16:9....so this should be right...

But...and I'm not sure if my eyes are playing tricks on me...

the first clip I loaded, the ocean stuff...originally I posted it in DV format stretched to 960x480...and all looked fine to me....Later I added some more footage, this time compressed in mpeg4...I left it unstretched in the file, but when I stretched it out to 960 here at the studio...things were looking "stretched" to me. But when I compared the new video (sandiego) to the old uncompressed video (beach)...the window dimensions are the same...so I'm not sure anymore...

I owe a beer to the person who can clear this up for me...because I haven't been sleeping well since I posted those videos...and I think this may be why...

Barry

Marty Hudzik · September 15th, 2004, 07:59 PM

Barry,
Check to see if the footage has been resized and is set to 1.2 pixel aspect ratio which is NTSC 16x9. Some software ignores the pixel aspect ratio and uses square pixels anyway. IN that case you have no choice but to resize the video. However if the software allows, specify in the encoding process to be square pixels. If you leave it as is and the pixel aspect is 1.2 and you resize it then you have the potential that it will be 960x480 and 1.2 pixels. Which will look stretched.

Just my guess as I have seem this happen before.

Hope I get that beer!

Dave Perry · September 15th, 2004, 08:07 PM

Thanks for the reply Barry. Now you have shed some light on a mistake I have been making. I took for granted, with out doing the math, that 720x480 (DV) WAS 4:3. Now, having done the math, I realize that it's actually 4.5:3. This also explains why when I view the package contents of an iDVD project to get the MPEG2 file out of it, the dimensions are 640x480. I always assumed that the MPEG2 dimensions were 720x480 as well and that the DVD player was told whether or not to strech the view depending on if it's a wide screen or standard movie.

Now my next question. With uncompressed 10 bit are the pixels non square as well? I would think so since the format calls for 720x486.

Barry Goyette · September 15th, 2004, 08:13 PM

<<Now my next question. With uncompressed 10 bit are the pixels non square as well? I would think so since the format calls for 720x486.>>>

Way over my head man....can we please talk about moire or something useful...I'm just a DV boy...where's don berube?

Barry

Marty Hudzik · September 15th, 2004, 08:21 PM

The frame size in pixels has nothing to do with the aspect ratio. The aspect ratio is derived by the ratio of horizontal to vertical lines. In other words 720x480 could be 4x3 or it could be 16x9 depending on the shape of the pixel. That si what I am referring to when I say pixel aspect ratio. Each pixel in 16x9 mode is more rectangular in nature than 4x3 mode. Therefore the aspect of the frame is dependent on all of these elements.

Confusing huh?

Dave Perry · September 15th, 2004, 08:27 PM

Marty,

Confusing yes, but this discussion has helped me. I come to video with a background in web and print graphics where pixels are square and resolution is based on how many pixels are contained in a square inch.

September 15th, 2004, 07:26 PM	#24
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	Barry, I was under the impression that 16:9 equaled 854x480. Wat am I missing? TIA, Dave __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

September 15th, 2004, 08:07 PM	#27
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	Thanks for the reply Barry. Now you have shed some light on a mistake I have been making. I took for granted, with out doing the math, that 720x480 (DV) WAS 4:3. Now, having done the math, I realize that it's actually 4.5:3. This also explains why when I view the package contents of an iDVD project to get the MPEG2 file out of it, the dimensions are 640x480. I always assumed that the MPEG2 dimensions were 720x480 as well and that the DVD player was told whether or not to strech the view depending on if it's a wide screen or standard movie. Now my next question. With uncompressed 10 bit are the pixels non square as well? I would think so since the format calls for 720x486. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

September 15th, 2004, 08:27 PM	#30
Dave Perry Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 796	Marty, Confusing yes, but this discussion has helped me. I come to video with a background in web and print graphics where pixels are square and resolution is based on how many pixels are contained in a square inch. __________________ Dave Perry Cinematographer LLC Director of Photography • Editor • Digital Film Production • 540.915.2752 • daveperry.net

September 9th, 2004, 10:28 PM	#16
Jeff Rosenberg New Boot Join Date: May 2004 Location: Athens, OH Posts: 14	Obviously I appreciate this (I posted that earlier tonight) but I also really do want to see some stuff shot with 24p. For your next test if that is possible, that would be awesome.

September 9th, 2004, 10:33 PM	#17
Evan Fisher Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Los Angeles, Ca. Posts: 137	The footage looks real nice. I brought it into FCP so I could look at it on my 27" Studio Monitor. Considering it came from DV, compressed Mpeg 4, the compression changed back to DV and the footage distorted and rendered to play back on my monitor, there were surprisingly few artifacts. Barry, I noticed that the aspect ratios of the video from the 2 different sequences were quite different. I'm curious if what you did added to the grayness of the first clip or was that just the effect of the marine layer?

September 9th, 2004, 11:09 PM	#18
Jaime Valles Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York City, NY Posts: 316	Barry, the footage looks stunning! I really cannot believe the quality. I have a DVX100 and I love it's image, but I think this is spectacular. I'm looking at it on an NTSC monitor through FCP, and the colors look so vibrant... Remarkable! Just to be clear: This was the XL2 NTSC? Or was it PAL? 30p, right? Maybe later you can post some 24pA footage? Thanks so much!

September 10th, 2004, 08:55 AM	#19
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Good morning. One of the reasons I posted this new clip is that I realized while the first beach stuff showed the resolution aspects of the camera, it was somewhat lacking in color. The scene at the beach was truly colorless (I do have some shots with color, but I chose not to include them because my camera work was lousy--ego is a terrible thing). The second clip was shot in three bursts,-- early morning--dusk--midday. All colors are as seen...a polarizer was used on most shots. One clip (wide shot of the lily pond with botanical building in background) was corrected as the original white balance was off compared to the rest of the clips. Lens used most is the 20x, also used are the 16x and the 3x (slightly soft pan of the convention center). The last two cuts show the effect on greens of a white balance adjustment. I think the problems some people are having with stuttering motion is due to the high bit rate mpeg4 encoding. On the 24p thing....I've always been anti- 24p...but I'll try...may be a few days before I can put something up...My feeling is that it will look the same except jerkier... This was the NTSC version of the xl2. Later today I'll post some stills from a still life with gamma, knee and black adjustments. Barry

September 10th, 2004, 09:23 AM	#20
Greg Patch Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Huntsville, Alabama Posts: 181	You've got to be kidding me, that looks awesome, looks like I know what I'm buying for Christmas now..... Yeah, let's see some 24p footage.... Keep up the great work.....

September 10th, 2004, 09:35 AM	#21
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Barry, NIce work! Looks really good and really clear in comparison with what I was originally seeing with my XL2. Well I have had a little more time to work with it and tweak the settings and must say I love the results. I took it into the shop with me and filmed some of our crew in the warehouse and I'm now convinced of the huge resolution boost in 16x9 mode. Now...onto the colors. Even having seen your footage I still feel like the colors are a little muted when compared with the DVX. BUt they still look great...they just don'y pop the way the DVX does. BUt...that is without turning on cinegamma. I have found that the XL2 will produce the same brilliant colors as the DVX when I enable Cinegamma and push the clolor gain up a few notches. SO far so good. I still stand by the fact that the XL2 seems to be less forgiving in average to slightly below average lighting conditions. There is no doubt that the XL2 has great controls and can deliver great results. BUT just as easily the thing can give you a not so good picture if you use it wrong.....with great power comes great responsibility. In my case I used the DVX professionally during the day job and as my personal camera to film my 2 year old around the house in my spare time. And the DVX......in progressive without gain......can and does shoot acceptable video in almost all of the normal house lighting shots I've done. The XL2 does not deliver the same quality of image in those situations without bumping up gain or opening the shutter to1/24 for them. Is that bad? No. I just have to use the features that are there for me. But remember I come from a background where you never ever use gain! Gian is the enemy. In short....I now see the quality that the XL2 can and does deliver if you provide it adequate light. I also see that there are controls at our disposal within the cam to get good if not great images in less than desirable lighting. I will be filming by daughter 3 year birthday party tomorrow and we have a pony coming. All of the kids are dressing like princess's and knights. So i should have some real nice footage with lots of colors shot ouotside on what is supposed to be a beautiful day. I hope to post some samples. Oh.....and of course this party must be shot in 24p 16x9. After all....it is an epic!

September 10th, 2004, 12:38 PM	#22
David Lach Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, QC, Canada Posts: 570	Barry, if you ever shoot 24p, I'd like to see it shot with the 2:3:3:2 mode so I can grab the footage, remove the extra frame and experiment with editing in Premiere, as I don't even know yet if it'll be stable and properly working (it should be, just want to make sure). For those shots, 1/48th and 1/24th shutter speeds with some basic motion (pans, tilts, etc.) would help determine the quality (and utility) of this mode. Don't feel pressured to go out of your way and answer every little request like mine, it's really great you took the time to provide this footage already. But if you ever got the urge to look at the 24p option, those are some things I'd be very interested to see. Thanks

September 13th, 2004, 05:29 AM	#23
Arnaldo Paixao Major Player Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Vimeiro - Portugal Posts: 255	Naah... Didn't like it. Too good. Awfull good. It makes me feel bad that people put such things on the net for others to see. You shouldn't. Bad boy. I was happy with my XL1s and XM2(GL2). But no Sir, you had to spoile it. :) Take care and thank you for sharing. Best regards, Arnaldo

September 15th, 2004, 07:48 PM	#25
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Well dave...this is a question that I've been asking myself, and I'm not sure if I've got it right...so this maybe up to some smarter heads than me... yes 16:9 in NTSC is 853x480 (at least by my calculations)...just as 4:3 in NTSC is 640 x 480. The DV format, however uses non-square pixels...so the DV NTSC format for 4:3 is 720 x 480...thus by my math...16:9 in DV should be 960 x 480....and this is also the dimensions of the Xl2 sensor in 16:9....so this should be right... But...and I'm not sure if my eyes are playing tricks on me... the first clip I loaded, the ocean stuff...originally I posted it in DV format stretched to 960x480...and all looked fine to me....Later I added some more footage, this time compressed in mpeg4...I left it unstretched in the file, but when I stretched it out to 960 here at the studio...things were looking "stretched" to me. But when I compared the new video (sandiego) to the old uncompressed video (beach)...the window dimensions are the same...so I'm not sure anymore... I owe a beer to the person who can clear this up for me...because I haven't been sleeping well since I posted those videos...and I think this may be why... Barry

September 15th, 2004, 07:59 PM	#26
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Barry, Check to see if the footage has been resized and is set to 1.2 pixel aspect ratio which is NTSC 16x9. Some software ignores the pixel aspect ratio and uses square pixels anyway. IN that case you have no choice but to resize the video. However if the software allows, specify in the encoding process to be square pixels. If you leave it as is and the pixel aspect is 1.2 and you resize it then you have the potential that it will be 960x480 and 1.2 pixels. Which will look stretched. Just my guess as I have seem this happen before. Hope I get that beer!

September 15th, 2004, 08:13 PM	#28
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	<<Now my next question. With uncompressed 10 bit are the pixels non square as well? I would think so since the format calls for 720x486.>>> Way over my head man....can we please talk about moire or something useful...I'm just a DV boy...where's don berube? Barry

September 15th, 2004, 08:21 PM	#29
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	The frame size in pixels has nothing to do with the aspect ratio. The aspect ratio is derived by the ratio of horizontal to vertical lines. In other words 720x480 could be 4x3 or it could be 16x9 depending on the shape of the pixel. That si what I am referring to when I say pixel aspect ratio. Each pixel in 16x9 mode is more rectangular in nature than 4x3 mode. Therefore the aspect of the frame is dependent on all of these elements. Confusing huh?