Is there a "thin" mode in XL2? at DVinfo.net

Miguel Lopez · October 6th, 2004, 07:21 AM

Hello everybody. I have a couple questions here. Is there a "thin" mode of recording as there is in the panasonic dvx100? I find it very nice when displaying images on computers and the queality is superb.

Second question: in PAL version of the XL2 compared to XL1 when you mount the 3x canon wide angular, how much angle do you loose? 7%?

Last question: i loved the iris wheel on XL1, but i found the new XM2 has changed and to me it looks worse. Anyone who has experienced both of them could tell me the difference?

thanks to all

Barry Goyette · October 6th, 2004, 08:40 AM

Miguel

The equivalent to the "thin" mode on the xl2 is the "normal" detail mode (which is also the default settiing). The xl2 also has a "low" setting which corresponds to the "thick" detail setting on the dvx. To my eye, the normal detail setting on the xl2 causes less of the line twitter and aliasing that is often seen on the DVX (I compared some tapes last night on my HD monitor at home).

Regarding lens viewing angles. The angle of view is the same in 16:9, less in 4:3. Here are the facts

http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php

I''m not so bothered by the new iris switch, but a lot of other people are. In reality it's a minor annoyance at worst, but one often wonders why canon changed it.

Barry

Marty Hudzik · October 6th, 2004, 08:42 AM

I can't remember the exact terminology as my XL2 is not here at work with me today, but there are 2 settings. Something like vertical detail=normal or low. Normal being the default and being the equivalent of thin on the DVX.

The iris "switch" is a minor inconvenience for me now. I originally thought I would hate it but adjusted quite quickly to it. I recommend that you manually update it by quickly clicking it. In other words it is too slow on its own and if you wait for it to go on its own you can see the incremental steps. Kind of like setting an alarm clock. if you hold it down it stpes slowly. However if you repeastedly press it real fast it is hard to see the increments and looks more like a wheel.

edit: Hey Barry.....we still keep typing over each other at the same time. This time with almost the same exact message.

Miguel Lopez · October 6th, 2004, 08:49 AM

Allright.

So, in normal mode the XL2 records as the thin mode in dvx100. In that case, images shown on a tv monitor will be seen worse than when recording at low detail, won´t they?

in the panasonic, if you record in thick mode, images look much better in a tv screen than in thin mode, even when the thin has more resolution.

So in xl2, does it happen the same?

And for the lenses. I know that chart. But somewhere i read that the ccds of the new xl2 are a bit smaller, so any optical that you attach will have an increase in field of view of 1.1.

The X3 canon wide lense has an equivalent of 26.6 mm in standard 35 mm photography (16.9). But i cannot find what was the equivalent in the old XL1 using the same lense. Was it also 26.6 or perhaps a little more angular, around 22mm?

Thanks for your help.

Marty Hudzik · October 6th, 2004, 09:06 AM

Miguel,

here is what I found:

the 3x on the XL1 is 24mm to 72mm
on the XL2 in 16x9 its 26.6-79.8mm

so 1.1 is indeed pretty accurate.

Miguel Lopez · October 6th, 2004, 09:12 AM

Thanks. So we loose some "angularyness" ;-P

ummm, i wonder if it would be possible to atach an anamorphic converter to the canon 3x wide angular shooting at 16:9.

We would have a 2.35 aspect ratio and a field of view around 18 mm (equivalent to 35 mm). Nice!

But the diameter of this lense is too big. Do you know if something like that exists?

Barry Goyette · October 6th, 2004, 09:20 AM

<<<<In the panasonic, if you record in thick mode, images look much better in a tv screen than in thin mode, even when the thin has more resolution.
So in xl2, does it happen the same?>>>

Depending on the subject, the DVX could have a problem in thin mode on a normal television. This was usually in the form of line twitter and alias/moire caused by increased image detail. In my experience, the xl2 exhibits less of this (but I am comparing it in 16:9 mode, where the xl2 has a distinct advantage), and I have had the xl2 in normal mode since I've had it, and I've only occasionally noticed a problem. (usually in scenes where there are strong linear patterns visible in the frame.) Overall the xl2 produces a fine image in the normal mode. The low mode looks a bit like the old Frame mode (just like the thick on the DVX).

<<And for the lenses. I know that chart. But somewhere i read that the ccds of the new xl2 are a bit smaller, so any optical that you attach will have an increase in field of view of 1.1. >>

The chip is the same size. In 16:9 mode the xl2 has the same horizontal angle of view as the xl1 in 16:9. In the 4:3 mode its substantially less. I think the 1.1 measurement comes from comparing the xl1 4:3 with the xl2 16:9 on the diagonal.

Barry

Marty...I think we need a signal...like outfielders...a wave and "I got it". waddya think.

October 6th, 2004, 07:21 AM	#1
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	Is there a "thin" mode in XL2? Hello everybody. I have a couple questions here. Is there a "thin" mode of recording as there is in the panasonic dvx100? I find it very nice when displaying images on computers and the queality is superb. Second question: in PAL version of the XL2 compared to XL1 when you mount the 3x canon wide angular, how much angle do you loose? 7%? Last question: i loved the iris wheel on XL1, but i found the new XM2 has changed and to me it looks worse. Anyone who has experienced both of them could tell me the difference? thanks to all

October 6th, 2004, 08:40 AM	#2
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Miguel The equivalent to the "thin" mode on the xl2 is the "normal" detail mode (which is also the default settiing). The xl2 also has a "low" setting which corresponds to the "thick" detail setting on the dvx. To my eye, the normal detail setting on the xl2 causes less of the line twitter and aliasing that is often seen on the DVX (I compared some tapes last night on my HD monitor at home). Regarding lens viewing angles. The angle of view is the same in 16:9, less in 4:3. Here are the facts http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/articles/article04.php I''m not so bothered by the new iris switch, but a lot of other people are. In reality it's a minor annoyance at worst, but one often wonders why canon changed it. Barry

October 6th, 2004, 08:42 AM	#3
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	I can't remember the exact terminology as my XL2 is not here at work with me today, but there are 2 settings. Something like vertical detail=normal or low. Normal being the default and being the equivalent of thin on the DVX. The iris "switch" is a minor inconvenience for me now. I originally thought I would hate it but adjusted quite quickly to it. I recommend that you manually update it by quickly clicking it. In other words it is too slow on its own and if you wait for it to go on its own you can see the incremental steps. Kind of like setting an alarm clock. if you hold it down it stpes slowly. However if you repeastedly press it real fast it is hard to see the increments and looks more like a wheel. edit: Hey Barry.....we still keep typing over each other at the same time. This time with almost the same exact message.

October 6th, 2004, 08:49 AM	#4
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	Allright. So, in normal mode the XL2 records as the thin mode in dvx100. In that case, images shown on a tv monitor will be seen worse than when recording at low detail, won´t they? in the panasonic, if you record in thick mode, images look much better in a tv screen than in thin mode, even when the thin has more resolution. So in xl2, does it happen the same? And for the lenses. I know that chart. But somewhere i read that the ccds of the new xl2 are a bit smaller, so any optical that you attach will have an increase in field of view of 1.1. The X3 canon wide lense has an equivalent of 26.6 mm in standard 35 mm photography (16.9). But i cannot find what was the equivalent in the old XL1 using the same lense. Was it also 26.6 or perhaps a little more angular, around 22mm? Thanks for your help.

October 6th, 2004, 09:06 AM	#5
Marty Hudzik Trustee Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 1,771	Miguel, here is what I found: the 3x on the XL1 is 24mm to 72mm on the XL2 in 16x9 its 26.6-79.8mm so 1.1 is indeed pretty accurate.

October 6th, 2004, 09:12 AM	#6
Miguel Lopez Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 187	Thanks. So we loose some "angularyness" ;-P ummm, i wonder if it would be possible to atach an anamorphic converter to the canon 3x wide angular shooting at 16:9. We would have a 2.35 aspect ratio and a field of view around 18 mm (equivalent to 35 mm). Nice! But the diameter of this lense is too big. Do you know if something like that exists?

October 6th, 2004, 09:20 AM	#7
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	<<<<In the panasonic, if you record in thick mode, images look much better in a tv screen than in thin mode, even when the thin has more resolution. So in xl2, does it happen the same?>>> Depending on the subject, the DVX could have a problem in thin mode on a normal television. This was usually in the form of line twitter and alias/moire caused by increased image detail. In my experience, the xl2 exhibits less of this (but I am comparing it in 16:9 mode, where the xl2 has a distinct advantage), and I have had the xl2 in normal mode since I've had it, and I've only occasionally noticed a problem. (usually in scenes where there are strong linear patterns visible in the frame.) Overall the xl2 produces a fine image in the normal mode. The low mode looks a bit like the old Frame mode (just like the thick on the DVX). <<And for the lenses. I know that chart. But somewhere i read that the ccds of the new xl2 are a bit smaller, so any optical that you attach will have an increase in field of view of 1.1. >> The chip is the same size. In 16:9 mode the xl2 has the same horizontal angle of view as the xl1 in 16:9. In the 4:3 mode its substantially less. I think the 1.1 measurement comes from comparing the xl1 4:3 with the xl2 16:9 on the diagonal. Barry Marty...I think we need a signal...like outfielders...a wave and "I got it". waddya think.