Xl2 footage at 30p at DVinfo.net

Wes Coughlin · June 28th, 2005, 11:00 PM

This video was just a test for me, to see how my new xl2 worked a little while ago. This is a goofy little video with no point or any cordination; but i tried to make it somewhat intertaining even though its just a test. This had some color correction after i shot it. I dont remember what i did in the color correction, but the video was shot at 30p and 16 by 9. Quality is less due to compression for the internet; but may give an idea to someone.

http://www.savefile.com/filehost/files.php?fid=2263600

make sure you click download on the second page also; it tries to trick you :)

Travis Maynard · June 28th, 2005, 11:37 PM

Nice little test. Makes me wanna play some tennis haha.

Just out of curiosity, what software did you edit with? What process did you render (Codecs, Pixel Aspect Ratio, Compression, etc.)?

I have been rendering and getting much much larger filesizes and I cannot get it small enough without my video looking horrible.

Lucinda Luvaas · June 29th, 2005, 01:47 PM

Hi Again Wes!

I'll be filming this afternoon and will do some work at 30p and 60i. I was wondering what differences there are, in terms of "look" between these two? I was told that 60i is very crisp compared to 30p. Under what circumstances would someone use 60i? my friend said that I would probably not have much occasion to use it, but I don't know why I wouldn't at this point.

I know that 24p is a film look and that film is shot at 24p. Also, I've noticed that the colors appear richer, more saturated, which is lovely.

Any info about the 60i question would be greatly appreciated!

Lucinda

Wes Coughlin · June 29th, 2005, 06:16 PM

I edit in premiere pro 1.5 and exported to avi. Then later on when i decided to put this clip on the internet; i used quicktime to compress it. Im not sure if its the standard quicktime or a special one, because it was on my brothers laptop and he had it set up so he could stream videos via internet, and he metioned that it was some special version i think it was quicktime pro . But anyways, i too was having a hard time to encode my video just right, so i search through yahoo and found a couple suggestions on what to do. First i used a Sorenson 3 codec; just becuase some guy said he recommended it over mpeg4, i had the frame rate at 30, size at 620 by 360 i think, and the limit data rate at 200. I tried just a little while ago to use the media encoder in premiere to export to this quicktime settings i did before; but it keeps on screwing with my video in different ways, and somehow changes it to 4:3 instead of 16 by 9. If this doesnt help any try searching for "good settings for quicktime video export for web" or somthing, at google/yahoo and their are other forms about it also.

Wes Coughlin · June 29th, 2005, 06:27 PM

The 60i to me, does come out crisp and clearer; mostly becuase their is not a lot of motion plur or strobe to it. I fell that 60i is best for any video that you want to look like video. On the tennis video, i wish i did it in 24p, so i could test that out, becuase i already had another test video in 30p; im just retarded. But any ways, the 30p to me looks closer to film but with a little less motion blur and strobe to it. I like all the different settings the xl2 offers; and the only resaon why i would choose to use 30p over 24p is if i was sharing the film with others (where they edit it or somthing) or using a different version of premiere that did not offer 24p (Such as at school or somthing). i like 24p better, but 30p is a lot easier to work with for others/software; and for videos that are appose to have no artistic style to it, i use 60i. These are just my opinions though and i still have a lot more to learn.

Lucinda Luvaas · June 30th, 2005, 11:31 AM

Hi Wes,

Thanks for your thoughts. I know that all of the frames rates are beautiful on the XL2. Altho' it looks to me like 24p has richer, more saturated color, and that's a plus.

I had a film shoot yesterday and used 30p. The footage looked fabulous!

I'm so pleased with this camcorder!

And, with this Forum. It's the best!

Lucinda

Lucinda Luvaas · June 30th, 2005, 11:36 AM

You mentioned 4:3 and 16:9 and I'm trying to decide whether to stick with 4:3 for my new film or use 16:9. The film will be output to festivals, tv and universities...these are fictional narrative dramas. What would be the advantage to going with 16:9? I know this is a naive question, but I'm putting it out there to you all to get some thoughts about these two choices. I've always, up 'til purchasing the XL2, used 4:3.

Thanks in advance for any ideas!

Lucinda

Wes Coughlin · June 30th, 2005, 04:31 PM

One major advantage of 16:9 is that you can see much more. Personally; i like 16:9 much better, mostly because it reseambles film a little bit more. If your competing/showing in film festivals and trying to impress people, i would use 16:9. however it is still the creators choice; their is never a right way or a wrong way. So choose the one that best fits you and the moment.

Lucinda Luvaas · June 30th, 2005, 04:58 PM

Thanks!

I already shot footage using 4:3 would I have to redo it, or can I change the timeline setup to 16:9?

Lucinda

Greg Boston · June 30th, 2005, 05:22 PM

Lucinda,

Glad to hear you are enjoying your XL-2. I would advise going with 16:9 for a couple reasons. Some of them were already mentioned by Wes. The other, more technical reasons are that you actually get more resolution because the ccd uses more pixels to record the image. Also, there is a slight magnification of lens (around 1.2 IIRC) when shooting 4:3 on this camera. It has to do with the way Canon uses a smaller portion of the ccd block in 4:3.

So, if it's not too late, you might want to switch over. I think you will really be pleased then!

-gb-

Lucinda Luvaas · June 30th, 2005, 05:28 PM

Greg,

Thanks so much for the info! Is there any way I can use the clips I shot yesterday even tho' they were shot in 4:3? Could I make a 16:9 timeline and import? or should I just shoot what I did over again? I can with nothing lost, but my time.....

I really am very impressed with this cam. Also, with the battery pack mounted on the rear, it feels great! not at all front heavy. It feels just right and I was able to shoot for some time without a tripod.

Lucinda

Greg Boston · June 30th, 2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucinda Luvaas

Greg,

Thanks so much for the info! Is there any way I can use the clips I shot yesterday even tho' they were shot in 4:3? Could I make a 16:9 timeline and import? or should I just shoot what I did over again? I can with nothing lost, but my time.....

I really am very impressed with this cam. Also, with the battery pack mounted on the rear, it feels great! not at all front heavy. It feels just right and I was able to shoot for some time without a tripod.

Lucinda

I would recommend a re-shoot if at all possible. But, you could letterbox your existing 4:3 footage to 16:9 in post, at the expense of vertical resolution and possible framing issues since you probably weren't thinking 16:9 composition when you shot that footage.

-gb-

Lucinda Luvaas · June 30th, 2005, 07:04 PM

I guess I'll reshoot then. Probably it will all be better the second time anyway.

Thanks for your help!

Lucinda

Eniola Akintoye · July 6th, 2005, 09:18 PM

Wes,
How did you do your focus. I have a brand new XL2 and I am finding it a lil bit difficult getting that clear cut focus you did in your film?.

In help you can offer will be awesome.

Ash Greyson · July 6th, 2005, 10:10 PM

Focus on the XL2 is NOT easy. The new viewfinder makes it harder than the XL1 or XL1s. Best solution is an external monitor but that is not always an option... solution #2 is that I have one of my custom presets set to B&W and bumped sharpness, this REALLY helps with focus. I just choose preset 1, get my focus, then back to preset 2 or 3...

ash =o)

June 28th, 2005, 11:00 PM	#1
Wes Coughlin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 206	Xl2 footage at 30p This video was just a test for me, to see how my new xl2 worked a little while ago. This is a goofy little video with no point or any cordination; but i tried to make it somewhat intertaining even though its just a test. This had some color correction after i shot it. I dont remember what i did in the color correction, but the video was shot at 30p and 16 by 9. Quality is less due to compression for the internet; but may give an idea to someone. http://www.savefile.com/filehost/files.php?fid=2263600 make sure you click download on the second page also; it tries to trick you :) __________________ http://wildlookout.com

June 29th, 2005, 01:47 PM	#3
Lucinda Luvaas Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 233	Hi Again Wes! I'll be filming this afternoon and will do some work at 30p and 60i. I was wondering what differences there are, in terms of "look" between these two? I was told that 60i is very crisp compared to 30p. Under what circumstances would someone use 60i? my friend said that I would probably not have much occasion to use it, but I don't know why I wouldn't at this point. I know that 24p is a film look and that film is shot at 24p. Also, I've noticed that the colors appear richer, more saturated, which is lovely. Any info about the 60i question would be greatly appreciated! Lucinda Last edited by Lucinda Luvaas; June 29th, 2005 at 01:49 PM. Reason: grammar!

June 29th, 2005, 06:16 PM	#4
Wes Coughlin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 206	Travis Maynard I edit in premiere pro 1.5 and exported to avi. Then later on when i decided to put this clip on the internet; i used quicktime to compress it. Im not sure if its the standard quicktime or a special one, because it was on my brothers laptop and he had it set up so he could stream videos via internet, and he metioned that it was some special version i think it was quicktime pro . But anyways, i too was having a hard time to encode my video just right, so i search through yahoo and found a couple suggestions on what to do. First i used a Sorenson 3 codec; just becuase some guy said he recommended it over mpeg4, i had the frame rate at 30, size at 620 by 360 i think, and the limit data rate at 200. I tried just a little while ago to use the media encoder in premiere to export to this quicktime settings i did before; but it keeps on screwing with my video in different ways, and somehow changes it to 4:3 instead of 16 by 9. If this doesnt help any try searching for "good settings for quicktime video export for web" or somthing, at google/yahoo and their are other forms about it also. __________________ http://wildlookout.com

June 29th, 2005, 06:27 PM	#5
Wes Coughlin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 206	Lucinda Luvaas The 60i to me, does come out crisp and clearer; mostly becuase their is not a lot of motion plur or strobe to it. I fell that 60i is best for any video that you want to look like video. On the tennis video, i wish i did it in 24p, so i could test that out, becuase i already had another test video in 30p; im just retarded. But any ways, the 30p to me looks closer to film but with a little less motion blur and strobe to it. I like all the different settings the xl2 offers; and the only resaon why i would choose to use 30p over 24p is if i was sharing the film with others (where they edit it or somthing) or using a different version of premiere that did not offer 24p (Such as at school or somthing). i like 24p better, but 30p is a lot easier to work with for others/software; and for videos that are appose to have no artistic style to it, i use 60i. These are just my opinions though and i still have a lot more to learn. __________________ http://wildlookout.com

June 30th, 2005, 04:31 PM	#8
Wes Coughlin Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 206	Lucinda Luvaas One major advantage of 16:9 is that you can see much more. Personally; i like 16:9 much better, mostly because it reseambles film a little bit more. If your competing/showing in film festivals and trying to impress people, i would use 16:9. however it is still the creators choice; their is never a right way or a wrong way. So choose the one that best fits you and the moment. __________________ http://wildlookout.com

June 28th, 2005, 11:37 PM	#2
Travis Maynard Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Chapmanville, USA Posts: 138	Nice little test. Makes me wanna play some tennis haha. Just out of curiosity, what software did you edit with? What process did you render (Codecs, Pixel Aspect Ratio, Compression, etc.)? I have been rendering and getting much much larger filesizes and I cannot get it small enough without my video looking horrible.

June 30th, 2005, 11:31 AM	#6
Lucinda Luvaas Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 233	Hi Wes, Thanks for your thoughts. I know that all of the frames rates are beautiful on the XL2. Altho' it looks to me like 24p has richer, more saturated color, and that's a plus. I had a film shoot yesterday and used 30p. The footage looked fabulous! I'm so pleased with this camcorder! And, with this Forum. It's the best! Lucinda

June 30th, 2005, 11:36 AM	#7
Lucinda Luvaas Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 233	You mentioned 4:3 and 16:9 and I'm trying to decide whether to stick with 4:3 for my new film or use 16:9. The film will be output to festivals, tv and universities...these are fictional narrative dramas. What would be the advantage to going with 16:9? I know this is a naive question, but I'm putting it out there to you all to get some thoughts about these two choices. I've always, up 'til purchasing the XL2, used 4:3. Thanks in advance for any ideas! Lucinda

June 30th, 2005, 04:58 PM	#9
Lucinda Luvaas Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 233	Thanks! I already shot footage using 4:3 would I have to redo it, or can I change the timeline setup to 16:9? Lucinda

June 30th, 2005, 05:22 PM	#10
Greg Boston Wrangler Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: DFW area, TX Posts: 6,117 Images: 1	Lucinda, Glad to hear you are enjoying your XL-2. I would advise going with 16:9 for a couple reasons. Some of them were already mentioned by Wes. The other, more technical reasons are that you actually get more resolution because the ccd uses more pixels to record the image. Also, there is a slight magnification of lens (around 1.2 IIRC) when shooting 4:3 on this camera. It has to do with the way Canon uses a smaller portion of the ccd block in 4:3. So, if it's not too late, you might want to switch over. I think you will really be pleased then! -gb-

June 30th, 2005, 05:28 PM	#11
Lucinda Luvaas Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 233	Greg, Thanks so much for the info! Is there any way I can use the clips I shot yesterday even tho' they were shot in 4:3? Could I make a 16:9 timeline and import? or should I just shoot what I did over again? I can with nothing lost, but my time..... I really am very impressed with this cam. Also, with the battery pack mounted on the rear, it feels great! not at all front heavy. It feels just right and I was able to shoot for some time without a tripod. Lucinda

June 30th, 2005, 07:04 PM	#13
Lucinda Luvaas Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 233	I guess I'll reshoot then. Probably it will all be better the second time anyway. Thanks for your help! Lucinda

July 6th, 2005, 09:18 PM	#14
Eniola Akintoye Major Player Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Duluth GA Posts: 238	Wes, How did you do your focus. I have a brand new XL2 and I am finding it a lil bit difficult getting that clear cut focus you did in your film?. In help you can offer will be awesome.

July 6th, 2005, 10:10 PM	#15
Ash Greyson Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Tulsa, OK Posts: 1,689	Focus on the XL2 is NOT easy. The new viewfinder makes it harder than the XL1 or XL1s. Best solution is an external monitor but that is not always an option... solution #2 is that I have one of my custom presets set to B&W and bumped sharpness, this REALLY helps with focus. I just choose preset 1, get my focus, then back to preset 2 or 3... ash =o)