Xl1S Stills Posted at DVinfo.net

Steve Nunez · February 18th, 2002, 11:41 PM

Hello everyone....

.... seems like there's alot of interest in the "stills' capabilities of the Xl1S (and XL).....I've made a simple website showing the XL's abilities in low light at the American Museum of Natural History...anyone who's visited this museum in NYC can attest to the very subdued lighting they employ- I think the XL1S did an admiral job considering most of the photos shown were shot through 1 inch thick glass under very dim lighting...I'll let you guys decide on how well it did (or didn't do).

The photos were acquired via Final Cut Pro and were exported as jpegs- I used slightly more compression than I would have liked as the tif versions are significantly better- but the compressed jpegs should give a "feel" of what to expect from the XL- best results will be achieved when saved as tifs.

I used the standard IS II lens and shot manually only leaving on auto "gain"- all shot handheld....hope it gives you a feeling for the expected photo capabilities of the XL's.

Here's the url:
http://www.bronxpowersports.com/XL1Sphotos/FrameSet.htm

ja135321 · February 19th, 2002, 06:25 PM

The pictures looked a little soft. I know this is the XL section, but would the VX2000 do a better job? Since it has higher resolution?

Steve Nunez · February 19th, 2002, 08:46 PM

see below

Steve Nunez · February 19th, 2002, 08:47 PM

The VX is supposedly a sharper cam and would likely yeild sharper pix as well....but considering the ambient lighting I think the XL did a fairly good job.
The aggressive compression didn't help much either- the tifs are sharper.
The photos were also shot through thick glass which doesn't hlp much with regards to sharpness....

I believe an EOS lens when used with the EF adapter will yeild the sharpest pics and video. It was my 1st attempt at using the XL with the "Photo Mode"...I'll play around with it a bit more and post more pix soon.

Joe Redifer · February 20th, 2002, 04:37 AM

First off I'd like to say that I prefer the XL1 to the VX2000 for all of my video work. But without further ado I'd like you all to check out some comparison picks I did. I took screen grabs of the same thing from the XL1 AND VX2000 at various settings in fairly low light. Check it out here:

http:/207.168.10.82/pics/pics.html

Enjoy.

John Locke · February 20th, 2002, 07:15 AM

Isn't there a Photoshop action that can be used to make DV images appear more photograph-like? I think I read something about that long ago, but I'm not 100% sure.

If I remember correctly, you can supposedly take a shot made in Frame mode, import it into Photoshop, run the action, and get a crystal clear photo. Anybody know if that's true and, if so, where to get the action?

Bill Ravens · February 20th, 2002, 08:15 AM

There are many "sharpen" filters available, my favorite being in Ulead's PhotoViewer. Nonetheless, Photoshop also has several, and some freeware plugins called "unsharp masks". They all add edge sharpness in the same manner as the "sharpness" control on the XL1s. As you know, this control functions moderately well, but, adds considerable noise if turned up too hi. My standard procedure is to shoot with the sharpness at the Canon factory nominal setting and turn up the sharpness in post. That way, I can see the level of noise I'm adding and return to a softer image if I wish.

Robert Knecht Schmidt · February 20th, 2002, 08:43 PM

Hi Steve,

I suggest you repost the pictures in a raw format like TIFF or BMP; the DCT encoding of JPEG compression introduces artifacts (such as macroblock borders and mosquito noise) that are not at all due to the XL1S.

Your pictures are 600 x 400, which to me suggests they have either been resampled or cropped. If they've been resampled, you're defeating the entire purpose of posting sample images. There's quite a bit of moire in the images; this distortion could result from your resampling.

Each image is roughly 50 kB, but uncompressed, a 24 bit 600 x 400 image should be 704 kB.

I think you're compressing your images way too much to be a useful guide for folks who want to understand what kind of stills the XL1S can give them.

Rob Lohman · February 21st, 2002, 03:30 AM

These pictures where made with an XL1... Not XL1-S.
The -S will do better in low-light!

Steve Nunez · February 21st, 2002, 09:07 AM

The pictures were shot with an XL1S.
I didn't post them in original size because of needed time to download them- I will delete those pages soon and repost with a few select samples straight from camera.

Rob Lohman · February 21st, 2002, 11:11 AM

Confusion here... I was talking about Joe's URL ... ehehehe..
sorry!

ja135321 · February 21st, 2002, 12:03 PM

Let me preface by saying I own a XL1s. Does more pixels = better camera? No, because you have to weigh the other options that make a camera better. Now does more pixels = better resolution? YES, if the pixels are the same size. Now, is the resolution of the VX better than the XL, in certain low light conditions, YES. I went the to Canon website and found this...

The three CCD image sensors in the XL1S, each with 270,000 pixels, were specifically designed to capture as much image detail as possible and for shooting under extremely low light conditions. The size of each pixel is 72 square microns - 150% larger than the pixel-size on comparable DV models. The result is an approximate 4 dB improvement in sensitivity. This improved sensitivity means that each CCD can capture more information at all light ranges. In super low light, the XL1S still captures crisp and clear digital data.

OK now, if a pixel is BIGGER than the normal pixel ALREADY, the resolution is downgraded, but Canon uses an algorithm, PIXEL Shift, to probably smooth out the Jags from a bigger pixel, they use a similar technology in their bubble jet printers. But so does HP.

Oh by the way, EVERY CCD is designed to capture as much image detail as possible.

Anyway, I still love my XL1s. But if someone says the image is too sharp? You must be smoking something but to remedy that you adjust the focus manually.

Oh one more thing, I didn't buy this camera to take stills! I bought it to film action!

Ken Tanaka · February 21st, 2002, 12:04 PM

Thanks for taking the time to post the VX2000 / XL1 comparison shots, Joe. Very interesting differences. Which of the shots most accurately represented the scene to your eye?

It would be interesting to see a similar set of existing / low light stills taken from one of the 2/3" cams such as Sony's DSR-500. Does anyone have access to one of these?

Bill Ravens · February 21st, 2002, 12:07 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by ja135321 : Anyway, I still love my XL1s. But if someone says the image is too sharp? You must be smoking something but to remedy that you adjust the focus manually.

Oh one more thing, I didn't buy this camera to take stills! I bought it to film action! -->>>

well, there ya go!! I agree JA. Everyone here spends BIG BUCKS to get high resolution lenses, and complains bitterly about the poor focusability of the stock Canon lens, then they turn around and want that FILM look. Go figure...LOL.

Joe Redifer · February 21st, 2002, 03:27 PM

Ken-

The XL1 looked closest to the way the real scene did with my eyeballs. Mainly because of the color. The only difference is that it seemed a bit dimmer, but that's to be expected. The XL1s will do better in low light? Great! Despite manual white balancing, the Sony seemed to have a slight "yellowish" tint to it vs. real life.

Another thing I would like to point out is that the XL1 shots were done handlheld. The Sony shots were on a tripod. When I first did the XL1 shots, they were on a tripod as well. But I didn't get the 16x lens in focus (didn't have it hooked up to an extrenal monitor) and had to redo it. The current XL1 shots used the wide 3X lens with the camera being closer. Also, notice that the XL1 60i and XL1 Frame modes. The Frame mode really doesn't lose much resolution at all from the XL160i. It is a teeny tiny bit softer, but not much. Maybe it was motion blur, I tried to pick a still from when the camera was not moving, so maybe not.

February 18th, 2002, 11:41 PM	#1
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	Xl1S Stills Posted Hello everyone.... .... seems like there's alot of interest in the "stills' capabilities of the Xl1S (and XL).....I've made a simple website showing the XL's abilities in low light at the American Museum of Natural History...anyone who's visited this museum in NYC can attest to the very subdued lighting they employ- I think the XL1S did an admiral job considering most of the photos shown were shot through 1 inch thick glass under very dim lighting...I'll let you guys decide on how well it did (or didn't do). The photos were acquired via Final Cut Pro and were exported as jpegs- I used slightly more compression than I would have liked as the tif versions are significantly better- but the compressed jpegs should give a "feel" of what to expect from the XL- best results will be achieved when saved as tifs. I used the standard IS II lens and shot manually only leaving on auto "gain"- all shot handheld....hope it gives you a feeling for the expected photo capabilities of the XL's. Here's the url: http://www.bronxpowersports.com/XL1Sphotos/FrameSet.htm __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

February 19th, 2002, 06:25 PM	#2
ja135321 Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 90	soft? The pictures looked a little soft. I know this is the XL section, but would the VX2000 do a better job? Since it has higher resolution?

February 19th, 2002, 08:46 PM	#3
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	see below __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

February 19th, 2002, 08:47 PM	#4
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	The VX is supposedly a sharper cam and would likely yeild sharper pix as well....but considering the ambient lighting I think the XL did a fairly good job. The aggressive compression didn't help much either- the tifs are sharper. The photos were also shot through thick glass which doesn't hlp much with regards to sharpness.... I believe an EOS lens when used with the EF adapter will yeild the sharpest pics and video. It was my 1st attempt at using the XL with the "Photo Mode"...I'll play around with it a bit more and post more pix soon. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

February 20th, 2002, 07:15 AM	#6
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	Isn't there a Photoshop action that can be used to make DV images appear more photograph-like? I think I read something about that long ago, but I'm not 100% sure. If I remember correctly, you can supposedly take a shot made in Frame mode, import it into Photoshop, run the action, and get a crystal clear photo. Anybody know if that's true and, if so, where to get the action? __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

February 20th, 2002, 04:37 AM	#5
Joe Redifer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 290	First off I'd like to say that I prefer the XL1 to the VX2000 for all of my video work. But without further ado I'd like you all to check out some comparison picks I did. I took screen grabs of the same thing from the XL1 AND VX2000 at various settings in fairly low light. Check it out here: http:/207.168.10.82/pics/pics.html Enjoy.

February 20th, 2002, 08:15 AM	#7
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	There are many "sharpen" filters available, my favorite being in Ulead's PhotoViewer. Nonetheless, Photoshop also has several, and some freeware plugins called "unsharp masks". They all add edge sharpness in the same manner as the "sharpness" control on the XL1s. As you know, this control functions moderately well, but, adds considerable noise if turned up too hi. My standard procedure is to shoot with the sharpness at the Canon factory nominal setting and turn up the sharpness in post. That way, I can see the level of noise I'm adding and return to a softer image if I wish.

February 20th, 2002, 08:43 PM	#8
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	Images are too compressed for analysis Hi Steve, I suggest you repost the pictures in a raw format like TIFF or BMP; the DCT encoding of JPEG compression introduces artifacts (such as macroblock borders and mosquito noise) that are not at all due to the XL1S. Your pictures are 600 x 400, which to me suggests they have either been resampled or cropped. If they've been resampled, you're defeating the entire purpose of posting sample images. There's quite a bit of moire in the images; this distortion could result from your resampling. Each image is roughly 50 kB, but uncompressed, a 24 bit 600 x 400 image should be 704 kB. I think you're compressing your images way too much to be a useful guide for folks who want to understand what kind of stills the XL1S can give them. __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

February 21st, 2002, 03:30 AM	#9
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	These pictures where made with an XL1... Not XL1-S. The -S will do better in low-light! __________________ 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

February 21st, 2002, 09:07 AM	#10
Steve Nunez Trustee Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pembroke Pines, Florida Posts: 1,418	The pictures were shot with an XL1S. I didn't post them in original size because of needed time to download them- I will delete those pages soon and repost with a few select samples straight from camera. __________________ Steve Nunez-New York City www.stevenunez.com

February 21st, 2002, 11:11 AM	#11
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Confusion here... I was talking about Joe's URL ... ehehehe.. sorry! __________________ 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

February 21st, 2002, 12:03 PM	#12
ja135321 Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 90	more pixels = better resolution = sharper image Let me preface by saying I own a XL1s. Does more pixels = better camera? No, because you have to weigh the other options that make a camera better. Now does more pixels = better resolution? YES, if the pixels are the same size. Now, is the resolution of the VX better than the XL, in certain low light conditions, YES. I went the to Canon website and found this... The three CCD image sensors in the XL1S, each with 270,000 pixels, were specifically designed to capture as much image detail as possible and for shooting under extremely low light conditions. The size of each pixel is 72 square microns - 150% larger than the pixel-size on comparable DV models. The result is an approximate 4 dB improvement in sensitivity. This improved sensitivity means that each CCD can capture more information at all light ranges. In super low light, the XL1S still captures crisp and clear digital data. OK now, if a pixel is BIGGER than the normal pixel ALREADY, the resolution is downgraded, but Canon uses an algorithm, PIXEL Shift, to probably smooth out the Jags from a bigger pixel, they use a similar technology in their bubble jet printers. But so does HP. Oh by the way, EVERY CCD is designed to capture as much image detail as possible. Anyway, I still love my XL1s. But if someone says the image is too sharp? You must be smoking something but to remedy that you adjust the focus manually. Oh one more thing, I didn't buy this camera to take stills! I bought it to film action!

February 21st, 2002, 12:04 PM	#13
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Thanks for taking the time to post the VX2000 / XL1 comparison shots, Joe. Very interesting differences. Which of the shots most accurately represented the scene to your eye? It would be interesting to see a similar set of existing / low light stills taken from one of the 2/3" cams such as Sony's DSR-500. Does anyone have access to one of these? __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com Last edited by Ken Tanaka; February 21st, 2002 at 12:20 PM.

February 21st, 2002, 12:07 PM	#14
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Re: more pixels = better resolution = sharper image <<<-- Originally posted by ja135321 : Anyway, I still love my XL1s. But if someone says the image is too sharp? You must be smoking something but to remedy that you adjust the focus manually. Oh one more thing, I didn't buy this camera to take stills! I bought it to film action! -->>> well, there ya go!! I agree JA. Everyone here spends BIG BUCKS to get high resolution lenses, and complains bitterly about the poor focusability of the stock Canon lens, then they turn around and want that FILM look. Go figure...LOL.

February 21st, 2002, 03:27 PM	#15
Joe Redifer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 290	Ken- The XL1 looked closest to the way the real scene did with my eyeballs. Mainly because of the color. The only difference is that it seemed a bit dimmer, but that's to be expected. The XL1s will do better in low light? Great! Despite manual white balancing, the Sony seemed to have a slight "yellowish" tint to it vs. real life. Another thing I would like to point out is that the XL1 shots were done handlheld. The Sony shots were on a tripod. When I first did the XL1 shots, they were on a tripod as well. But I didn't get the 16x lens in focus (didn't have it hooked up to an extrenal monitor) and had to redo it. The current XL1 shots used the wide 3X lens with the camera being closer. Also, notice that the XL1 60i and XL1 Frame modes. The Frame mode really doesn't lose much resolution at all from the XL160i. It is a teeny tiny bit softer, but not much. Maybe it was motion blur, I tried to pick a still from when the camera was not moving, so maybe not.