XL1 / XL1S various posts

[Jeff Donald]

I don't believe that a club has started yet. Some post here http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2948 have some interested owners as well. Sounds like you might have to team up and start one. Good luck.

Jeff

[Norman Woo]

Hi folks

I'm planning to purchase the Azden WMS-PRO to use on my Canon Xl1. I notice that the output plug from the receiver is a miniplug. I have an MA-100 attached on the XL1. Where on the XL1 do I plug this miniplug? Or will I have to purchase a mini-to-XLR converter so that I can use the MA-100? Or a mini-to-RCA and use the RCA jacks on the handle?

Thanks

[Ken Tanaka]

Not being a WMS-PRO user you'll have to take this as somewhat speculative. But if it has a mini plug connection I would think that you would plug it into the Mic port (towards the camera's head) where the standard XL1 mic normally attaches. Note that there are two ports there. One supplies power to the standard mic and the other is a standard mini plug audio connection.

You could also get an RCA adapter to use one of the audio ports on the back of the handle. In general, my philosophy is to use the fewest such adapters as possible to keep the signal as clean as possible.

[Don Palomaki]

Check the specs on the receiver. Some Azdens have balanced output, and if you use a stereo cable to connect the output to a camcorder mic input jack, you will get left and right channel out of phase, a potential problem.

The approach I use is to is to use a RCA-to-Mini phone mono patch cord and connect that directly to the left (or right) channel of Audio 1 input. I can can copy the audio to the right channel in post if I want to.

[Josh Bass]

I recently imported some footage I'd shot in frame mode into VV3, and noticed that in addition to the black bar in frame mode along the bottom of the screen, there is now an additional one on the top and sides, creating a black frame on the picture.

I looked at some footage shot in regular 60i, and there's a smaller, but still present black bar on the bottom, and on the left side, the very edge looks a little funky, slightly brighter than the rest. Right and top are normal.

What's going on here?

[Chris Hurd]

This issue is discussed in pages and pages of detail at this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1743

Long story short, the black edges are well outside of the TV-safe area, therefore for most folks it's not a problem. If you're doing video for final viewing on a computer display, then you should crop the image down to the TV-safe area (which is always a good idea regardless).

Much more in the thread linked above. Hope this helps,

[Josh Bass]

Thanks Chris. . .but once again I've must've hit the retard button when I woke up. I somehow adjusted the track motion just enough to create that frame, but not enough so that I knew it wasn't some camera problem. Live and learn all that.

[Ed Smith]

For monitors:

First of try the sponsors of these web pages:

Varizoom now deal in the UK, web: http://www.varizoom.com/uk/index.htm

No luck with them try:

Ntrac, web: http://www.ntrac.co.uk/ - I bought my 5.6inch monitor from them whole pacakage £320 (Monitor, battery, mains, bracket to fit on camera, charger, audio video cable and desk stand)

Or

OpTex: www.optexint.com or www.xl1s.com

Hope this helps,

Ed Smith

I remember seeing a website that showed the differences in lenses, how a 14x looked zoomed out all the way and how a 16x looked and whatnot.

One was a picture of a construction worker on a scaffold I believe

It may have been examples of a wide angle lens comepared to a regular and whatnot.

can somebody help?

[Chris Hurd]

I'm not familiar with the page you're describing.

As previously pointed out, there's no real difference between the 16x auto, 16x manual and 14x manual when they're zoomed all the way out at the wide end. The 35mm equivalent focal length of all three of these is approximately 40mm.

The 3x lens at full wide is equivalent to a 24mm lens in the 35mm photo world.

For more info, see Canon's lens guide page at:

http://www.canondv.com/xl1s/a_lenses.html

Plus my own "Guide to XL Lens Options" in the articles section of the XL1 Watchdog at www.dvinfo.net/xl1.htm

Also on the Watchdog is a review of the 3x lens which shows some comparison shots with the standard 16x. Go to the Watchdog > Artcles Menu > Lens & Optics to locate this article.

That's the best example page I know of. If somebody out there has the gear and would like to provide a new set of comparison shots, I'll be happy to add it to the Watchdog.

This is about as full an answer as I know to give you. Hope this helps,

telephoto lenses
Hi i am writing a paper for my film class. I have to pick out a scene from the purple rose of cairo and say what type of lens is used in the shot. I picked a shot where cecilia goes inside the movie and is sitting at a table while the party is going on. i am confused as to whether or not this shot uses a telephoto lens. The foreground is clear as well as the midground, but the background is blurred. Also Cecilia is very prominent in the frame. I was wondering if someone could help me to figure out whether or not this sounds like it is a telephoto lens shot.... perhaps someone could help me define the characteristics of a telephoto lens shot or direct me to a website. thanks a bunch.

[Jeff Donald]

Most basic 35mm photography books (available at your public library) will show examples of different lenses and different lens to subject differences. That should answer most of your questions. I don't think I can answer your question without the images from the movie in front of me. Sorry.

Jeff

it is not clear to me how much difference there is in image quality between shooting with an adapter and cropping in post, then blowing up to film. Has anyone tested the difference? If there is not a huge difference, it seems as though cropping is the best solution for a difficult situation. The adapters seem problematic in several ways: 1. shortened zoom range. 2. difficulty of composing with a stretched image, rather than the actual format. 3. having to render the widescreen in post (final cut 2) 4. added weight, cost, etc. Does a better solution exist?

[Randy Bank]

I am an XL1 user who owns an Audio-Technica 815b microphone. I would like to purchase either the AT8410a or AT8415 shock mount. Other than price, microphone size accomodation, and clamping alternatives, what are the major differences? Does one work predominately better than the other?
Since I plan to use it mainly for boom operation -but, would like the option to occasionally stick it on my camera - could someone please pass on a suggestion?
Thank you.

[Andre De Clercq]

"Does a better solution exist?"...Yes a native 16/9 camera. Anamorphic lenses, (have bee used in projection too) are , optically spoken, a mix of difficult to take/combine tradeoffs. aberations,reduced zoomranges...The future (for the widescreen believers) is native 16/9.