XL1 / XL1S various posts

Jane Regan · May 23rd, 2003, 08:50 PM

I remember someone asked this question a while ago and the answer was to look for a discontinued Canon... I think. We are in Haiti so don't have the possibility of scouring used-camera shops, sites, etc.

We need a 2nd camera we can afford -- $1000 or less? -- to do some two-camera shoots. We'd like to match the "look" of the XL-1S at NIGHT or in low light. Impossible? We would love any advice.

Frank Granovski · May 24th, 2003, 01:50 AM

The XL1(S) has 1/3" CCDs, and plays back 460 lines. If you want an older 3 chip miniDV cam with similar resolution, LUX requirements and color saturation, look for the Panasonic AG-EZ1. This cam also has 1/3" CCDs and a big lens.

Chris Hurd · May 24th, 2003, 07:44 AM

The sub-$1000 discontinued camcorder mentioned on this board in the past is the Canon Optura Pi, which is very hard to find now. Be aware that it is a good match for the older XL1 only in broad daylight, but not the XL1S under any circumstances. The best match for the XL1S would be the Canon GL2, however you'll need to spend about $2200. One option available to you if you're on a limited budget is to borrow or rent the second camera. Hope this helps,

David Crusoe · May 24th, 2003, 06:14 PM

Dear People of DV Community --

Would anyone happen to know the wiring layout of the stock Canon XL1s stereo microphone inputs? I would like to build an external microphone to utilize the balanced inputs not otherwise available. There are five pins - has anybody identified these? I gather than there is one ground, two positive, and two negative signals to feed the stereo channels. I just don't know which is which.

Thank you!

Jeff Donald · May 24th, 2003, 06:47 PM

I don't follow what you're trying to do. Can you elaborate a little more? Are you using the MA-100/200 adapters?

Don Palomaki · May 24th, 2003, 07:23 PM

The standard stereo mic (supplied with the XL1/XL1s) is single ended (unbalanced) as is the mic input.

There is a 3.5mm stereo mini phone jack/plug that provides the audio connection and ground. Tip is left channel, ring is right channel, and sleeve is ground.

There also is a 2.5mm mono submini phone plug/jack that provides ~5 VDC power to the standard Canon mic. Tip is +5 volts, sleeve is nothing. The ground return is via the audio conenctor. (This reduces the chance of shorting the powersupply if someone accidently inserts a conducting item such as a nail. wire, pin, etc.)

Andrew Petrie · May 26th, 2003, 11:35 AM

Over the weekend, I experienced a few power outages, twice with my XL1S running off the power adapter while connected to my PC.

I'm concerned about the possible damage this may cause. I suppose it's technically no different from just turning off the cam, especially in my case since I did not have a tape in the camera at the time.

What kind of damage would this do to an XL1 if a tape was running in the tape transport?

Rob Lohman · May 27th, 2003, 06:04 AM

Usually power outage is not a real problem with electric levels
because they will fall instead of rise. However sometimes there
can be some spikes that in theory could damage your equipment.

Now the tape transport would be a more difficult question to
answer. In theory the heads would still be on the tape and
only get off when you power up the camera again. But then
again they might have some circuitry in place that detects a
power loss and then quickly turns the equipment off. I've never
had this problem or tested it so I can't tell you what the camera
will do exactly. I'm not gonna test it out either.....

Steven Zellers · May 28th, 2003, 03:39 PM

I'm shooting theatrical productions (constantly zooming from long shots to close-ups) using an XL1 with a Canon FU-1000 Monochrome CRT Viewfinder. I used to use it with the dual battery pack because you supposedly can't power it with AC...however recently I have been running it with AC power using a Canon CA-910A Compact Power Adapter MB9. Everything seemed to be doing fine until recently when I noticed that the left channel of my audio (using standard on camera mike) kind of drifts in and out. The right channel is fine, but some sort of ghost or goblin seems to be playing a cruel joke and turning the left channel soft or even off and then back on again. It doesn't just click in and out like there is a short it just drifts in and out. I though for a while it may be somehow connected to one of my many zooms because at times when I'm zooming in for a tight shot the left channel comes back in...but this doesn't consistantly happen. Does anyone have any ideas? Could it be related to powering the monochrome viewfinder with AC...am I doing something wrong...or is it time to send it into the repair shop? Thanks.

Don Palomaki · May 28th, 2003, 05:48 PM

AGC or manual audio mode?

Does it happen with the standard viewfinder or standard battery pack?

Loud aduio signal induced in one channel might cause a similar effect in the other channel if using AGC mode. But that may not be you rcase.

Ian Poirier · May 28th, 2003, 06:42 PM

I was watching one of the documentaries in the "Dancer in the Dark" DVD and saw how they used anamorphic lenses (which they made themselves) on thier shoots that consisted of 100 little sony's linked together for the musical parts. I always heard that this can be a real distortion issue around the outside of the frame but this stuff didn't look that bad. Does anyone have any experience with the anamorphic adapters for the xl1 series?

Secondly, I'm new to shooting DV and possibly using an anamorphic adapter so I'm confused about something:

If your forcing all the light information of a 16:9 image onto a 4:3 CCD with an anamorphic aren't you still restricted to the maximum information a 4:3 CCD can handle? So when the 4:3 image is stretched back out to 16:9 on a screen wouldn't having only the info a 4:3 chip provide result in degraded image?

If the above is true, would one get more resolution just cutting the image down to 16:9 in post or is going from 4:3 to 16:9 less of a loss of resolution?

Boyd Ostroff · May 28th, 2003, 07:00 PM

You're right that the DV will only give you 720 x 480, no matter how you stretch it. To be true 16:9 you'd need 854x480 (with square pixels), but that's not an option. Actually it's even a little worse, because your camera will only give you about 500 horizontal lines. But such are the limitations you have to work within.

But your logic fails in the final sentence "would one get more resolution just cutting the image down to 16:9 in post". To do this you will be throwing away an area of 720 x 120 pixels to end up with a 16:9 image that's 720 x 360. So in other words you've thrown away 25% of the image data which the 4:3 CCD is capable of capturing. That's why the anamorphic lens gives you better results. Even though you must stretch it out, you're working with the full 720x480 frame.

But anamorphic lenses have limitations too and are expensive. I gather they're especially problematic on the XL-1 due to the 72mm size. You can't zoom through the full range, they vignette at full wide, you need expensive matte boxes for a lens shade or filter holder, you can't add a wide adaptor to them, etc.

Several new cameras offer "real" 16:9 by using higher resolution CCD's, like the Sony PDX-10. This camera overcomes all the shortcomings mentioned above with anamorphic lenses, but is a smaller camera with smaller chips. And even in this case, your image is still anamorphic 16:9 at 720 x 480. Unfortunately, you need to spend some big bucks to do any better than this...

Ian Poirier · May 28th, 2003, 07:11 PM

Thanks Boyd,

I'm just going to hope that in six or so months Canon comes out with 16:9 native XL series camera that's under ten grand. You can probably spend half that just getting an adapter setup with a matte box and filters.

J. Cody Lucido · May 29th, 2003, 06:48 PM

Hello,

I am looking to purchase some close-up Achromatic filters for my XL1s and I can't afford the Century Optics filters.

Has anybody tried the Tiffen set of +1, +2, +4?

What I'm hoping to do is not have to open the lens all the way so I can achieve super soft backgrounds on extreme close-up shot images.

Any advice is welcomed.

Don Palomaki · May 30th, 2003, 04:25 AM

I've used the Tiffen lens for shooting small items; e.g., color slides on a light table and closeups of small items, stamps, coins, etc. Works well for the price. I mainly have used the +1 and +2.

But the modest cost Tiffen's are not achromatic. Not sure if they will give you the depth of field effect you are seeking.

May 23rd, 2003, 08:50 PM	#811
Jane Regan Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Port-au-Prince, Haiti Posts: 30	cheap 2nd camera with XL1S "look"? I remember someone asked this question a while ago and the answer was to look for a discontinued Canon... I think. We are in Haiti so don't have the possibility of scouring used-camera shops, sites, etc. We need a 2nd camera we can afford -- $1000 or less? -- to do some two-camera shoots. We'd like to match the "look" of the XL-1S at NIGHT or in low light. Impossible? We would love any advice.

May 24th, 2003, 07:44 AM	#813
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	The sub-$1000 discontinued camcorder mentioned on this board in the past is the Canon Optura Pi, which is very hard to find now. Be aware that it is a good match for the older XL1 only in broad daylight, but not the XL1S under any circumstances. The best match for the XL1S would be the Canon GL2, however you'll need to spend about $2200. One option available to you if you're on a limited budget is to borrow or rent the second camera. Hope this helps, __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 24th, 2003, 06:14 PM	#814
David Crusoe Tourist Join Date: May 2003 Location: Greenwich, CT Posts: 4	Canon Stock Microphone Wiring Dear People of DV Community -- Would anyone happen to know the wiring layout of the stock Canon XL1s stereo microphone inputs? I would like to build an external microphone to utilize the balanced inputs not otherwise available. There are five pins - has anybody identified these? I gather than there is one ground, two positive, and two negative signals to feed the stereo channels. I just don't know which is which. Thank you!

May 24th, 2003, 06:47 PM	#815
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I don't follow what you're trying to do. Can you elaborate a little more? Are you using the MA-100/200 adapters? __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

May 24th, 2003, 07:23 PM	#816
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	The standard stereo mic (supplied with the XL1/XL1s) is single ended (unbalanced) as is the mic input. There is a 3.5mm stereo mini phone jack/plug that provides the audio connection and ground. Tip is left channel, ring is right channel, and sleeve is ground. There also is a 2.5mm mono submini phone plug/jack that provides ~5 VDC power to the standard Canon mic. Tip is +5 volts, sleeve is nothing. The ground return is via the audio conenctor. (This reduces the chance of shorting the powersupply if someone accidently inserts a conducting item such as a nail. wire, pin, etc.) __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

May 24th, 2003, 01:50 AM	#812
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	The XL1(S) has 1/3" CCDs, and plays back 460 lines. If you want an older 3 chip miniDV cam with similar resolution, LUX requirements and color saturation, look for the Panasonic AG-EZ1. This cam also has 1/3" CCDs and a big lens.

May 26th, 2003, 11:35 AM	#817
Andrew Petrie Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 484	Power Outage Sensitivity? Over the weekend, I experienced a few power outages, twice with my XL1S running off the power adapter while connected to my PC. I'm concerned about the possible damage this may cause. I suppose it's technically no different from just turning off the cam, especially in my case since I did not have a tape in the camera at the time. What kind of damage would this do to an XL1 if a tape was running in the tape transport? __________________ Andrew \| Canon XL1s, ME66, Vinten Vision 3, GlideCam V16 (for sale!)

May 27th, 2003, 06:04 AM	#818
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Usually power outage is not a real problem with electric levels because they will fall instead of rise. However sometimes there can be some spikes that in theory could damage your equipment. Now the tape transport would be a more difficult question to answer. In theory the heads would still be on the tape and only get off when you power up the camera again. But then again they might have some circuitry in place that detects a power loss and then quickly turns the equipment off. I've never had this problem or tested it so I can't tell you what the camera will do exactly. I'm not gonna test it out either..... __________________ 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

May 28th, 2003, 03:39 PM	#819
Steven Zellers New Boot Join Date: May 2003 Location: Mt Laurel, NJ Posts: 17	left channel disappearing I'm shooting theatrical productions (constantly zooming from long shots to close-ups) using an XL1 with a Canon FU-1000 Monochrome CRT Viewfinder. I used to use it with the dual battery pack because you supposedly can't power it with AC...however recently I have been running it with AC power using a Canon CA-910A Compact Power Adapter MB9. Everything seemed to be doing fine until recently when I noticed that the left channel of my audio (using standard on camera mike) kind of drifts in and out. The right channel is fine, but some sort of ghost or goblin seems to be playing a cruel joke and turning the left channel soft or even off and then back on again. It doesn't just click in and out like there is a short it just drifts in and out. I though for a while it may be somehow connected to one of my many zooms because at times when I'm zooming in for a tight shot the left channel comes back in...but this doesn't consistantly happen. Does anyone have any ideas? Could it be related to powering the monochrome viewfinder with AC...am I doing something wrong...or is it time to send it into the repair shop? Thanks.

May 28th, 2003, 05:48 PM	#820
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	AGC or manual audio mode? Does it happen with the standard viewfinder or standard battery pack? Loud aduio signal induced in one channel might cause a similar effect in the other channel if using AGC mode. But that may not be you rcase. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

May 28th, 2003, 06:42 PM	#821
Ian Poirier Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 82	Anamorphics got me confused I was watching one of the documentaries in the "Dancer in the Dark" DVD and saw how they used anamorphic lenses (which they made themselves) on thier shoots that consisted of 100 little sony's linked together for the musical parts. I always heard that this can be a real distortion issue around the outside of the frame but this stuff didn't look that bad. Does anyone have any experience with the anamorphic adapters for the xl1 series? Secondly, I'm new to shooting DV and possibly using an anamorphic adapter so I'm confused about something: If your forcing all the light information of a 16:9 image onto a 4:3 CCD with an anamorphic aren't you still restricted to the maximum information a 4:3 CCD can handle? So when the 4:3 image is stretched back out to 16:9 on a screen wouldn't having only the info a 4:3 chip provide result in degraded image? If the above is true, would one get more resolution just cutting the image down to 16:9 in post or is going from 4:3 to 16:9 less of a loss of resolution?

May 28th, 2003, 07:00 PM	#822
Boyd Ostroff Wrangler Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mays Landing, NJ Posts: 11,802	You're right that the DV will only give you 720 x 480, no matter how you stretch it. To be true 16:9 you'd need 854x480 (with square pixels), but that's not an option. Actually it's even a little worse, because your camera will only give you about 500 horizontal lines. But such are the limitations you have to work within. But your logic fails in the final sentence "would one get more resolution just cutting the image down to 16:9 in post". To do this you will be throwing away an area of 720 x 120 pixels to end up with a 16:9 image that's 720 x 360. So in other words you've thrown away 25% of the image data which the 4:3 CCD is capable of capturing. That's why the anamorphic lens gives you better results. Even though you must stretch it out, you're working with the full 720x480 frame. But anamorphic lenses have limitations too and are expensive. I gather they're especially problematic on the XL-1 due to the 72mm size. You can't zoom through the full range, they vignette at full wide, you need expensive matte boxes for a lens shade or filter holder, you can't add a wide adaptor to them, etc. Several new cameras offer "real" 16:9 by using higher resolution CCD's, like the Sony PDX-10. This camera overcomes all the shortcomings mentioned above with anamorphic lenses, but is a smaller camera with smaller chips. And even in this case, your image is still anamorphic 16:9 at 720 x 480. Unfortunately, you need to spend some big bucks to do any better than this...

May 28th, 2003, 07:11 PM	#823
Ian Poirier Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 82	Thanks Boyd, I'm just going to hope that in six or so months Canon comes out with 16:9 native XL series camera that's under ten grand. You can probably spend half that just getting an adapter setup with a matte box and filters.

May 29th, 2003, 06:48 PM	#824
J. Cody Lucido Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 58	Any advice on Achromatic Tiffen filters? Hello, I am looking to purchase some close-up Achromatic filters for my XL1s and I can't afford the Century Optics filters. Has anybody tried the Tiffen set of +1, +2, +4? What I'm hoping to do is not have to open the lens all the way so I can achieve super soft backgrounds on extreme close-up shot images. Any advice is welcomed.

May 30th, 2003, 04:25 AM	#825
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	I've used the Tiffen lens for shooting small items; e.g., color slides on a light table and closeups of small items, stamps, coins, etc. Works well for the price. I mainly have used the +1 and +2. But the modest cost Tiffen's are not achromatic. Not sure if they will give you the depth of field effect you are seeking. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com