XL1 / XL1S various posts

[Murad Toor]

I use a JVC GRD70 as my capture deck.

Only if you need the flexibility / ability to use DVCAM tapes and full-size DV tapes (not just miniDV tapes), get a Sony deck like the DSR-11 or 1500a.

Otherwise, your XL-1 is recording in DV (not DVCAM) on miniDV tapes, so a basic miniDV camera may be all you really need.

You can get one for about $300 or less. You would not have the robustness of a dedicated deck, but you wouldn't have the expense of one either, and a basic miniDV camera would function perfectly for your purposes.

Also, when it's not functioning as your capture deck you or a family member have a small, easy to carry camcorder / digital still camera.

I'd put the money that would have gone into a DSR-1500a towards a lens or stabilization system.

One last note: I'd guess when you got your 16mm film transferred to miniDV on a Sony deck, the Sony deck was set on DVCAM mode. That's why the tape didn't play back right on your XL1, and that's why it took renting a Sony deck to capture the footage. To the Mac, DV and DVCAM are the same thing. But to a tape deck or camera, they are different. The person who transferred your 16mm film should have set the miniDV deck to DV mode instead of DVCAM.

[Murad Toor]

Hi. They get their video signal from the composite video-out behind the door on the back of the camera. They get their power through a battery. Hope this helps.

http://www.nebtek.com/lcdmon.html

[Jeremy Monroe]

Hi there-

Is there any way to adapt or modify a PAL standard XL1s viewfinder to an NTSC XL1s body? Thanks for any help.

Jeremy

[Jeff Donald]

No, not without considerable expense. The XL1 viewfinder is a small CRT (TV). You would need a standards convertor to change NTSC to PAL for the VF. Not practical in size, weight or cost.

[Teague Chrystie]

Hey guys.

Obviously, the standard XL shoulder pad isn't really...well, fine-just ISN'T...very comfortable.

The solutions, of course, are buy new one, or make your own. The avantage with making your own is you can create room for what you personally need in your filming situations...and the advantage with pre-mades are, well, they'e pre-made.

What is your guys' opinions on the best solution for this?


Thanks for reading.


Fig

[Jason Chang]

Adaptors from XL1 Solutions, Inc. are prominently displayed on the front page of the XL1 Watchdog website. In the text, the owner of the company claims that his adaptors produce a 1.5X or 2X focal-length conversion effect. This means that a 28mm photo lens is automatically converted to a 56mm when it is mounted on a Canon XL1 via the adaptor.

The owner of the company promised the members of this post a risk-free trial period. I went ahead and purchased a Nikon-XL1 lens adaptor. I then conducted a test to determine the truthfulness of the company's claims.

I used a 28-80mm Nikon-mounted lens for this experiment. Please check out the link below to see the photos.

http://f1.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dob...tos.yahoo.com/

The lens is first mounted on the XL1 with the adaptor. The subject is exactly 14 feet away from the front of the lens. I recorded the image having set the lens to 28mm. In theory, I would have gotten a 56mm image.

My next step was to place the same lens on a Nikon N60 still-photo camera. I took a picture of the subject at 14 feet, after setting the lens to 28mm. I then zoomed the lens in further. I took a picture at 80mm.

In theory, the video I've recorded with the Nikon-XL1 adaptor is suppose to be a wider shot than the 80mm photo. (28x2=56mm, a 56mm is wider than a 80mm) It was not the case.

The 2X conversion claim does not hold up.

[Jeremy Monroe]

Thanks for your help!

[Bill Ravens]

this is a faulty test because of the difference in distance from the lens back element to the camera focal plane and sizes of the sensor in a digital still camera vs a 1/3 inch sensor like in the XL1. The image sizes are not comparable.

I suggest you repeat the test using different lenses on the same camera, set each lens at the same focal length.

I also suggest that you also take two exposures at the same aperture setting with each lens. I think you'll be happy to notice the reduced DOF with the 35mm format lens vs the 8mm format lens.

[Rob Lohman]

You need to resize by the pixel aspect ration on the horizontal.
Which is either 0.9 (NTSC) or 1.067 (PAL). This yields a resolution
of 648 x 480 or 768 x 480.

[Rob Lohman]

I assume you are talking about using these with the 35mm
adapter?

[Trig Simon]

Get the Verizoom 4" monitor, it works great. But the mount is sloppy, I have it modified so it will not move. Then have a short rca cord to plug into the back of the camera. The battery is separate.

[Dick Steele]

No, I was eyeing the PL adapter, friend is using one but with a angeniuex zoom. I would like to move to fixed lenses. Noticed a few lenses on ebay and a few with a couple of equipment houses. Looking to buy soon. What I am really looking for is what are the most common primes for the xl1s in this configuration. Thanks


Cheers,

Dick Steele

[Nicola Smanio]

I tried to post something about it before, but it seems like nobody of the ones who answered me really got it. I'll try to be more clear this time.

When shooting at a bright spot -like the sun- with my XL1s a white vertical line appears going all the way across the image. that's an issue with every digital camera and we all know that.

But how come that -unlike any other camera- when that same bright spot is on the upper limit of the shot, the line separates in three different lines in the primary additive colors (red green and blue)?

the brighter the light the funkier the effect. if shooting at the sun i even got some green or magenta halos in certain positions.

It's not only with my camera. just today I tried on another xl1s and it had the same problem. I also tried this with different lenses.

Please spare me from telling me that I would ruin the camera if shooting at the sun. I'm not such a novice and I know that at f16 with ND filter on nothing will ever happen to the CCD (unless shooting for a very long time).

The problem can be solved with a suitable hood. in fact the problem occurs outside the television visible area. But with all the money we paid for that camera -an amazing camera don't get me wrong - I think this kind of things shouldn't happen.

well.. if anyboby has a good hint or knows something more about it... just let everybody know.

[Jacques Mersereau]

The issue you describe is called "vertical smear."

It is a problem that camera engineers are always trying
to reduce or eliminate. The newer cameras do better,
but . . . they haven't licked it yet afaik.

[Nicola Smanio]

Thank you Jacques,
at least I know how to call it now.
I'm just wondering... couldn't they just have this defect to appear when the light is on the bottom of the image instead? considering that the sun is usually in the sky... once I was considering shooting head over feet...