XL1S imaging problem/question

Jerry Bixman · May 8th, 2002, 09:19 PM

Hello group,
I am not the author of the original post, I only referred to it for the group opinion of its accuracy.

Jerry Bixman

Original Post from
Digital_Video@yahoogroups.com
Author
gtreible1@suscom.net

Ken Tanaka · May 8th, 2002, 09:33 PM

I don't think that the differing pixel aspect ratio sounds like a plausible explanation, Jerry. It seems to me that if that was true every comparable DV camera's imported footage would show black-bar(s) and the bars would occur in the same frame position. As evidenced by reports here, as well as by the transcript of the message you relayed to us, the bar(s) occur in different locations on different cameras. Some on the sides, some on the bottom.

Rob Lohman · May 9th, 2002, 05:46 AM

As far as I understand it, pixel aspect has nothing todo with
resolution (unless your converting from one pixel aspect to
another). Pixel aspect just indicates what the height of a pixel
is in relation to its width. So if you have a pixel aspect of 0.9
your pixels should have a height of 90% of its width. The
NUMBER of pixels (ie, resolution) does NOT change. You also
have a screen aspect ratio that comes into play:

4:3 (NTSC)
16:9 (widescreen)

etc.... Pixel and screen aspects are two different things. The
onyl time you need to worry with pixel aspects is when you
paint pictures in photoshop or do computer generated
imageray (CGI).

Aaron Koolen · May 13th, 2002, 06:05 AM

Just to add to the discussion with my latest queries from Canon for what it's worth.

"Thank you for your E-mail inquiry.
I would recommend having the camera serviced at a local authorized service facility."

Still no denial or affirmation....I really would have thought that a company trying to sell a NZ$9000 camera would be helpful with issues like this. Guess they sell enough of them not to worry about the odd person asking questions...

Aaron Koolen · May 15th, 2002, 11:12 PM

Just wondering if anyone has had any luck with information from Canon about this yet? Tried again to get some information but no luck with Canon New Zealand.

Constantino Pittas · May 16th, 2002, 01:59 AM

Is there any PAL XL1s owner with the problem?

Or is it a NTCS specific problem?

Rob Lohman · May 16th, 2002, 03:25 AM

My PAL XL1s has it too.

Aaron Koolen · May 16th, 2002, 05:05 AM

Damn. I was so hopeful there for a second.. ;)

It's quite funny actually, but I just looked at the Canon demo/promo web video on CanonDV tonight and I saw a black line or two along the bottom of the footage there also! I wonder if they shot it with an xl1s? :)

Chris Hurd · May 16th, 2002, 09:57 AM

Of course it was shot on an XL1S! ;-) My next opportunity to interact with Canon USA powers will be at ShowBiz Expo in L.A. in about two weeks. No doubt they are already aware of this thread and the problem, but drafting any kind of corporate response is a lengthy and drawn out process. I can tell you that from direct experience with similar issues years ago on the XL1.

Aaron Koolen · May 16th, 2002, 02:29 PM

Excellent. Can't wait to hear if you can get some action on this issue.

Good luck - and man I wish we had expo's here in New Zealand like you guys do in the states!

May 16th, 2002, 06:33 PM

Just checked my digitized footage in FCP from my XL1s and I have the black lines at the bottom as well.

Chris Hurd · May 16th, 2002, 06:44 PM

Yes indeed they will all have it, without exception. It's a "feature" of the Panasonic CCD's used in the XL1S and other camcorder models. Since the CCD block is outside of their manufacturing process, Canon is most likely going to advise cropping down to the action safe area in post so that it shows only the equivalent field of view that the videographer had in the viewfinder when they composed the shot.

Aaron Koolen · May 16th, 2002, 07:31 PM

Yeah I can imagine them saying that, but I'd consider that a rather sad response. The viewfinder only has 88% coverage, so that's a lot of area to lose. I guess the issue is really only a problem with internet style footage right? If you're going to film, you will cut the bottom probably anyway to get the right aspect ratio, and if you're filming for TV then the under(over?)scan will hide the line anyway.

Ozzie Alfonso · May 16th, 2002, 07:41 PM

Chris,

Surely you jest. Cropping all the way to the action safe area? That's a hell of a lot of cropping! Besides, it wouldn't be cropping but blowing up the frame. We've found that a 2% blowup is the minimum necessary to get rid of the lines. But why have to do that at all? There IS a slight degrading of the image. I do hope Canon doesn't pass the buck on this one. Do Panasonic cameras exhibit the same problem? If so, why not just switch over to Sony chips? They certainly don't have the problem.

Yes, now I'm the one who's joking.

May 16th, 2002, 07:46 PM

I agree 100% with you Ozzie, cropping in post is not a solution for this problem.

May 8th, 2002, 09:33 PM	#92
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	I don't think that the differing pixel aspect ratio sounds like a plausible explanation, Jerry. It seems to me that if that was true every comparable DV camera's imported footage would show black-bar(s) and the bars would occur in the same frame position. As evidenced by reports here, as well as by the transcript of the message you relayed to us, the bar(s) occur in different locations on different cameras. Some on the sides, some on the bottom. __________________ 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

May 9th, 2002, 05:46 AM	#93
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	As far as I understand it, pixel aspect has nothing todo with resolution (unless your converting from one pixel aspect to another). Pixel aspect just indicates what the height of a pixel is in relation to its width. So if you have a pixel aspect of 0.9 your pixels should have a height of 90% of its width. The NUMBER of pixels (ie, resolution) does NOT change. You also have a screen aspect ratio that comes into play: 4:3 (NTSC) 16:9 (widescreen) etc.... Pixel and screen aspects are two different things. The onyl time you need to worry with pixel aspects is when you paint pictures in photoshop or do computer generated imageray (CGI). __________________ 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 16th, 2002, 03:25 AM	#97
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	My PAL XL1s has it too. __________________ 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 16th, 2002, 09:57 AM	#99
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Of course it was shot on an XL1S! ;-) My next opportunity to interact with Canon USA powers will be at ShowBiz Expo in L.A. in about two weeks. No doubt they are already aware of this thread and the problem, but drafting any kind of corporate response is a lengthy and drawn out process. I can tell you that from direct experience with similar issues years ago on the XL1. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 16th, 2002, 06:44 PM	#102
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Yes indeed they will all have it, without exception. It's a "feature" of the Panasonic CCD's used in the XL1S and other camcorder models. Since the CCD block is outside of their manufacturing process, Canon is most likely going to advise cropping down to the action safe area in post so that it shows only the equivalent field of view that the videographer had in the viewfinder when they composed the shot. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 8th, 2002, 09:19 PM	#91
Jerry Bixman Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Southern Utah Posts: 25	Hello group, I am not the author of the original post, I only referred to it for the group opinion of its accuracy. Jerry Bixman Original Post from Digital_Video@yahoogroups.com Author gtreible1@suscom.net

May 13th, 2002, 06:05 AM	#94
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Just to add to the discussion with my latest queries from Canon for what it's worth. "Thank you for your E-mail inquiry. I would recommend having the camera serviced at a local authorized service facility." Still no denial or affirmation....I really would have thought that a company trying to sell a NZ$9000 camera would be helpful with issues like this. Guess they sell enough of them not to worry about the odd person asking questions...

May 15th, 2002, 11:12 PM	#95
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Just wondering if anyone has had any luck with information from Canon about this yet? Tried again to get some information but no luck with Canon New Zealand.

May 16th, 2002, 01:59 AM	#96
Constantino Pittas Tourist Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: athens, greece Posts: 2	Is there any PAL XL1s owner with the problem? Or is it a NTCS specific problem?

May 16th, 2002, 05:05 AM	#98
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Damn. I was so hopeful there for a second.. ;) It's quite funny actually, but I just looked at the Canon demo/promo web video on CanonDV tonight and I saw a black line or two along the bottom of the footage there also! I wonder if they shot it with an xl1s? :)

May 16th, 2002, 02:29 PM	#100
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Excellent. Can't wait to hear if you can get some action on this issue. Good luck - and man I wish we had expo's here in New Zealand like you guys do in the states!

May 16th, 2002, 06:33 PM	#101
Guest Posts: n/a	Just checked my digitized footage in FCP from my XL1s and I have the black lines at the bottom as well.

May 16th, 2002, 07:31 PM	#103
Aaron Koolen Trustee Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 1,727	Yeah I can imagine them saying that, but I'd consider that a rather sad response. The viewfinder only has 88% coverage, so that's a lot of area to lose. I guess the issue is really only a problem with internet style footage right? If you're going to film, you will cut the bottom probably anyway to get the right aspect ratio, and if you're filming for TV then the under(over?)scan will hide the line anyway.

May 16th, 2002, 07:41 PM	#104
Ozzie Alfonso Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: New York, NY Posts: 355	Chris, Surely you jest. Cropping all the way to the action safe area? That's a hell of a lot of cropping! Besides, it wouldn't be cropping but blowing up the frame. We've found that a 2% blowup is the minimum necessary to get rid of the lines. But why have to do that at all? There IS a slight degrading of the image. I do hope Canon doesn't pass the buck on this one. Do Panasonic cameras exhibit the same problem? If so, why not just switch over to Sony chips? They certainly don't have the problem. Yes, now I'm the one who's joking. __________________ *Ozzie Alfonso* www.ozziealfonso.com

May 16th, 2002, 07:46 PM	#105
Guest Posts: n/a	I agree 100% with you Ozzie, cropping in post is not a solution for this problem.