ASA/ISO For Canon XL1s at DVinfo.net

July 24th, 2002, 09:22 PM

Hello, all:

Does anyone have any idea as to what the ASA/ISO equivalent
would be for the XL1s. In other words, if I wanted to use a light
meter to meter my subject, what ASA film speed would I choose?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Looking Glass

Chris Hurd · July 24th, 2002, 10:53 PM

See the XL1 Watchdog at www.dvinfo.net/xl1.htm -- go to Articles Menu > Camera Head. There are two articles discussing ASA for XL1. I guess the real question is, how much does this change for the XL1S. Any takers?

Jay Gladwell · July 25th, 2002, 06:59 AM

As I've tried to determine the exposure index of my XL1s, I've read suggestion after suggestion on how to accomplish this (including that on the Watchdog site). As I've attempted this, it seems to vary under different lighting conditions. This is all being done without the benefit of a waveform monitor. Also, it depends upon the initial ASA setting on the light meter selected prior to the test. This has been my experience, anyway. There's an excellent chance I'm doing something wrong,too!

Bill Ravens · July 25th, 2002, 06:59 AM

In my own tests, the XL1s has an ASA rating of 160.I should note, however, that this will hold for proper exposure in sunlight. Over/under exposure in less than ideal conditions and the ASA rating will not be 160. The in-camera lightmeter has a different responsivity curve than a still camera light meter.

Jay Gladwell · July 25th, 2002, 07:04 AM

Bill,

Your results are very close to result I get most often, that's an ASA 200.

Jeff Donald · July 25th, 2002, 07:10 AM

Bill,

Why do you feel the XL1's internal meter has a different response curve? I'm going to run some tests in the next day or 2 and I'm trying to get different peoples ideas. I've read the articles here as a starter, but this subject has me intrigued.

Jeff

Bill Ravens · July 25th, 2002, 07:16 AM

Jeff...

I've tried using a light meter, myself, for certain off-ideal lighting conditions and continue to have a problem if I don't double check it against the in camera meter. I read an article explaining that a video CCD has a different responsivity to light than film, accordingly, the light meter is designed to match. One must take caution when using a light meter designed for film on a CCD based device.

Jay Gladwell · July 25th, 2002, 07:24 AM

Bill,

In your last post, you said that an article stated, "...a video CCD has a different responsivity to light than film..." While that's true, all light meters are calibrated to properly render the 18% grey at the suggested exposure. The 18% grey is what it is, regardless of the medium recording it, isn't that true?

I don't understand what the difference in light meters would make.

Jeff Donald · July 25th, 2002, 07:38 AM

Here's my ideas on running the tests. I'll use my Lux meter to actually measure the light levels falling on the 18% gray card. I will meter of the grey card with the XL1, XL1s, Nikon F5 and Seconic handheld meter in both incident and reflected mode. The measurments can be done in 5 or 6 different light levels as measured by the lux meter. The shutter speeds will all be set for 1/60 of a second. This will give me baseline data. But I'm not sure yet the best way to compare or plot the data. Any thoughts?

Jeff

Bill Ravens · July 25th, 2002, 07:42 AM

Good dog....

Indeed, you're right....an 18% grey is used to determing correct exposure. However, that's just a design point. One point does not a curve make. There are off design conditions, as well...i.e. under/over exposure. While the meter is always right at a theoretically "perfect" exposure level, it falls down if you're intentionally over/under exposing.

Jay Gladwell · July 25th, 2002, 07:48 AM

Bill,

I still don't understand your point. We weren't talking about over/under exposure. We were talking about light meters responding differently and determing the exposure index of the camera. . . I thought.

Bill Ravens · July 25th, 2002, 07:50 AM

well, if all you're interested in is using a light meter to determine a technically correct exposure, then none of this matters to you. If on the other hand you're doing some creative exposures, beware.

Jay Gladwell · July 25th, 2002, 07:52 AM

Bill,

I stand corrected. I went back and re-read your post and you stated, "...for certain off-ideal lighting conditions..." My bad, sorry!

Bill Ravens · July 25th, 2002, 07:54 AM

NP.....;O)
Good luck!!

Jeff Donald · July 25th, 2002, 07:56 AM

I'm not trying to put words in Bill's mouth but I think I understand his point. Film has a relatively linear response under most lighting conditions. But film is subject to reciprocity failure. It just doesn't occur under most lighting situations. For example in very low light the meter reads F2@60 seconds, but the correct exposure for the film is F2@120 seconds. Why? In low light the response curve of the film changes. The same must be true for CCD, except it occurs in more typical lighting situations.

Jeff

July 24th, 2002, 09:22 PM	#1
Looking Glass Posts: n/a	ASA/ISO For Canon XL1s Hello, all: Does anyone have any idea as to what the ASA/ISO equivalent would be for the XL1s. In other words, if I wanted to use a light meter to meter my subject, what ASA film speed would I choose? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Looking Glass

July 24th, 2002, 10:53 PM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	See the XL1 Watchdog at www.dvinfo.net/xl1.htm -- go to Articles Menu > Camera Head. There are two articles discussing ASA for XL1. I guess the real question is, how much does this change for the XL1S. Any takers? __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

July 25th, 2002, 06:59 AM	#3
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	As I've tried to determine the exposure index of my XL1s, I've read suggestion after suggestion on how to accomplish this (including that on the Watchdog site). As I've attempted this, it seems to vary under different lighting conditions. This is all being done without the benefit of a waveform monitor. Also, it depends upon the initial ASA setting on the light meter selected prior to the test. This has been my experience, anyway. There's an excellent chance I'm doing something wrong,too!

July 25th, 2002, 06:59 AM	#4
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	In my own tests, the XL1s has an ASA rating of 160.I should note, however, that this will hold for proper exposure in sunlight. Over/under exposure in less than ideal conditions and the ASA rating will not be 160. The in-camera lightmeter has a different responsivity curve than a still camera light meter.

July 25th, 2002, 07:04 AM	#5
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Bill, Your results are very close to result I get most often, that's an ASA 200.

July 25th, 2002, 07:10 AM	#6
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Bill, Why do you feel the XL1's internal meter has a different response curve? I'm going to run some tests in the next day or 2 and I'm trying to get different peoples ideas. I've read the articles here as a starter, but this subject has me intrigued. Jeff

July 25th, 2002, 07:16 AM	#7
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Jeff... I've tried using a light meter, myself, for certain off-ideal lighting conditions and continue to have a problem if I don't double check it against the in camera meter. I read an article explaining that a video CCD has a different responsivity to light than film, accordingly, the light meter is designed to match. One must take caution when using a light meter designed for film on a CCD based device.

July 25th, 2002, 07:24 AM	#8
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Bill, In your last post, you said that an article stated, "...a video CCD has a different responsivity to light than film..." While that's true, all light meters are calibrated to properly render the 18% grey at the suggested exposure. The 18% grey is what it is, regardless of the medium recording it, isn't that true? I don't understand what the difference in light meters would make.

July 25th, 2002, 07:38 AM	#9
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Here's my ideas on running the tests. I'll use my Lux meter to actually measure the light levels falling on the 18% gray card. I will meter of the grey card with the XL1, XL1s, Nikon F5 and Seconic handheld meter in both incident and reflected mode. The measurments can be done in 5 or 6 different light levels as measured by the lux meter. The shutter speeds will all be set for 1/60 of a second. This will give me baseline data. But I'm not sure yet the best way to compare or plot the data. Any thoughts? Jeff

July 25th, 2002, 07:42 AM	#10
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Good dog.... Indeed, you're right....an 18% grey is used to determing correct exposure. However, that's just a design point. One point does not a curve make. There are off design conditions, as well...i.e. under/over exposure. While the meter is always right at a theoretically "perfect" exposure level, it falls down if you're intentionally over/under exposing.

July 25th, 2002, 07:48 AM	#11
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Bill, I still don't understand your point. We weren't talking about over/under exposure. We were talking about light meters responding differently and determing the exposure index of the camera. . . I thought.

July 25th, 2002, 07:50 AM	#12
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	well, if all you're interested in is using a light meter to determine a technically correct exposure, then none of this matters to you. If on the other hand you're doing some creative exposures, beware.

July 25th, 2002, 07:52 AM	#13
Jay Gladwell Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,244	Bill, I stand corrected. I went back and re-read your post and you stated, "...for certain off-ideal lighting conditions..." My bad, sorry!

July 25th, 2002, 07:54 AM	#14
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	NP.....;O) Good luck!!

July 25th, 2002, 07:56 AM	#15
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I'm not trying to put words in Bill's mouth but I think I understand his point. Film has a relatively linear response under most lighting conditions. But film is subject to reciprocity failure. It just doesn't occur under most lighting situations. For example in very low light the meter reads F2@60 seconds, but the correct exposure for the film is F2@120 seconds. Why? In low light the response curve of the film changes. The same must be true for CCD, except it occurs in more typical lighting situations. Jeff