Quality Stills on XL1s at DVinfo.net

August 5th, 2002, 02:58 PM

I owned a VX2000 for about a week and found that i wanted the xl1s even though it lacks a few nice features. But one thing i noticed is that the stills aren't nearly as good. I mean the stills on the camera looked better than they did in real life! I took an image of a dark aquarium and they turned out so cool.

Is it me but are the stills on the Xl1s crap? Perhaps i'm not doing somthing correctly but compared to the sony they are indeed crap.

Don't get me wrong, i love my camera dearly but man the images have got to improve!

Any suggestions to even out the playing field?

Jeff Donald · August 5th, 2002, 07:45 PM

The XL1/s is not intended to be a digital still camera with high resolution. The chips in the XL1 are designed with video in mind. Digital stills was a secondary design specification. The camera design is optimized for mini DV. As technology improves and consumer interest change the next generation of XL will have enhanced still capability.

Jeff

Bill Ravens · August 5th, 2002, 08:29 PM

Indeed, when a product is designed to do everything, it does nothing very well. The XL1s is optimized for video and it does that in an exceptional way.

August 5th, 2002, 09:53 PM

Guys, i know that it's not designed for stills but neither is the PD-150 nor the VX2000 but they have great stills none the less. See what i mean?

Jeff Donald · August 5th, 2002, 10:30 PM

I have no suggestions to improve the quality of the XL1/s still images. It is what it is. If it doesn't meet your expectations you'll have to wait for an improved version. My sugestion is to buy a modestly priced digital still camera and you'll get better pictures than the PD150, VX2000 or the XL. A 1.3 mega-pixel camera will beat their quality and a 2 or 3 mega-pixel camera will far excede anything the video cameras could dream of producing. A good used 1.3 mega-pixel camera will run around $100 to $150. Canon makes some nice 2 and 3 mega-pixel cameras.

Jeff

Chris Hurd · August 5th, 2002, 10:35 PM

I'm using a 2-megapixel Canon Powershot S200 (about $350) and I'm loving it... does an 8x10 print size, highly compact, RGB filter... just about any Sony, Canon, Nikon digicam will give you better digital stills than anything out of a DV camcorder.

August 6th, 2002, 10:13 AM

I mean't no hostility toward our beloved camera i was just wondering if there was a way to improve the results i.e. half way hold the button down to "calibrate the image" as is the case with many other cameras or push the secret majic awesome still button, etc...

However, thanks for your imput. I will just have to use the 2.0 megapixel camera i ran across.

Thanks,
Adam

August 5th, 2002, 02:58 PM	#1
Geocide1 Posts: n/a	Quality Stills on XL1s I owned a VX2000 for about a week and found that i wanted the xl1s even though it lacks a few nice features. But one thing i noticed is that the stills aren't nearly as good. I mean the stills on the camera looked better than they did in real life! I took an image of a dark aquarium and they turned out so cool. Is it me but are the stills on the Xl1s crap? Perhaps i'm not doing somthing correctly but compared to the sony they are indeed crap. Don't get me wrong, i love my camera dearly but man the images have got to improve! Any suggestions to even out the playing field?

August 5th, 2002, 10:35 PM	#6
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	I'm using a 2-megapixel Canon Powershot S200 (about $350) and I'm loving it... does an 8x10 print size, highly compact, RGB filter... just about any Sony, Canon, Nikon digicam will give you better digital stills than anything out of a DV camcorder. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

August 6th, 2002, 10:13 AM	#7
Geocide1 Posts: n/a	Thanks I mean't no hostility toward our beloved camera i was just wondering if there was a way to improve the results i.e. half way hold the button down to "calibrate the image" as is the case with many other cameras or push the secret majic awesome still button, etc... However, thanks for your imput. I will just have to use the 2.0 megapixel camera i ran across. Thanks, Adam

August 5th, 2002, 07:45 PM	#2
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	The XL1/s is not intended to be a digital still camera with high resolution. The chips in the XL1 are designed with video in mind. Digital stills was a secondary design specification. The camera design is optimized for mini DV. As technology improves and consumer interest change the next generation of XL will have enhanced still capability. Jeff

August 5th, 2002, 08:29 PM	#3
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Indeed, when a product is designed to do everything, it does nothing very well. The XL1s is optimized for video and it does that in an exceptional way.

August 5th, 2002, 09:53 PM	#4
Geocide1 Posts: n/a	Guys, i know that it's not designed for stills but neither is the PD-150 nor the VX2000 but they have great stills none the less. See what i mean?

August 5th, 2002, 10:30 PM	#5
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	I have no suggestions to improve the quality of the XL1/s still images. It is what it is. If it doesn't meet your expectations you'll have to wait for an improved version. My sugestion is to buy a modestly priced digital still camera and you'll get better pictures than the PD150, VX2000 or the XL. A 1.3 mega-pixel camera will beat their quality and a 2 or 3 mega-pixel camera will far excede anything the video cameras could dream of producing. A good used 1.3 mega-pixel camera will run around $100 to $150. Canon makes some nice 2 and 3 mega-pixel cameras. Jeff