Gain difference between XL1 and XL1S

[Adrian Douglas]

Rob,
the jaggies you are seeing are compression artifacts. JPEG is a lossy format and to put an image of that size on the web it requires quite a bit of compression. I'd say they are 30 quality which is why they look blocky. Don't put off your decision to buy an XL1 on the strength of JPEG images, they are not a true indication of the quality of the XL1/GL1 image quality.

[Rob Lohman]

Afterburner,

I know about jpeg compression (and compression block... jpeg/mpeg etc.)...
what i'm referring too are the jaggies around edges and
non horizontal/vertical lines.... don't know how to explain
this well in english... (not my native language).... it looks
like those diagonal lines have "Steps" in them... this has
nothing todo with jpeg compression as far as i know... if
it is something that is wrong i'm thinking more of:

- interlace field reversal
- bad de-interlacing

what you think?

Thanks for your response!

[Bill Ravens]

Hi....

I'm fairly new to this forum, but, I've been doing DV since it was first introduced. I'm not sure what "jaggies" you're referring to since these photos look pretty smooth. DV has a fundamental problem with interlaced/de-interlaced video format. To properly view DV on a computer screen, it's gotta be de-interlaced. Now, this may seem like a trivial problem, but, most commercially available software can't de-interlace properly. It's not sufficient to just swap the field order, 'cuz something weird is going on in the DVcodec. Anyway, for more info, visit this site:
http://people.freenet.de/codecpage/

[Bill Ravens]

Sorry for a somewhat misleading post. The problem is more of a swapping of the field order by the software CODEC than it is an artifact of interlacing. I've been able to eliminate this jagged effect by running my captured video thru VirtualDub and applying a deinterlacing filter that does a phase shift and field reversal.
For more info you can visit: http://people.freenet.de/codecpage/

[Don Palomaki]

Were the jaggies cause by field doubling to grab aa full frame, which is not needed for a still subject? Applying a de-interlace filter cuts the jaggies about in half!

No matter how you slice it, it is a 720x480 image, which will have jaggies when enlarged without additional smothing/processing processing.

[Michael Rosenberger]

I have a few pictures posted on my site you could look at. Just check out the GL-1 examples, the XL-1s pictures are just showing a focus problem on a bad unit. I do TONS of screen captures from our GL1 and post them to our website. I have never had jagged edge problems. The GL-1 is an excellent camera. I will have comments on the XL-1s if I can get a working unit :(

Anyway, the pictures are uncompressed full res .tiff files and are about a meg each, so they don't download very fast. They are untouched full frame captures.

http://www.azuho.com/waveform/camtest.html

[Mark Chiocchi]

Lets see some photos of the xl1s in low light @ +12 and the same with the xl1 low light @ +12.
Mark

[Don Palomaki]

More to the point of evaluating performance, lets see some pictures from the XL1s and XL1 of the same scene (low light if you like) at the same aperture, shutter and IRE level, and see how the noise/grain is and how the gain setting works out! And maybe note the XL1s image processing settings too!

[Mark Chiocchi]

I have received much e-mail since I first posted problems with the XL1s and they are seeing the same thing I am.

I will be calling Canon Monday to see if they’re going to do anything about this problem. If not I am going to sell my XL1s and try to get a new old XL1 back.

[Chris Hurd]

Howdy from Texas,

<< I have received much e-mail since I first posted problems with the XL1s and they are seeing the same thing I am. >>

This is exactly the reason why I was so reluctant to host a message board for all these years... this statement right here. I have a problem with it.

If you've received so much e-mail from other people having the same problem with their cameras, why don't they post *here* in plain view for everyone to see? What do they have to hide?

They'll tell you about it, but they won't go public on my boards? I don't get it.

Part of me seriously doubts that these people are genuine, since they won't discuss it online in an open forum. But then part of me thinks that for some bizarre reason, they're *afraid* to talk about it online. Either way, something ain't right.

So hey, if you call Canon in the morning, be sure to post their response here! Because I'd sure like to know myself. It's why I put up these boards *in the first place.*

Thanks,

[Mark Chiocchi]

Chris,

Why? I don't know why. They want to go public soon on a forum but we are talking about what one to use. This is a BIG problem with the XL1S and most of the posts on this problem don’t see what we are.

Most of the post on this problem never had the old XL1 and shoot weddings. I called one of my e-mails and talked to him and he was telling me the problem with the XL1S was exactly the same thing I am having.

The problem is that most of the post here are just not seeing what we are and need to show them exactly what’s wrong with the XL1S so we all can get this problem fixed.

We all ran out and bought the XL1S when it came available for the new features and are just not seeing the poor performers in low light. Nonetheless...the picture should improve - not get worse. I think we were ripped off bad. Everyone should get together and make Canon upgrade these poor performers.

There is NO DOUBT about this picture quality problem - none at all.

[Alex Dolgin]

Mark, if you are so unhappy with the camera, why do you not just sell it, and get a Sony and get on one of the Sony boards. BTW, I heard that they are working on a new model, which will be even better than the current generation. It is so sensitive that it can see in the dark, and the darker it gets, the better the image gets. Also the auto focus always works, they even are thinking of removing the manual focus ring.
Alex
BTW, I am using my XL1S to shoot the weddings only, I used the XL1 before for about 4 years. It is a decent camera, I am earning good money with it. You can go and visit our site, we list our prices there, we do not discount and are busy.
www.alexvideo.com

[Mark Chiocchi]

Alex look at your video at your reception and see if you have noise in the blacks, and in the black tuxes of the grooms man.

[Mark Chiocchi]

Well this is what's happening.

Canon out of New York has called me and they are sending me a XL1 to use over night so they can look at my XL1s. They have received calls on this problem. All of you should check your XL1s's out and make sure they performer better than the old XL1.

[Mark Chiocchi]

To all,

Canon sent me a XL1 and I did side by side test and found that there is nothing wrong with my XL1s.

This is why I was seeing more noise.

1. The XL1s is 2-1/2 stops brighter than the old xl1 so when the video is brighter in +12db you will see more noise. You don't see it in the old XL1 cuz it's a way darker video cam.

2. I ran all kinds of test with these cams and the XL1s blows the old XL1 away. This is what I did to match the cams.

If you put the XL1s in +6db the cam almost matches the XL1 as far as light goes. If the old XL1 is locked on +12db and the new XL1s is locked in +6db the light readings are about the same.

In this setting the XL1s it still a little bit brighter the XL1 and there is maybe 10% more noise in the old XL1.

So what I will do is shot my receptions is +6 and push down the black level 1 or 2 clicks.

I am so happy that Canon sent me the XL1 before I sent mine out and was able to do these test.

When I looked at the XL1s vs. XL1 man I could not believe how much better it is in low light.

I hope Canon don’t get mad for sending me the XL1 for nothing.
They wanted me to send them mine. If I got the XL1s before I sold my old XL1 I could have done these test. I was going by old footage I had from the old XL1. Oh well live and lean. I still would like to get a Pan/DV200 looks like a good cam. Have to live with my XL1s & GL1 for now.

Mark