View Full Version : Canon XL1 compared with HD and Final Cut pro. Big Confusion..
May 10th, 2009, 03:38 PM
Hi. I was lately working in parties and broadcasting with XL1 because I' m sure it's a very reliable good quality camera. I just want to ask to experts their opinion about the HD version. Is really a enormous difference between XL1 and HD, or it's just another "campaign"?. I'm confused because when I see the quality of both cameras I don't see a shocking difference. And the fact that you can exchange lenses and put a 500 mm with the adapter, have shoulders and add 2 XLRS mics in the M100 makes the XL1 much better than many others HD without that features. The thing gets worst when I finished a project in Final Cut Pro HD and I need to compress 20 GB (example:one event 90 minutes) in one DVD of 4.7 GB. Where is the HD camera there?. From there, even when I compress in Final cut in HD, still I see the loose of quality. As you can see,I have more questions than answers. But basically I would like to read the opinion of someone that knows the XL1 and the HD version, and also use Final Cut Pro and understand how to compress 20GB in a DVD of 4.7 in HD to see crystal clear video in a 46 inch 1080 T.V..If someone knows what I'm talking about, thank you very much to read my thread and I'll really appreciate your answer..
May 10th, 2009, 11:32 PM
To my eye, the difference is like night and day.
But what's important is how it looks to *you.* If you can't see a difference, then it doesn't really matter.
I'm not sure what you're asking -- if you have determined that you cannot see a difference, then no post
on an internet message board should change your opinion.
If you're just looking for some affirmation that the XL1 is just as good as HD (or the other way around, that
HD is no better than the XL1), then I'm sure you'll find someone here who will agree with you... if that's what
you really want to hear.
Meanwhile, we're not in the business of proving you wrong. If you can't see a difference, then there is no
difference. It's not our job to convince you otherwise... either you can see it for yourself, or you can't.
Once again, text messages on a web forum can't change your perception.
May 11th, 2009, 09:26 AM
Probably I should post the thread in Final Cut Pro users..The confusion came from the fact that I don't know if there is any solution to the problem that when you finish a project in HD or SD in 20 or 25 GB each you need to burn the project in a 4.2 GB standard to customer deliver (no double layer or blue ray. Not everybody has that equipment) or copy in internet files. That's why I'm confused. How can you go from 25 GB project in FCP pro HD with HD or SD cameras 3 CCD to 4.2 GB DVD and keep the original quality to watch in a 46 inch HD 1080 T.V.?? I know that from the cassette to T.V looks great HD or SD cameras, but doesn't look that good after you compress to Standard 4.2 DVD. I wonder if there is any solution to my questions or i need to take another way. Always happens the same. The cassette is great in 46 inch HD T.V, the DVD..So..so.I don't know what to do..Thanks to read.
May 11th, 2009, 11:04 AM
If I understand you (and I am not certain I do), you are saying that when you play the "Cassette" version of a video on your 46" HD TV, it looks better than when you look at the DVD version after you compress the original DV or HD to the DVD standard (MPEG2).
I think that means you see better results when you play the original footage from the camera than from a DVD.
When you compare original footage from the camera to a DVD, you are comparing apples and oranges. DVD is a 720x480 format that is compressed from the original. When you play SD footage from the XL1 using S-video, it is conceivable that it looks better because it did not go through MPEG compression to create the DVD (iMovie or DVD Studio Pro...). The tool used to do the compression affects the DVD quality so there are ways to get better looking DVDs using better tools and knowledge. But how can a compressed MPEG2 DVD look better than the original? (it's arguable that it can, in some cases, look better from DVD than the original due to color enhancement special effects etc but that is another topic)
As far as comparing HD played from the camera with a DVD from the same footage, you are comparing footage being displayed at 1080 (from the camera) in it's full quality, with footage compressed by MPEG (see previous paragraph) and displayed at 720x480 resolution. Of course they will not look the same. However, a BlueRay DVD should look better than an SD DVD.
You should be comparing camera to camera and DVD to DVD. That is, DVDs made from the XL1 footage with DVDs made from HD footage. I have both an XL1s and an XH-A1. The DVDs made with footage shot with the XH-A1 is better that the DVDs made with footage from the XL1s. Do that comparison and if you cannot see a difference between the two DVDs, then <insert Chris Hurd's post here>
May 11th, 2009, 11:32 AM
Thanks for your answer Les..You are right. What I tried to ask is what you said:"I think that means you see better results when you play the original footage from the camera than from a DVD." The mean point for me is the final result. The delivery of the DVD to my customers that want to see their things in a 46/52/70 inch HD 1080..I'm confused about the fact that I see the footage of my XL1 in 46 inch and is very good, but when I burn it in IDVD gets kind of degradation.. The intention was not compare XL1 with XH-A1 but get the better results of both with you compressed the footage of 25 GB in a DVD of 4.2 G.B by Final Cut Pro express HD. Since you know both cameras I want to ask you what settings you use to have the better results, specially from the Canon Xl1 when you edit a project of 25 or GB and burn from Final cut HD to Dvd to show in a 52 inch 1080 T.V.
Thanks for your kind attention.
May 12th, 2009, 10:47 AM
All you can do is produce the best MPEG2 files as possible. iDvd has a professional quality setting that may be better than what you have seen. I am unfamiliar with DVD Studio Pro but I think others here recomend it for better results. Compressor may also be better than iDvd. Sorry but I am not an expert in those areas.
I suggest you do some searching here in the DVD Authoring forum:
DVD Authoring - The Digital Video Information Network (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/dvd-authoring/)