XL2 vs DVX100 series: "the look" - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders

Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders
Canon XL2 / XL1S / XL1 and GL2 / XM2 / GL1 / XM1.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 9th, 2008, 12:43 PM   #16
Slash Rules!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,723
As far as I know, squeeze mode gives you the same results as letterboxing, it's just how it's handled in post that's different. Either way, it's cutting off the top and bottom of your image to simulate 16:9. It's like the way the old XL1s used to do it.
Josh Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2008, 04:44 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 204
OK, now ya got me confused (sorry). Is squeeze just covering up the top and bottom with black bars (and not "squeezing" the picture)? I only ask because if it's just covering up the top and bottom with black bars, I'll have to stretch it in Final Cut (put the distort on 33.33) to fit the 16:9 anamorphic timeline and the picture will be stretched vertically.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but letterboxing 4:3 video "looks widescreen" on a 4:3 monitor, but has black bars on top AND sides on a 16:9 monitor, right? So if squeeze mode just throws black bars top and bottom, then a that part of the 16:9 timeline is going to look REALLY small on a 4:3 tv, right? It's not going to be the same dimensions, unless I distort it in post, right?

Wow, this sucks. I gotta get my own equipment so everything's the same. I guess I could just shoot 4:3 with all 3 cameras, but I gotta see if that's cool with the client.
Jonathan Kirsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2008, 05:44 PM   #18
Slash Rules!
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 4,723
Sorry, did not mean to confuse. I mean as far as end result, they're essentially the same. In letterbox mode, it blacks the top and bottom, leaving you with 360 lines (I think) of vertical resolution. In Squeeze, it crops the top and bottom the same way, but THEN squeezes it so it fits a 4:3 frame, and you can unsquish it in an anamorphic project. But, on that same token, you could shoot it letterbox, and then blow it up in an anamorphic project to get rid of the black. See what I'm saying? They do basically the same thing, just in different ways. What I did when I was shooting a 16:9 project was to cut small pieces of gel (like for lights) to cover the flip out LCD where the letterbox borders would be. This allows you to shoot regular 4:3, but frame correctly for 16:9, but the benefit is that you have some vertical play room if you decide something isn't framed correctly. If you're confident with everything, just shoot squeeze to match the XL2's widescreen, drop 'em in an anamorphic timeline, and you should be good to go. I'm probably making this more complicated for you.
Josh Bass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10th, 2008, 01:12 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 204
Got it. Thanks a whole lot for your help, Josh.

Jonathan
Jonathan Kirsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10th, 2008, 01:30 PM   #20
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albany, NY 12210
Posts: 2,650
While the DVX does indeed crop and stretch, you get a big resolution boost in progressive mode for some reason. This was documented in DV Magazine a couple of years back. So, if you are shooting progressive and want 16:9, definitely do it in-camera with the DVX. It's nearly as good as the real thing.
Marco Leavitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 10th, 2008, 03:13 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 204
Thanks for the input, Marco.

Looks like the shoot will now be with 2 DVX100's and an XL2, so progressive shouldn't be a prob. The only reason 60i was a possibility was because of the Betacam...but that's out now.
Jonathan Kirsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2008, 04:11 PM   #22
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 204
UPDATE: So get this. One of the DVX100's that were used in the show last night was a 100A, so it couldn't do Squeeze (at least that is what the owner of the camera said, I don't know much about them). I didn't have time to question him or mess with the camera myself...AND the guy with the Sony D35 Betacam ended up shooting as well. So: 4 cameras (XL2, D35, (2)DVX100), 4:3, 60i.

Yeesh.

Thanks all for your help.

Jonathan
Jonathan Kirsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2008, 04:17 PM   #23
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albany, NY 12210
Posts: 2,650
He's full of doggy doo doo. I'm guessing one of these people who think since the camera isn't 16:9 native it's best to do the crop and stretch in post so you can change the frame line if you want.
Marco Leavitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2008, 05:16 PM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 204
Seriously? He's off my list. Will never work with him again. Yeah, he said since it was an older model it couldn't do it. I could have provided 16:9 to the client (and after all the info gathering on here) and the guy blitzed me. Crap.

Jonathan
Jonathan Kirsch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 11th, 2008, 05:36 PM   #25
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albany, NY 12210
Posts: 2,650
So far as I know the DVX100 always had the digital 16:9 function, but maybe you want to double check with folks over in the DVX forum before writing anybody off. Personally, I don't find it helpful in this business to make proclamations like that. You never know when you will be in a jam down the line and that person can help you out.
Marco Leavitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2008, 06:32 AM   #26
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 41
DVX100 doesn’t have a squeeze function, DVX100A has and the DVX100B also has with proper framing in the LCD. I have used al three versions and sound like a stupid compandre you got there.

According the look between DVX and XL2 I think a XL2 with 16x manual gives you a great field of possibilities.
David Odell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2008, 08:38 AM   #27
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Québec, Canada
Posts: 177
I shot a ballet dance with two XL2 cameras: one being in 60i AV 16:9 and the other one 30p TV 4:3. I've manage to put the two together without a problem. However, I must say most shot that I've taken for the DVD I've created came from the 30p TV 4:3.

This was unfortunate because I had tought that both of my cameras were at 16:9. It was then a big suprised to me when I saw both shots in FCP. I tough it was the end. I took a suggestion from someone in France where he proposed me to make some kind of 14:9. In FCP on the 4:3 shots I've added horizontal line on the top and the bottom and for the 16:9 I've added verticale line on the side. I've choosen to put the sequence in 4:3, I could have taken the anamorphic.

This was a LOT of work. However, I must says that I was very pleased with the final result.

The reason that I've taken most of the shot from the 30p TV 4:3 was because the image was much better. I've found that it was sharper, I was able to see the expression on the face of the dancers. Also, it adjusted better with the quick and often changing ligthing. I had nos issue in playing with the IRIS to eliminate the over-exposure then with the 60i AV. I was afraid this it would not be smooth in shooting in 30p and I was wrong.

I beleive it would had been different if I would have had to pan a lot. Not sure, someone could say better.
__________________
Daniel Paquin
Production ZoOM vidéo
Daniel Paquin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2008, 08:40 AM   #28
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Albany, NY 12210
Posts: 2,650
All right, this is my bad. The DVX100 did have letterboxing, but no digital squeeze. That would explain why I remember seeing widescreen footage from those older cameras.

From Adam Wilt's site: "The DVX100 is 4:3 only, although it has a built-in letterboxing mask leaving about 372 scanlines (NTSC) shown: a bit taller than the 360 lines of true letterboxed 16x9. Panasonic had a firm target of US$4000 or less, and built-in 16x9 would have broken the bank."

http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/index.html

Oh wait, to add to the confusion, I just re-read your post and you say the guy had a DVX100a? That does have the digital squeeze. The original DVX (without an A or B, but sometimes referred to as P) is the one that only does the letterbox.

Last edited by Marco Leavitt; July 12th, 2008 at 10:00 AM.
Marco Leavitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 12th, 2008, 04:26 PM   #29
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 41
Another differance between DVX and a XL2 with 16x manual, is clearity and detail.
David Odell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15th, 2008, 10:22 AM   #30
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 204
Thanks again for the info, all.

Jonathan
Jonathan Kirsch is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon HDV and DV Camera Systems > Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network