New article on Watchdog: Fields of View comparison

Don Williamson · October 26th, 2004, 11:58 AM

Thanks Chris,

Yes, your reply is very helpful. It makes perfect sense to me. One thing I've wondered about, however. When viewing an anamorphic wide screen DVD of a Hollywood movie at 480p on a progressive scan TV, detail in wide shots can appear to be quite good. But you still have 720x480 pixels. Right? I'm wondering what would account for the difference?

One point you might find interesting. I've burned some projects I shot with the XL1 that involved quite a bit of image tweaking (gamma alteration, sharpening, etc.) to DVD and played them back on upscaling TVs. These TVs, which utilize LCD displays, quadruple the number of pixels. To my delight, the results obtained were very good. The Sony upscaling TVs did the best, in terms of freedom from artifacts. On wider shots, the upscaling gave the impression of more detail. Shots which looked a bit crude on a standard interlaced CRT took on a delicate, smoother, more detailed quality. Customers and sales people in the stores where I did my test were quite impressed, since the results looked somewhat better than most standard broadcast fare. So, while I assume you will heartily recommend upgrading to the XL2, I'm not planning on selling my trusty ol' XL1.

Don Williamson

Bill Pryor · October 26th, 2004, 12:54 PM

Some good comparisons there, Chris. Interesting how much sharper everything is in 16:9. I expected it to be, but didn't think there would be that much difference.
I have one question a bit off this subject, but seeing the 3X lens brought it to mind...I believe I have read that with the 3X you are not able to use the optical stabilization, is that correct ?

Jean-Philippe Archibald · October 26th, 2004, 01:00 PM

Bill,

there is NO image stabilisation device on the 3X. I beleive that Canon, in order to keep the cost lower (hum... can't imagine waht could be the price if they had included OIS... ) decided not to include OIS, since it is less of a necessity on a wide angle lens.

Chris Hurd · October 26th, 2004, 01:05 PM

Hi Bill, yes Jean-Philipe is quite right, there is no OIS on the 3x lens and they kept it off to keep the cost down. Figuring it's only a $1200 lens anyway (Bill is from the pro world where video lenses cost *real* money -- $1200 is nothing, or that is, almost nothing in the realm of the big cameras).

Bill Pryor · October 26th, 2004, 01:11 PM

Unfortunately, most of the wide angle shooting I would do with a smaller camera would be hand held, so that is kind of annoying. Of course, when shooting with a wide angle lens it's fairly easy to hold the camera pretty steady without OIS. I'm still interested in the XL2 for a certain project, mostly because it is the only small camera with 16:9 chips--not counting the FX1, which really isn't quite out there yet, and even if it were available I haven't been able to determine if its 16:9 setup works in DV as well as HDV. You would think it would, but logic doesn't always apply to camera design, I've found.
I guess I'm going to have to go rent an XL2 for a day and check it out in detail.

Yi Fong Yu · October 26th, 2004, 01:28 PM

good thread guys! we all luv widescreen. i've always thought about the limits of the DV technology (resolution) and how a good lens (such as 3x) resolves only as good as the format. anyway it was a very informative article. that thing is definitely shows advantages of canon's XL series of DV cams!

October 26th, 2004, 11:58 AM	#16
Don Williamson Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Ashburn, VA Posts: 42	Thanks Chris, Yes, your reply is very helpful. It makes perfect sense to me. One thing I've wondered about, however. When viewing an anamorphic wide screen DVD of a Hollywood movie at 480p on a progressive scan TV, detail in wide shots can appear to be quite good. But you still have 720x480 pixels. Right? I'm wondering what would account for the difference? One point you might find interesting. I've burned some projects I shot with the XL1 that involved quite a bit of image tweaking (gamma alteration, sharpening, etc.) to DVD and played them back on upscaling TVs. These TVs, which utilize LCD displays, quadruple the number of pixels. To my delight, the results obtained were very good. The Sony upscaling TVs did the best, in terms of freedom from artifacts. On wider shots, the upscaling gave the impression of more detail. Shots which looked a bit crude on a standard interlaced CRT took on a delicate, smoother, more detailed quality. Customers and sales people in the stores where I did my test were quite impressed, since the results looked somewhat better than most standard broadcast fare. So, while I assume you will heartily recommend upgrading to the XL2, I'm not planning on selling my trusty ol' XL1. Don Williamson __________________ Don Williamson

October 26th, 2004, 01:00 PM	#18
Jean-Philippe Archibald Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Saguenay, Québec, Canada Posts: 1,051	Bill, there is NO image stabilisation device on the 3X. I beleive that Canon, in order to keep the cost lower (hum... can't imagine waht could be the price if they had included OIS... ) decided not to include OIS, since it is less of a necessity on a wide angle lens. __________________ Jean-Philippe Archibald http://www.jparchibald.com - http://www.vimeo.com/jparchib

October 26th, 2004, 01:05 PM	#19
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Hi Bill, yes Jean-Philipe is quite right, there is no OIS on the 3x lens and they kept it off to keep the cost down. Figuring it's only a $1200 lens anyway (Bill is from the pro world where video lenses cost real money -- $1200 is nothing, or that is, almost nothing in the realm of the big cameras). __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

October 26th, 2004, 01:28 PM	#21
Yi Fong Yu Trustee Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vulcan Posts: 1,564	good thread guys! we all luv widescreen. i've always thought about the limits of the DV technology (resolution) and how a good lens (such as 3x) resolves only as good as the format. anyway it was a very informative article. that thing is definitely shows advantages of canon's XL series of DV cams! __________________ bow wow wow

October 26th, 2004, 12:54 PM	#17
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Some good comparisons there, Chris. Interesting how much sharper everything is in 16:9. I expected it to be, but didn't think there would be that much difference. I have one question a bit off this subject, but seeing the 3X lens brought it to mind...I believe I have read that with the 3X you are not able to use the optical stabilization, is that correct ?

October 26th, 2004, 01:11 PM	#20
Bill Pryor Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 4,449	Unfortunately, most of the wide angle shooting I would do with a smaller camera would be hand held, so that is kind of annoying. Of course, when shooting with a wide angle lens it's fairly easy to hold the camera pretty steady without OIS. I'm still interested in the XL2 for a certain project, mostly because it is the only small camera with 16:9 chips--not counting the FX1, which really isn't quite out there yet, and even if it were available I haven't been able to determine if its 16:9 setup works in DV as well as HDV. You would think it would, but logic doesn't always apply to camera design, I've found. I guess I'm going to have to go rent an XL2 for a day and check it out in detail.