Xi Q.s for Allan Rejoso

Alex Zabrovsky · October 1st, 2003, 12:49 PM

Thanks Allan, just ran s search through the board and figured your post dealing with the issue.
As I understood from there, the wide format is actually 720x460, right ?
I must be wrong because wide means wider then usual horizontally (not just aspect ration) but 720 is regular horizontal size of 4x3 TV image.
I was hoping wide format (and Cinema Pro, of course) will really widen horizontal view, but perhaps may somewhat crop vertical resolution to maintain aspect ratio close to 16x9. In fact, in this mode I notice horizontal angle is somewhat wider capturing slighty more at the sides, but also vertically the image is stratched (reducing vertical resolution), so perhaps horizontally it would nevertheless do more then usual 720 ?

Alex

Samuel Raj · October 1st, 2003, 02:06 PM

Thanks Allan for the link.

Alex,
DV format allows maximum of 720X480(NTSC) to be stored in to mini dv tape(Limitation for dv format). If its 4:3 it stores without any changes directly to 720X480.
If its 16:9 then it squeezes the extra wide information to fit inside the 720X480

Its up to the TV to display correctly either 4:3 or 16:9 from that 720X480 pixel information. If the TV want to display as 16:9 then it unsqueezes the already squeezed info(packed inside the 720X480) and show as pictures with out any distortion.i.e convert the 720X480 to 856X480 and display in the 16:9 format.

There is no 720X460 business in these formats. This 720X460 is a middle step to go to 720X480 in GS100k's 16:9(i.e 1.04 digital magnification)

Alex Zabrovsky · October 2nd, 2003, 12:47 AM

Thanks a lot Sam, that clarifies the picture.
The real resolution in wide mode is then
856X480 that are actually squizzed down into standard 720 width.
Then, if the particular TV or any other playback device support 16x9 they should to uncompress the video to a real size which is 856X480, right ?
On regular TV that does not have anything other then just plain 4x3 it will look distorted in terms of aspect ratio.

Did I get the point ?

regards, Alex

Allan Rejoso · October 4th, 2003, 09:51 AM

Background Blur

Comparative close-up shots of a flower shows that due to its 6-blade iris, the Xi produces a more natural looking and softer background blur compared to the GS100K and the PC300K (which both have 2-blade iris). Sample shot taken using the Xi shows nearly round shaped blurs while those of GS100K and PC300K show diamond shaped blurs. Between the GS100K and PC300K, the diamond shaped blurs of the PC300K appear much bigger.

Alex Zabrovsky · October 5th, 2003, 04:18 AM

Well, Allan, I never realized there might be just 2-blades apertures, may due to my experience coming mostly from photography world.
Photography lenses if high quality (especially these intended for portraiture and/or Macro) are usually equipped with more then 6 blades apertures to achieve better bokeh (background blur quality), some even featured by rounded blades - producing even more nicely diffused background.
Well, video cams aren't these to compete with dedicated photo gear though... :-)

Alex

Tommy Haupfear · November 3rd, 2003, 11:20 AM

I recently parted with my PDX10 for the Optura Xi and I'd like to make a few statements about the Xi.

Autofocus is the worst I've seen on any MiniDV cam and I'm also concerned about the way it blows out highlights. At first I just chalked the highlights up to the superiority of the much more expensive 3CCD PDX10 but then I went back and looked and the DV953 handled skylines much better than the Xi.

I did a test over the weekend with the VX2000 and Xi just to illustrate the point.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Alex Zabrovsky · November 3rd, 2003, 02:20 PM

Did you swapped PDX10 for Xi ??
Should it sound reasonable ?

I thought PDX10 is of considerably higher end range (and priced accordingly) so I certainly wouldnt' expect better overall Xi's performance.

Regards, Alex

Samuel Raj · November 3rd, 2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

but then I went back and looked and the DV953 handled skylines much better than the Xi.

In that case the GS100 (an upgrade of DV953) should handle better than the 953 because of its new crystal engine.

Tom, Did you have some chance to look at GS100's performance compared to the PDX10 or VX2000

Tommy Haupfear · November 3rd, 2003, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Did you swapped PDX10 for Xi ??
Should it sound reasonable ?

I knew the Xi would be a big step down from the PDX10 but I've scaled back my video hobby as digital photography has really caught my eye of late. In fact I just received my new Canon 10D from FedEx about three hours ago. I need a second job to support my habits. :)

The thing is that while I expected less from the Xi I had hoped it would be equal to or better than the DV953. I will agree that the 16:9 mode is superior to the DV953 but autofocus (yes I occassionally use it) and contrasts are handled much better by the DV953. Thats why the black mamba GS100 has once again sparked my interests.

Unfortunately I don't have a GS100 to compare but I am contemplating the purchase since its the same price as the Xi.

I will share some frames later this evening from a quick test shoot this weekend with the Xi and 2000.

Tommy Haupfear · November 3rd, 2003, 08:42 PM

Optura Xi Widescreen

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...Widescreen.JPG

VX2000 Widescreen

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...Widescreen.JPG

The next two pics are a frame from my past PDX10 and a still from my past DV953. The still is not really fair comparison but I've attached it anyway.

PDX10

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/74415/Hotel.JPG

DV953

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture046.jpg

Alex Zabrovsky · November 4th, 2003, 06:03 AM

Well, must admit DV953 held up quite well even against PDX10. The best sky rendition (as well overall contrast and colors) among these four. (PDX is next, VX2000 and Xi less good while Xi is loooking indeed as looser in this round).

I suspect GS100 would be your best bet here...

Bogdan Vaglarov · November 4th, 2003, 02:26 PM

It's obvious that the Panny takes better photos (especially after resizing you can't see the noise too) but I don't want to comment the stills here.

In my opinion (despite the VX2000's fame) is that Xi has better potential. All I see is a bit overexposed picture. Can you adjust the exposure on Xi? The light parts are blown as well as the sky so that's why you won’t see clouds.
Try to close the iris a step or too and you'll be pretty close to the VX2000 exposure (you can see the dark parts are darker on it's image than on that from Xi).

In addition Xi have much better resolution and no jaggies - just look at the parking lines or the building walls. Also take a look on the cables in most left - they look very loose on VX2000. Look also at the roof’s edges and tree detail – everything stays much more firm on the Xi I think. Color is also natural although not so saturated which is tradition for Canon.

Seems good cam to me – explore it Tommy!

Cheers, Bogdan

Tommy Haupfear · November 4th, 2003, 02:31 PM

I will explore more with the Xi to see if I can pull out better contrasts and report back.

The VX2000 does have a much lower resolution 16:9 mode so I guess a proper comparison should have been done in 4:3.

Thanks for the feedback guys.

October 1st, 2003, 12:49 PM	#16
Alex Zabrovsky Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 175	Thanks Allan, just ran s search through the board and figured your post dealing with the issue. As I understood from there, the wide format is actually 720x460, right ? I must be wrong because wide means wider then usual horizontally (not just aspect ration) but 720 is regular horizontal size of 4x3 TV image. I was hoping wide format (and Cinema Pro, of course) will really widen horizontal view, but perhaps may somewhat crop vertical resolution to maintain aspect ratio close to 16x9. In fact, in this mode I notice horizontal angle is somewhat wider capturing slighty more at the sides, but also vertically the image is stratched (reducing vertical resolution), so perhaps horizontally it would nevertheless do more then usual 720 ? Alex

October 1st, 2003, 02:06 PM	#17
Samuel Raj Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 210	Thanks Allan for the link. Alex, DV format allows maximum of 720X480(NTSC) to be stored in to mini dv tape(Limitation for dv format). If its 4:3 it stores without any changes directly to 720X480. If its 16:9 then it squeezes the extra wide information to fit inside the 720X480 Its up to the TV to display correctly either 4:3 or 16:9 from that 720X480 pixel information. If the TV want to display as 16:9 then it unsqueezes the already squeezed info(packed inside the 720X480) and show as pictures with out any distortion.i.e convert the 720X480 to 856X480 and display in the 16:9 format. There is no 720X460 business in these formats. This 720X460 is a middle step to go to 720X480 in GS100k's 16:9(i.e 1.04 digital magnification)

October 2nd, 2003, 12:47 AM	#18
Alex Zabrovsky Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 175	Thanks a lot Sam, that clarifies the picture. The real resolution in wide mode is then 856X480 that are actually squizzed down into standard 720 width. Then, if the particular TV or any other playback device support 16x9 they should to uncompress the video to a real size which is 856X480, right ? On regular TV that does not have anything other then just plain 4x3 it will look distorted in terms of aspect ratio. Did I get the point ? regards, Alex

October 4th, 2003, 09:51 AM	#19
Allan Rejoso Major Player Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tokyo, Japan Posts: 569	Background Blur Comparative close-up shots of a flower shows that due to its 6-blade iris, the Xi produces a more natural looking and softer background blur compared to the GS100K and the PC300K (which both have 2-blade iris). Sample shot taken using the Xi shows nearly round shaped blurs while those of GS100K and PC300K show diamond shaped blurs. Between the GS100K and PC300K, the diamond shaped blurs of the PC300K appear much bigger.

October 5th, 2003, 04:18 AM	#20
Alex Zabrovsky Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 175	Well, Allan, I never realized there might be just 2-blades apertures, may due to my experience coming mostly from photography world. Photography lenses if high quality (especially these intended for portraiture and/or Macro) are usually equipped with more then 6 blades apertures to achieve better bokeh (background blur quality), some even featured by rounded blades - producing even more nicely diffused background. Well, video cams aren't these to compete with dedicated photo gear though... :-) Alex

November 3rd, 2003, 11:20 AM	#21
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I recently parted with my PDX10 for the Optura Xi and I'd like to make a few statements about the Xi. Autofocus is the worst I've seen on any MiniDV cam and I'm also concerned about the way it blows out highlights. At first I just chalked the highlights up to the superiority of the much more expensive 3CCD PDX10 but then I went back and looked and the DV953 handled skylines much better than the Xi. I did a test over the weekend with the VX2000 and Xi just to illustrate the point. Has anyone else noticed this?

November 3rd, 2003, 02:20 PM	#22
Alex Zabrovsky Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 175	Did you swapped PDX10 for Xi ?? Should it sound reasonable ? I thought PDX10 is of considerably higher end range (and priced accordingly) so I certainly wouldnt' expect better overall Xi's performance. Regards, Alex

November 3rd, 2003, 08:42 PM	#25
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	Optura Xi Widescreen http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...Widescreen.JPG VX2000 Widescreen http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2002-...Widescreen.JPG The next two pics are a frame from my past PDX10 and a still from my past DV953. The still is not really fair comparison but I've attached it anyway. PDX10 http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/74415/Hotel.JPG DV953 http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Picture046.jpg

November 4th, 2003, 06:03 AM	#26
Alex Zabrovsky Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 175	Well, must admit DV953 held up quite well even against PDX10. The best sky rendition (as well overall contrast and colors) among these four. (PDX is next, VX2000 and Xi less good while Xi is loooking indeed as looser in this round). I suspect GS100 would be your best bet here...

November 4th, 2003, 02:26 PM	#27
Bogdan Vaglarov Major Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 366	It's obvious that the Panny takes better photos (especially after resizing you can't see the noise too) but I don't want to comment the stills here. In my opinion (despite the VX2000's fame) is that Xi has better potential. All I see is a bit overexposed picture. Can you adjust the exposure on Xi? The light parts are blown as well as the sky so that's why you won’t see clouds. Try to close the iris a step or too and you'll be pretty close to the VX2000 exposure (you can see the dark parts are darker on it's image than on that from Xi). In addition Xi have much better resolution and no jaggies - just look at the parking lines or the building walls. Also take a look on the cables in most left - they look very loose on VX2000. Look also at the roof’s edges and tree detail – everything stays much more firm on the Xi I think. Color is also natural although not so saturated which is tradition for Canon. Seems good cam to me – explore it Tommy! Cheers, Bogdan

November 4th, 2003, 02:31 PM	#28
Tommy Haupfear Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Greenville, SC Posts: 1,415	I will explore more with the Xi to see if I can pull out better contrasts and report back. The VX2000 does have a much lower resolution 16:9 mode so I guess a proper comparison should have been done in 4:3. Thanks for the feedback guys.