On a very interesting thread started by Tom Kaminski, Dan Keaton has written the following ....

"The XL H1 produces an excellent picture, but there are other subtle advantages.

In shooting wildlife, the extra resolution is very desirable, especially if your destination is currently a SD DVD.

For example, framing and following a bird in flight is difficult, especially at the higher zoom ratios.

With HD, you can reframe in post by zooming in to your subject and still keep a great picture. There are many techniques that you can do in post with HD to make an ordinary shot look fabulous. With SD, you do not have enough resolution to pull off these effects in post."

Questions:
When he says "With SD, you do not have enough resolution to pull off these effects in post". ... is Dan talking here about superior dpi or just more dpi of HD or both? How does XLH1 differ from XL-1 or XL-2 in this respect?

When Dan says "There are many techniques that you can do in post with HD to make an ordinary shot look fabulous." does this refer only to stills/frames or can image quality be enhanced within a clip, even a short clip?

What software packages can be worked to this effect on HD footage? If I switch from handheld GL2 (XM2) to XLH1 on tripod will I also have to upgrade from Premiere Pro and learn new software from scratch?

Experienced views and comments from everybody including Dan would be appreciated.

For sample footage of birds in flight see ..

http://206.225.81.12/ibc/videos/Accipitridae/Gyps_fulvus_17g.mkv

... and "save target as"

The VLC player is free from ... http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
and the video is high quality.

For low quality version see ... http://ibc.hbw.com/ibc/phtml/votacio.phtml?idVideo=15072

Either way, please comment on the potential for "extra resolution" using XLHI or alternative.

Brendan if you do a google search for dv/hdv aspect ratio or resolution you'll find lots of information about this topic.

I found a link who explains this very well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV

As you can see the the hdv resolution is approx. 4.75 times of Pal-dv. If you gonna deliver your film on regular dvd you can edit on a pal-dv (sd) timeline wich means that you can do a pan on the hdv-footage cause the extra resolution compared to the pal-dv.
The hdv-footage also have a better colorspace but I'm not sure if you keep this when down-converting to a sd-timeline

I also think that Premiere Pro support hdv, at least the 1080i/50 (interlaced format) not sure about Canon's 24f (progressive format) though?

Hope this helps?

Brendan,

First, thanks for posting this thread!! With hd on the horizon one can't help but think about it. Making the move now is rather expensive when you realize you will be just making dvd's at present!! for this reason I had somewhat dismissed the idea of hd.

However, after reading this post it is now aparent that there are some useful reasons for having an hd camera for creating my dvd productions!!! Now, I have to get back into the re think mode!!

does anybody shoot with jvc 720 p had???

Brendan,

I think your footage is fabulous. I was even more impressed since I knew that you shot it handheld. It is very dramatic.

To answer you questions.

Since the bird is in full flight, it is difficult to anticipate all of the birds movements. If you had a camera, such as the XL H1, you will have more detail to work with, much more.

I would recommend that, when using an XL H1 or similar camera, and the final destination is a SD DVD, zoom out a little. The goal is to ensure that the bird is fully within the frame at all times.

Then, using an editor and HD footage, use the keyframing tools to zoom into the frame so that the bird is where you want it in the (zoomed in) frame. Then set this as your initial keyframe. Then set other keyframes as desired.

Please note that in each keyframe you can zoom in to the degree that you wish and of course you can pan.

When using these techniques, you can reduce the appearance of camera motion. In other words, while you are filming, you are desperately attempting to follow the bird. In post, you have all the time necessary to make it appear that you anticipated every movement.

While shooting with an SD camera, it is best for you to get it right while shooting. With HD, especially going out to an SD DVD, you have an unlimited number of chances to get it right. Just do it again in post. Of course, if you miss the bird entirely, so are out of luck.

When editing, be sure to bring in the footage as HD and then only convert it to SD when burning the DVD.

This technique also works when going from HD to an HD capable DVD (HD DVD or Blu-Ray). However, in order to reduce the resolution loss, the technique needs to be done with more finnese. In other words, if you zoom in too much, and your destination is HD, astute viewers may be able to see the loss in resolution.

Remember, when you go from an XL1 to an XL H1, most everything on the camera is better. The lens is dramatically better, especially if you are using the original XL1 lens. The same applies when going from an XL1s to XL H1.

The resolution of the camera itself is also much better. For example, in the US (NTSC) the SD resolution is 720 x 480. The resolution of an XL H1 is 1440 x 1280 which due to the pixel aspect ratio becomes 1920 x 1280. PAL (in SD) has slightly more resolution, but HD is still much better.

Autofocus is also much better on the XL H1.

Other features are available so as Focus and Zoom Presets which may make your shooting easier.

To answer one of your questions, the XL H1 has much more resolution than the XL2.

Another answer: The above technique applies to both stills and shots of any length. If you only need a still, then you only need to zoom in once to get what you want.

Another advantage of the XL H1 is its photo capabilities. You can create great photos while recording (or not) by just pressing the photo button. If you are recording this does not interfere with the recording in any way, it records to the SD memory chip.


If you need a photo after you have recorded the tape, then this is also possible, but the image quality is not as good, but still nice.

Depending on your version of Premiere Pro, an upgrade is probably in order.

Editing HD footage usually requires more computing horsepower and a recent version of your editor. Personally, I use Vegas as my editor.

I recommend that if you get an HD camera, always record in HD. The XL H1 and others will downconvert in your camera to SD, if you are every in a hurry to edit a project. In this case editing is exactly what you are used to, but you still have HD footage on tape.

A dropout in HD is much more serious than in SD. I recommend that you use good tapes, but they do not have to be real expensive. I have had good luck with Panasonic Master Quality tapes.

If you get an HD camera, stick to one tape brand. It may not be necessary, but it can't hurt.

Dan, thanks for your detailed explanation. I second all of it!

Dan, your advice is as deeply appreciated as it was generously given.

To be able now to visualise much of the XLH1's potential is most encouraging and that's what you have allowed me to do. You've banged the nail on the head ... I suspected that quality video is about extra resolution but you have succeeded in pinpointing HOW it can be better with XLH1, during shooting and in post. You're a teacher alright, and am I glad!.

To have your opinions and words endorsed by Per Johan, a highly esteemed XLH1 exponent, is, in my little world, the equivalent of a Knighthood. No need to blush ... you deserve it. Of course there's a downside; you are now relied upon to articulate every useful observation that comes to your incisive mind about the XLH1, in action and in post. Please, please put me on your mailing list for all further observations on the use of XLH1 for bird flight footage.

For instance, I've been unable to elicit informed observations about what tripod (or tripod combo) would best facilitate the amount of tilt one has to combine with pan and zoom for bird flight footage. I can say from experience that my handheld clips owe a lot to instant but gentle tilt. So it is crucial that I can perform tilt as readily and with the same ease using XLH1 on a tripod ... but which tripod, and the locations are likely to be rough cliff-top? I tried to start a thread on this elsewhere but apparently nobody believed that there was someone out there with his head/agenda at such a tilt!?

Dear Brendan,

Thank you very much for the kind words.

I am a huge fan of the better Sachtler tripods and heads, however, these are expensive. If you are willing to buy used you can save about 50%.

While watching your footage, I was wondering if you had to hike in or if you had access via a road. If you have vehicle access, then weight of the tripod and head combination is not much of a problem.

With the 20x lens, you have the ability to get great shots of birds a long way away (if the air is clear), but you need a stable tripod. The Sachtler's have pointed pegs which can be used in rocky ground or mountains and have round rubber feet which work well in most all conditions.

It is possible to hand hold the XL H1, but only for limited amounts of time. I would not want to hand hold it for an hour. There are shoulder mounts with front mounted hand grips that you could consider.

I have the DV8/100 head (now call the DV12) with the Speed Lock II CF legs. My setup has the mid-level spreader and the rubber feet. I am more than pleased with this setup.

I highly recommend the mid-level spreader as a ground-level spreader is not suitable for your shooting.

The Sachtler are capable of very smooth tilt and pan. The drag is adjustable separately in both tilt and pan. The degree of tilt is enough in my opinion for most any shoot. The Sachtler website can give you specifics for each head.

The entry level Sachtler's are not suited for your purpose. This includes to DV2 and DV4 (in my opinion).

Of course there are other brands to consider, Sachtler is not the only game in town, but they are very well built, very strudy, and very effective.

I'm putting all your comments into a reference leaflet, Dan. Sachtler will go under the spotlight shortly and I'll be back to you, I suspect, about tilt. In the meantime, while I have your valued attention, please revisit the following whenever you have time ...



.... Remember, when you go from an XL1 to an XL H1, most everything on the camera is better. The lens is dramatically better, especially if you are using the original XL1 lens. The same applies when going from an XL1s to XL H1.

...

How useful for bird flight is the standard lens (if there is one) on XLH1?
As you probably know Per Johan uses a very powerful lens on a rock-steady tripod from a considerable distance for much of his fabulous Arctic footage, but this magnification is not relevant to me. So, what lens do you use and what lens would you like to use for bird flight within 100 metres? After that please add a bit explaining how and why "the lens is dramatically better"? Is this about glass quality or lens technology or cam technology?

The XL1s standard 16x lens was a little soft.

The Canon 14x lens and 16x manual lenses were sharper.

In my opinon, the XL H1 20x lens is much sharper than the standard 16x XL1 or XL1s lenses.

I have an Canon EOS adapter, which was designed for the XL1 and XL1s but is usable with the XL H1. However, I do not have any Canon EOS Lenses.

I have some "L" Canon FD lenses. In order to use these with the EOS Adpater, I use a low cost adapter with a small lens inside.

I mention all of the above to state that the Canon XL H1 standard lens is much better than any other setup that I use. But, this is not a fair comparison since I am using a low cost adapter to make the FD lenses fit the EOS mount. This has to diminish the quality.

I have access to the Canon 14x lens, but I have not tested it with the XL H1 yet.

In any case, I am very pleased with the XL H1 20x lens.

In your case, I feel that you will be pleased with the autofocus. I do not see how you will track a fast bird in full flight and attempt to focus at the same time.

Please note that focus is most important with an HD camera. The autofocus works better than I can.

I assume that you will be using the standard Canon Viewfinder. If so, I recommend autofocus for your setup. Attempting to get critical manual focus using the standard viewfinder is not an easy task (if not impossible), especially with a moving target.

There are other solutions involving camera mounted or external field monitors, but autofocus works well with this camera. Not perfect, but very well. The one problem that you will have is that if you have a significant object between you and your subject, it may focus on the other object.

The autofocus on the XL H1 is dramatically better than the autofocus on an XL1s.

I know that purists will never use an autofocus lens. It is up to you to decide if you can manually focus better than the autofocus. I for one, can not.

In reference to your question as to why this lens is better:

The XL1 and XL1s lenes only needed to resolve to the MiniDV standard, extra resolution was a waste. For HD, an HD lens is what you need. The quality of the glass and the design is just better.

The XL H1 lens, if I remember correctly is a "Flourite" lens, which is a better material than regular glass. This is also true of the XL2 20x lens. Some portion of the lens may be glass but the critical parts are Flourite.

Other improvements in the lens, such as Focus Preset and Zoom Preset may be very useful to you. You can only use one at a time.

This is terrific news, Dan.

I only use manual focus when a vulture is about to land on a predetermined perch or if the bird is already landed. I agree fully that autofocus is the job for flight footage, so I'm greatly enthused to know that autofocus on XLH1 is very good. I have never even tried to use manual focus on flight ... to the horror of a few "Pro's" who have only videod brides in flight, which usually happens at ground level.

Your high opinion of the standard XLH1 lens is most reassuring. I was hoping for this.
What you write about Flourite glass I can relate to what I know about the variable quality of glass in binocs & scopes. Thank you for all your advice but there's always another question ... I find the viewfinder on XM2 (GL2) to be too small & barely adequate for relatively predictable flight. What do you think of the viewfinder on XLH1?

In my opinion, the standard viewfinder is the weakest part of the XL H1.

There is a Monochrome FU-1000 which has much higher resolution available. This is a trade-off as you lose all color reference, which is a little dangerous, but can be overcome under many conditions.

For example, if you are only shooting outside, you can color balance with a white (or off-white) card, or you can use auto white balance which works well in most cases.

But, if the color temperature changes, you will not be able to detect it, if you are using the FU-1000.

On the XM2 (GL2) are you referring to the foldout viewfinder, or the eyepiece viewfinder?

I think you can get by very well with the standard viewfinder, especially if you are willing to use autofocus.

The XL H1's only viewfinder is much larger than the eyepiece viewfinder on the XM2 (GL2).

Dan, Brendan,
I'm using the FU-1000 viewfinder and very pleased with it!
As Dan say; there are no color reference with it and shooting in colorful environments like macro work in the leaf can be a real challenge!

I shoot in auto-whitebalance almost everytime and as you may see the colors in my films is good enough I think? Anyway if you miss some shoots you can colorbalance it well in post.

As stated earlier, good focus is much more critical in Hdv than Dv. The FU-1000 is brilliant for this kind of work. I often switch to peaking on the XLH1 camcorder to help me get a razor sharp focus .

Dan and Per
I'm beginning to get lost now partly because I don't understand some of the terms, but also because I suspect that Per is talking strictly about situations using manual focus.
Monochrome means b & w and variations thereof, fair enough, but what does auto-white-balance (on FU-1000) mean or how does it help?

90% of my shooting is split-second response to an unpredictable opportunity ... always autofocus ... always relying on my hands to guide the focus on to the moving target by tracking it closely (&smoothly, I wish). 95% of my targets are first spotted with the naked eye and demand instant handheld focus/pan/tilt/zoom. I HAVE TO BE ABLE to find the target in the viewfinder instantly. I am therefore depending on the contrast between the target and its background ... obviously the movement/flight of the bird is a big help but the colour contrast helps rapid response too. From all the super footage I've seen from Per I cannot think of one snippet which suggested that he EVER dabbles in my crazy world of instant handheld, known as "run 'n gun". I may be wrong but the wonderful calm of Per's videos is proof that he gets his targets to lie down or stand almost still first ... then he can " often switch to peaking on the XLH1 camcorder to help me get a razor sharp focus" ... am I right in thinking that you are almost always using manual focus Per? Do you think it might be practical (or even possible) to "switch to peaking" during autofocus?

I'm using the basic eyepiece viewfinder on XM2 so I'm happy to hear that the viewfinder on XLH1 is better than that.

I would like to back up what Per has mentioned, my own person bag of tricks for SD shooting, as I currently only have a XL2, is the standard 20x zoom and a Canon 300mm T2.8 lens. This combination together with some diopters can get you remarkable results.

I am currently working on a Wetlands project and attached is a frame grab of a dragonfly

Personally I find it difficult going back to a B/W viewfinder when filming birds, it is very difficult on a long lens picking out a bird in a tree with a b/w finder

Truly gorgeous images Bob; I wish you could tell me you they were shot using autofocus.

Dear Brandan,

On the XL1s, XL2 and XL H1 and many other cameras, there is auto white balance and manual white balance.

In manual, you (usually) focus on a white (or off white) card, select manual white balance position 1 or 2, then press the white balance button. This process balances the camera and remembers it in position 1 or 2 so that you can go back to it at any time.

Auto white balance is a continous process in which the camera attempts to white balance the scene on the fly. In many cases it is very good. In you case, shooting outdoors in daylight, I feel that it will meet your needs.

However, you can always take a small white card with you and manually white balance. Just remember that this will need to be repeated as the color temperature of sunlight changes during the day.

White Balance does not have anything to do with the FU-1000, it is a camera function. However, when using the FU-1000 you lose all color reference and thus it is not obvious or even detectable that your white balance is off.

When shooting with a color viewfinder (properly adjusted) you can immediately know that the white balance is off. With the FU-1000, bad white balance will go undetected.

If you get an XL H1, first try the standard viewfinder. Using the FU-1000 requires extra skill and practice. However, achieving perfect manual focus is much easier with the FU-1000.

To summarize, I find that auto white balance is fine almost all of the time.

Brendan,

Thanks for the kind comments, actually they are all shot using manual focus. I was actually fairly close to the Dragonflies when using the 20x plus the diopters, but if you are patient and quiet it is surprising how close they will let you approach, also they have the habit of coming back to the same spot all the time so you can get some very interesting close-up landing shots.

With the Canon 300mm I gaffer tape the diopter on the front of the lens, any slight movement of the diopter besides changing the focus also moves the framing of the shot.

Bob

PS: I always only manual white balance

Bob,

Great macro work with the xl2 20x, right?? What exactly is the dioptor doing for you. I have never done any real macro work like that and I am interested in how you got such fantastic images!!!

this has been a great thread!!!!

thank you, all of you!!

It is great to have wonderful people share such useful information!!!!

Dale,

The diopter is just another name for close-up filter. It fits on the front of the lens and has no effect on the focal length of the lens, it just changes the minimum focus distance of the lens.

For example if the minimum focus of your lens is 6ft by adding the diopter this distance may be down to a minimum of 3 ft.

Dear Brandan,

I thought I would add a couple of comments about white balance.

I always manually white balance for important shots, if:

1. There is time to perform the white balance.
2. I can place a white balance card where I am shooting or under the same
lighting conditions.
3. The shot is static or not moving from one lighting condition to another.

In some other cases, such as when you are following a subject and the color temperature of the light changes, auto white balance may be better, but not always. The color temperature changes often inside buildings, either due to different types of lighting, ages of the bulbs, or outside light coming in through windows or skylights.

Consider Number 2 above. If you white balance in the open (in daylight), then zoom in to a lush (very green) forest scene, your white balance will be off. If you have a color viewfinder this should be immediately obvious. With a Black and White viewfinder the change is undetectable.

There are very good reasons to use the FU-1000. The resolution is much higher and it has a variable peaking control which is very useful to see when you are in focus. With this peaking control, when the image is in focus, all hard edges are much brighter (peaking is on).

To me, the image looks just a little like 3D with peaking on and the image is in focus. If you are used to a color viewfinder it has practice to use the FU-1000 successfully.

I always manually white balance for important shots, if:

1. There is time to perform the white balance.
2. I can place a white balance card where I am shooting or under the same
lighting conditions.
3. The shot is static or not moving from one lighting condition to another.

.... Consider Number 2 above. If you white balance in the open (in daylight), then zoom in to a lush (very green) forest scene, your white balance will be off. If you have a color viewfinder this should be immediately obvious. With a Black and White viewfinder the change is undetectable...

... There are very good reasons to use the FU-1000. The resolution is much higher and it has a variable peaking control which is very useful to see when you are in focus. With this peaking control, when the image is in focus, all hard edges are much brighter (peaking is on).


I have a few clips to prove that "If you white balance in the open (in daylight), then zoom in to a lush (very green) forest scene, your white balance will be off." Thank you Dan, for explaining how I did it. I rarely swing from bright to shaded situations in a hurry and because I'm on auto white balance (by default) XM2 gets time to adjust within 99% of situations which are usually well-lit outdoors.

Regarding peaking, I think Per said XLH1 has an inbuilt peaking facility ... Am I right in thinking of "peaking" as an image sharpener for use solely with slow-moving or almost stationery targets? using manual focus? and tripod ? Or could peaking be used to sharpen flight footage even briefly?

This thread has helped me to find focus in more ways than one ... this is the first time I have dragged out of myself the thoughts and words to describe the challenges of shooting bird flight footage. I am particularly grateful to you Dan for inspiring these observations, questions and for working out the responses. I was just about to say that you're the only person I've met on DVInfo who uses autofocus for anything, but now I see that Don DesJardin (in reply to today's question on Northern Harrier thread) also finds autofocus useful for bird flight footage. I'll look at that later but now I'm asking you to think about the tilt function using your Sachtler ...

I use a sturdy Benbo Trekker with a Manfrotto 701rc2 head & it's handy for close work with guillemots and gulls and nesting birds ... it's also handy for those predictable shots of "landings" and "take-offs" but that's about it. I'm fairly sure Don took his flight clips of various raptors using his strong tripod with runner-plate but I think he could do so because after much observation and within a bird reservation he was able to predict, now and again, the eye-level (or slightly-above) flight path of his birds ... Anyway, I cannot imagine how to access my viewfinder to frame a bird that is on a flight-path that starts below me and ends above me or vice versa and moving 180 degrees from right to left IF my camcorder is stuck to a tripod ... please confirm that (a) my problem is not entirely the result of a miniscule IQ and (b) that there is no tripod + head, Sachtler or otherwise, which can tilt sufficiently to help me overcome the necessity to handhold in such situations.

The tripod could be very handy for parking the cam on while resting my wrists and arms (XLH1 is nearly 4 kilos) ... the quick release on the Manfrotto is slick enough, but in very rough situations I might be better off rigging up a secure temporary small shelf/platform of stones to leave the cam on and avoid the danger of nudging the tripod over the top of a cliff ...

Or perhaps I should be more selective about my footage and only shoot when the bird is within a very limited field of best view ... and then spend more time doctoring/editing the high-class snippets into a magnum opus ... what do you think, before I put you to sleep? Others have suggested that some of my flight clips were tedious and I must admit there is some truth in that ... so much of my footage was shaky that I did use distant flight sequences ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT SHAKY !!! Now the truth is out at last, oh my God, I've splatted the beans all over the floor now, bloody hell ...

Dear Brandan,

Yes, the XL H1 has a peaking control. It is either on or off. The Peaking Control on the FU-1000 is better in that it is variable.

On the XL H1, the "Peaking" and "Zebra" functions can not be used simultaneously (with the standard color viewfinder).

If you are using the FU-1000, then you can use the XL H1's "Zebra" function and the Fu-1000's variable "Peaking" function simultaneously.

Peaking does not sharpen your images as recorded on tape or out the HD-SDI or Firewire ports. It is only a feature that brightens, in the viewfinder, the hard edges of an image so that you can tell if it is in focus or not. With peaking, the image will appear to "Snap in Focus" when it is in focus.

This is a very useful feature, both on the camera itself and on the FU-1000.

I have film friends that state that they will "never use autofocus for anything". This of course is their decision. However, when I edit their footage it is apparent that much of their footage is out of focus.

My eyesight is not perfect so autofocus helps me personally.

Last year I recorded a live event for a friend. It was under ok, but not great, lighting conditions. There was only a few seconds out of 60 minutes that were out of focus. These were caused by a microphone stand between the camera and the subject.

I simply cannot devote 100% of my time and attention to focusing while I am attempting to frame and zoom during an hour long live event. The autofocus function does devote 100% of its time to autofocus, while I devote time to other concerns.

I am not trying to convert anyone to using autofocus, especially if they are good at manual focus. For staged shots in which there is plenty of time for focus, it is perfectly fine in my book to use manual focus, especially with the peaking and magnification tools that are available in the camera.

I do however, feel that if one uses an XL H1, that it is useful to try out the autofocus to see what it can and can not do successfully.

I am not an "Auto Everything" kind of guy. Audio "Auto Level" is out of the question for me in all but the strangest of cases.

In reference to "Tilt". A good tripod has a high degree of tilt. In my opinion, the limitation is not usually the tripod, but the ability of your head/face to stay in the viewfinder while tilting from looking at your feet to looking amost straight up. I would consider a good shoulder/dual hand grip mount for your camera. If you do purchase an XL H1, I could send you mine to try out. I am in the Augusta, Georgia area and your friend in Atlanta is only 150 miles away.

I do understand that panning, tilting and keeping your face glued to the viewfinder is difficult.

If, due to your nature filming, your camera and tripod are placed in jeopardy, I would consider buying insurance.

Dan Keaton wrote ...

Peaking does not sharpen your images as recorded on tape or out the HD-SDI or Firewire ports. It is only a feature that brightens, in the viewfinder, the hard edges of an image so that you can tell if it is in focus or not. With peaking, the image will appear to "Snap in Focus" when it is in focus.

This is a very useful feature,

"If this works almost instantly during autofocus it would probably persuade me to buy XLH1 "

My eyesight is not perfect so autofocus helps me personally.

"It's my hearing is packing it in, and my favourite bird, never videod, is the musician wren (cyphorhinus aradus) in far away Amazonas"

Last year I recorded a live event for a friend. It was under ok, but not great, lighting conditions. There was only a few seconds out of 60 minutes that were out of focus. These were caused by a microphone stand between the camera and the subject.

"This is a powerful tribute to autofocus. I need to hear this because for bird flight in uncontrolled situations I have no option but autofocus ... "

For staged shots in which there is plenty of time for focus, it is perfectly fine in my book to use manual focus, especially with the peaking and magnification tools that are available in the camera.

"Does this imply that "peaking" is only available with manual focus?"

In reference to "Tilt". A good tripod has a high degree of tilt. In my opinion, the limitation is not usually the tripod, but the ability of your head/face to stay in the viewfinder while tilting from looking at your feet to looking amost straight up.

"That's well-described Dan; that's exactly when any tripod is redundant"

I would consider a good shoulder/dual hand grip mount for your camera. If you do purchase an XL H1, I could send you mine to try out. I am in the Augusta, Georgia area and your friend in Atlanta is only 150 miles away.

"Very thoughtful and generous of you Dan. It does raise a short string of questions but here goes:-

Does your shoulder/dual hand grip mount actually simplify ...

... panning, tilting and keeping your face glued to the viewfinder ?

Is the mount lightweight in itself?
How long does it take to connect and disconnect XLH1 to/from the mount?"

The "Shoulder Mount" that I am recommending is:

http://www.birnsandsawyer.com/cgibin/BIRstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=200016

I am certain that there are others, but I am familiar with the above unit. This was originally designed for the XL1, but I find it works with the XL H1. An updated model, or one designed specifically for the XL H1 may be better.

The grip handles are adjustable as well as the ergonomics of the mount.

With this, the camera becomes as extension of you body. As you, and your hands move, the camera moves also, with your face glued to the viewfinder all of the time.

The viewfinder on the XL H1 is adjustable in that the whole unit may be moved forward or backward relative to the camera position about 2 inches. This allows you to find a comfortable position for the camera (on the mount) and the viewfinder (on the camera).

Yes, it adds weight, my guess is about three pounds. But, the back of the unit hangs from your shoulder, allowing some of the camera weight to be on your shoulder.

For long periods, I would want a tripod as a good tripod is inherently stable.

But, there are trade-offs. A good tripod is far heavier if you are hiking.

While we are talking tripods, be sure to get one with many levels of drag. With the Sachtler (and others) you also have a setting of zero drag. This may be helpful to you when you need to do "Whip Pans".

"Peaking" is available in both auto and manual focus. But when using auto focus, you generally do not need to use "Peaking".

The mount has a standard tripod thread to mount to the camera. Additional quick release mounts could be used, but they would add extra weight.

Brendan,

This thread has been great.

shooting birds with the gl2 can be a challenge at times.

shoulder support: I have a shoulder support and it is a single forward handle. for shear steadiness, make sure you get a two handed one like the one mentioned. also look up spider brace, a little more economical and may do for you.

http://www.spiderbrace.com/

I use the single one because that is what I bought first. However i do keep my left hand on the camera barrell to adjust focus, hit nd or focus control while I am filming if necessary.

With the gl2 and using autofucus if I am filming falcons that have any altitude at all quite often the camera has a difficult time findiing them!!! When the falcon is close, say within 200 feet the camera is just fine!!

I combat this issue by focusing on something in the distance about the range i expect to shoot. I pull back as far as I can and keep things focused. When it is time to shoot I grab the falcon and then zoom into the point it is focused. At that point with left hand on barrell i can put it to auto and then slowly!!! zoom more as needed and odds are in my favor for good focus!!!
When I shoot a two camera shoot, I leave the gl2 in auto focus mode and the xl2 we manually focus. I think the auto focus on the gl2 is pretty excellent.
I am sure i could round up a short clip of a falcon well in the sky with this technique to email you if you like.

That's a useful intervention, Dale. In the middle of all this theory I was overlooking that in practice my vultures do appear from behind and before and from above and below and from any angle ... therefore I have to have a finger on my zoom button to pull back from or close in on the flight of the bird.

That means, Dan, that I could only work the shoulder-mount with both hands when the bird is flying along a path in mid-distance within the originally framed view. This equi-distant flight does happen and XLH1 footage should be very good from such sequences. But some of my chances come from birds gliding around in a 50 yard circle in front of me, like this ...

http://www.hbw.com/ibc/phtml/votacio.phtml?idVideo=15072

I could have zoomed out during this clip from Crete but I was surprised when the vulture seemed unaware of me and came much closer than usual (within 15 yards).

The cliff top location in this clip, Farangi Rosas, produces vulture flight in fairly rapid succession, from different angles, for a few minutes in every hour. Sometimes I can see it coming from a distance and that's easy to line up BUT I have to have ready access to the zoom button. When the flight appears suddenly from behind or closes in from the front as in the clip I have to react instantly with autofocus and zoom.

The challenge I see now is: How to make enough good use of an XLH1 during the limited chances that arise to justify the purchase? I am satisfied that I will promptly leave it down beside my swivel seat when the sky is empty, that's easy but it's not exactly productive. I am also going around the house holding up 2 x 2 kilo bags of wholemeal to build up my own hardware ...

Then there's that whole treasure chest of possibilities in "post" which Dan has recommended ... but really what I love doing is getting good footage; don't we all! And then there are many birds other than vultures, some run 'n gun like the hoopoe and the bee-eater, for which I should keep the XM2 handy, or perhaps the XLH1 is not too awkward out a car window? I have a little cushion ...

Dear Brandan,

The Varizoom zoom and focus controls (and others) could be mounted to one of the handgrips. I have not yet done this myself. This would give you more control.

Once you use the XL H1, the XM2 will probably be used rarely. You could have it mounted on a tripod, as a second camera, pointed to the general area, but the footage would probably not match up well in post.

Brendan,

I use a varizoom when on the tripod in particular. When shooting off the shoulder I have found the zoom is great but the focus in to small of increments and if you have to make a fast focus it wont do, then you are racing a hand up for the barrel and you just blew your steadiness!! I have done this so much i do not even bother with the varizoom focus control while shoulder shooting. I do an aweful lot of shooting off the shoulder, bottom line is the less you have to do when filming the more you can concentrate on steadiness, and it takes work!!

On the shoulder with the varizoom auto focus might be a lot better and you have very good control of the zoom then.

A thought about shoulder mounts. Mine being is a single as mentioned. I do not like the fact that the handle is really to far out from the body.

Were I to buy again, I would make certain that the handles allow the elbos to be down more toward the body which will also aid steadiness. Ideally you would want the arms and the camera to make an equangular triangle for greatest steadiness!!

wouldn't it be nice if a lens could be infinite focus like some of the high priced binoculars!!!!

We are going to a prairie Falcon eyrie on sunday if the weather holds up. I will post a gl2 and a xl2 clip.

Dear Brendan,

I use the Varizoom for zoom and the contol of the zoom speed is fairly easy.

Yes, the Varizoom can be used for focus, but I've never used its focus function.

So, I agree with Dale, it would be useful for zoom, but probably not focus.

On another note, the Birns and Sawyer shoulder mount is adjustable in many ways. It may not be obvious, but you can full adjust the grip handles. They can be placed close together, or to form various angles.

As you adjust the angle of the grip handles, in effect you are modifing the distance they are apart which also controls the distance from your body.

The mount for the camera is also adjustable, this allow you to find a comfortable position for the camera and viewfinder.

L. Kirk Kauder has solved a similar problem with a SteadyStick and I've ordered one from:

http://dvcreators.net/steady-stick

Thank you Kirk.

Has anyone else used a steadystick?

Dear Brendan,

Yes, I have a Steady-Stick and I have used it.

I do not think it will be helpful for "Bird in Flight" footage. It does help with the weight of the camera, but you need a lot of flexibility for your work.

The Steady-Stick, in my opinion works best when you have a static shot that you are filming, one in which you have the luxury of getting into position and then take the shot. Yes, you can move your body some while shooting, but in "Bird in Flight" footage you need more flexibility in my opinion.

Sounds like I'm wasting $100, Dan, but if it can keep the cam within instant reach and take its weight off my arms while doing so it may earn its keep.

For want of an alternative with more flexibility I'll give it a try.

<EDIT>
Personally I find it difficult going back to a B/W viewfinder when filming birds, it is very difficult on a long lens picking out a bird in a tree with a b/w finder

You should check out Ronsight. http://www.ronsrail.com/

I just purchased one and it is great for quickly acquiring tiny birds like
warblers that almost never stop moving, especially when using
XL-H1 with EOS and 35mm lens.

Thanks for the link Jacques,

I am now shooting more on my XL2 with the color viewfinder so the difficulty of finding the birds is not as bad as when I was using the SP Betacam with the B/W viewfinder.

Bob

Bob,

I was curious what diopeter/close up lens you are using on your xl2.

for my gl2 I simply purchased a set of 58 mm standard camera diopters.

I am curious what you are using . I love the clearity!!

I went to email you privately butcouldn't get through, sorry to you others about this sub thread

Dale,

I use a set of Hoya Close-up filters they appear to be very sharp. Attached are 2 shots of a flower (weed) taken with these filters.

A helpful hint in doing this type of work is to have a piece of string with knots in it marking the limit of focus of each filter, it saves a lot of time unscrewing filters

Bob

Bob,

Quite a good looking Weed!!

I will order a set of Hoya's on payday!! I really like the close stuff, I can actually eliminate the constant wind we have around here!!

Dale,

No offence to you (Bob). But I have found the Hoyas are not that sharp once you have tried the achromatic 2-element diopters from Canon or Nikon. Canon have them in 58mm, 72mm and 77mm sizes and I use the 77mm with a ring on the 20X stock lens. Superbly sharp! You do pay a higher price than the hoyas but you will only need a good one as the resulting mag rate is really quite high already.

Cheers

WeeHan

Questions:

1.What would a 2-element diopter look like attached to Canon GL2?
2.What is required to attach it to GL2?
3.What positive effects might it have if I was shooting bird flight handheld?
4.How much does all this extra gear cost, approx.?
5.What does the extra gear weigh?

... informed answers to some questions would be appreciated.

Dear Brendan,

In my opinion, the achromatic 2-element diopters would be useful for shooting a static object, such as a flower.

I doubt that you would find them useful for shooting a bird in flight. You need to be very close to your subject for these to be useful.

That is helpful of you, Dan, thank you.

Wee Han, Thanks for suggestion on the Cannon or Nikon filters, of course it is no offence - this forum is here so that members can make suggestions

Brendan, These diopters (closeup) filters would be of no use in your bird photography. I am waiting to see the results of your new Steady-Stick.

Bob

Thanks Bob!

Brendan,

The closeup diopters (or closeup filters) are useful when you do not want to bring along a macro lens or do not have a dedicated macro lens to work with. They work by reducing your focusing distance to a fixed distance (the Canon 500D will be 50cm) and you vary the mag rate of the subject with your zoom lens.

The weight is less than a pound and is about double the thickness of your normal UV filter.

The cost for the 77mm 500D is 139.95 (from B&H).

If you dwell into occasional macro and cant justify getting a dedicated macro lens, this is the one accessory you should use with the stock lens.

Cheers

WeeHan

Thank you WeeHan. I only use macro 180mm fixed Sigma for flowers with Digital Rebel

It does look like nobody is using XHA1 for bird flight; nobody is being specific about the extra sharpness or improved image quality that can be achieved when shooting bird flight with any HD cam. Perhaps there isn't any advantage.

Perhaps i should be grateful that XM2 (GL2) has optical x20 and continue to practice and sharpen skills; read my XM2 Manual for the first time to learn how to tweak away from all the default settings I've been using all along; change from 4:3 to 16:9 before I'm arrested for being an antediluvian nuisance ...

Dear Brendan,

As a former owner of an XL1s and a user of a GL1, I can positively state that there is a tremendous difference between using an XM2 and an XL H1 or XH A1.

When I bought my XL H1, I kept my XL1s for a while. My (foolish) plan was to use the XL1s as a second camera. I soon saw how great the XL H1 was and how much an improvement it was. I never used the XL1s again, so I sold it.

Even if you are going to produce a SD DVD, the XL H1 is dramatically better (as is the XH A1 and XH G1).

It would be my recommendation that you shot in HD. If you don't, then your footage will be less useful in the future.

Now for specific points to show how the Canon XL H1 and XH A1 and XH G1 are better than the XM2.

1. You have much more control over your image.

With the XM2, GL1, GL2, XL1 and XL1s, you control the image overall by setting the aperture and shutter speed.

With the XL2, XL H1 and XH A1 and XH G1, you have specific image settings. One example is the "Knee" settings.

"Knee" can be used to compensate (somewhat) for a bright sky that would normally be blown out and featureless.

If you set the "Knee" to low, then the camera will tone down the brightest areas of your image. Imagine a person's face backlit by a bright sky. With the low "Knee" setting you can brighten up the person’s face without blowing out the sky.

This is just one of numerous settings that you can use to customize your image to your specific needs.

While these settings may seem complicated at first, there are numerous "Custom Presets" available for the cameras. Also, with a little reading (and use of DVInfo.Net) you can become familiar with the purpose of these settings and then use them to your example.

2. The standard XL H1 lens is better, much better. The well reviewed 6x wide-angle zoom is also available.

3. Other features, such as auto focus, are better.

4. Other features are present on the new cameras, such as zoom preset.

Imagine you see an empty nest. You could set the zoom preset to the nest, or set the focus preset, your choice. Then, while you are filming something else, you notice a bird about to land in the nest. You could then just press the zoom-preset button to immediately zoom to your preset zoom setting. Of course this is just a hypothetical example, but these new features are actually useful.

I realize that the XL H1 is expensive (and infinitely more expensive than not buying a new camera).

This is very timely, Dan.

I was about to give up if nobody came back with a firm opinion about the working advantages of XHA1 et al. You had told me about the benefits of the extra resolution in post but that was not quite enough to swing it for me.

On the scope for improving in post would you please address these specific questions:

Here is a link to some bird flight footage: http://www.birdcinema.com/view_video.php?viewkey=c2d7d2fec5da1b71d36c

When you have spare time please have a look at this compressed collection of bits edited out of one clip. Having cut up the bits to eliminate the worst portions I stretched the remainder. Doesn't that mean that I have asked the surviving frames/pixels to spread themselves over longer timeframe and that I have thereby reduced the image quality of the footage? Is this another reason for having at my disposal the extra resolution of the XHA1? I should be able to prove this for myself but I don't view my stuff, original or otherwise, on my telly. Do you use an independent monitor to test out your image quality before and after post?

Thank you for staying around this thread.

Dear Brendan,

I will watch your footage as soon as possible.

Before then, here are some answers:

By "Streching", I assume you mean that the timeframe has been modified, so that the effect is some degree of slow motion, in other words, the resulting footage takes longer than originally shot. For example, 10 seconds of footage streched to 15 seconds.

If the above is correct, then the resolution (number of pixels in each frame) has not changed.

When I edit, I use Vegas 7.0, but the same applies to Vegas 6.0. I view the footage on my monitors which I have calibrated (to the best of my ability) using SMPTE Color Bars.

When I used to edit SD footage, I used the firewire output of my computer, connected to a Canon Camera (XL1s in my case, at that time), connected to a Sony SD Field Monitor.

Now that I edit HDV footage, my monitoring setup is not up to professional standards. I intend on purchasing a high quality HD monitor in the future.

So, currently I still use some very good Sony HS94P 19" LCD's (which I have calibrated to the color bars). My experience is that when I burn a DVD and then play it on a very low end Sanyo 30" HD CRT set, the footage appears fine. I have not had any problems with color or anything else.

A proper, professional HD monitoring setup would be far superior for critical work. For

I, of course, monitor my footage while recording. When practical, I use a Sony 9" SD Field Monitor. I am in dire need of a professional HD Field Monitor. However, the SD Field Monitor is useful as it is easier to catch problems in the image on the Field Monitor than it is on the XL H1 viewfinder.

I capture the footage using Vegas, monitoring the progress on the computer monitors, then edit the footage, again using computer monitors.

I do not know why you never watch your footage on the telly. You can calibrate you monitor, if you can generate proper color bars. If you can not generate the color bars, you may find that they are broadcast at certain times, or you could use a DVD with color bars.

I will start watching your footage now.

Dear Brendan,

I watched your footage.

I noticed that there were double images of the bird in certain frames. I feel that this was probably due to the way that the footage was shot, in combination with the technique to "strech" it (to create slow motion).

If you know that you will be creating slow motion from your footage, I recommend a shutter speed of 1/120th or 1/100th instead of the usual 1/60th.

Also, their may be other reasons why the footage has double images. If the original footage does not have double images, then there is hope that reasonable slow motion footage can be created in post.

In general, I liked the footage, but the double image is distracting.

You're right on both counts, Dan.

There were double images in the original ... all my own work, by hand, of course ... the closer the Egyptian Vulture came to being vertically overhead, the more I was shaking. I was going to make the excuse that there was not a wall or a stake to lean against within a mile of me; then I remembered that the car was 10 feet away ...

Back in 2006 I had no awareness of frame rate possibilities. Everything was shot @ 1/50 (default). Now thanks to a few generous DVInfo members like yourself I know all about frame rates ... go on, ask me, ask me where the button is on XM2 to enable me change the frame rate; I found it, yes, I did, eventually, today. So this would be a good time to ask, while it's fresh in my mind ...