XL1 vs. XL2
 

Look, our first XL1 vs. XL2 thread!

Based on the information we have about the XL2 right now, what are the odds of the footage being able to match that of an old XL1.

Will it be likely that I could "de-tune" the XL2 to match the XL1 if I had both and wanted to do a multiple camera setup between them?

I'm just wondering if it might be similar to me trying to match my PDX-10 to my VX-2000. You can adjust color and sharpness in the custom presets to get pretty close. In 4:3 mode however the VX-2000 shows higher resolution due to the larger chips with less pixels. But in 16:9 the PDX-10 easily wins due to the higher pixel count. At least by looking at the specs, the XL-1 appears that it would do better 4:3 and work better in low light situations since the XL-2 is using a smaller area of the CCD.

unlikly that the footage would match, the xl2 is much crisper sharper, see my frame grabs

not the first but certainly not the last... =).

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=28944

and yesh it won't match if you shoot 24p but it will match in other modes.

<<<-- Originally posted by Yi Fong Yu : not the first but certainly not the last... =).

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=28944

and yesh it won't match if you shoot 24p but it will match in other modes. -->>>

Dang, missed that other thread.

I'm also wondering how much difference it'd make.

XL1s has a higher res than XL1 but they still look similar.
I'm talking about shooting in 4:3 here, will we see a tremendous increase in video quality in XL2 from XL1s?

Define video quality. What exactly do you mean by that.

They're both DV camcorders. It's the same format for both.

4:3 video in the XL2 uses more pixels than the XL1S (345,000 vs. 250,000).

The color "flavor" of the XL2 can be dialed in to perfectly match the XL1S.

What other differences in the image are you referring to?

Dylan wrote:
>>>>>>>>Will it be likely that I could "de-tune" the XL2 to match the XL1 if I had both and wanted to do a multiple camera setup between them?

Let's assume you are referring to 4:3, 60i on both models and that you shot in Normal Movie Mode on the XL1. The older XL1, as we all know, has a somewhat reddish/ magenta "warm look" to it. No image setup control on the older XL1. A lot less resolution on the older XL1 than the new XL2. (by the way, 60i looks really sweet on the new XL2, as well as 24P and 30P, of course) The new XL2 default look does not have the reddish/ magenta tint of the older model. However, if you do desire the reddish/ magenta tint look, you can dial it in exactly as you want with the extensive color matrix control of the new XL2. The new Master RGB setting is very powerful. You could always dial down the sharpness setting on the new XL2 to try to emulate the XL1 a bit. Could also perhaps dumb down the res of the XL2 footage in post too. I'd say that overall, it would depend upon what type of shots you are working with, and also how well exposed the XL1 footage is (hopefully your XL1 footage is well balanced exposure-wise, well focused and and not overexposed in the white areas). Perhaps even bump up the contrast a bit on the XL1 as well, which may help you obtain a perceived greater sharpness in detail.

Not entirely impossible to do with a judicious bit of color correction in post. Let's clarify that statement: if you know how to properly white balance your cameras together and you have consistent lighting (and consistent lighting ratio) between cameras, and if you properly expose on each cam and also take the time to set up the XL2 to look more like the XL1, then the difference would probably not be as extreme as one might think it would be. Still probably noticeable to people like myself and you, but at least you would have a 2nd angle that would cut reasonably well, especially if you take the time to color correct in post (assuming that you know how to color correct). Again, depends upon the QOF (Quality Of Footage) and SOCO (Skill Of Camera Operator) and EOE (Expertise Of Editor) as well as ALL (A Little Luck).

I recommend that you use two of the same cameras for that multi-cam shoot - that is always the best solution.

- don

Also(I tested this out) I recommend you shoot in 60i then deinterlace it, then down-rezz (bicubicly) the image to 579x434 then up-rezz(bicubicly) to 640x 480.

"you can dial it in exactly as you want with the extensive color matrix control of the new XL2. "

I wonder if it's as simple as you make it sound Don, given that apparently there are no numerical values in the menu, and only sliders.

It may be possible to get the cameras to match, as long as you do it while hooked up to a production monitor.

But, I have to say, I'm a bit concerned about camera settings on the XL2 if I have to remember "Sharpness, 3 clicks from the end. Pedastal, 5 clicks from the end..."

Etc.


Doesn't make it as simple to swap settings with people, or match another camera, when there are no units of measurement to go by.

I'm not trying to dog the camera here, just pointing out that while all this control over the image is great, it may not be as user friendly as we would like.

I find it kind of ironic that canon added so many settings which we can manipulate to get the image 'just right,' yet they failed to make the controls for those settings very precise or professional.
-Luis

<< as long as you do it while hooked up to a production monitor. >>

As I have pointed out in this "Essential Items" article, having a production monitor on hand is going to be a fairly obvious neccessity.

<< I'm a bit concerned about camera settings on the XL2 if I have to remember "Sharpness, 3 clicks from the end. Pedastal, 5 clicks >>

Just save it to the internal memory as a Custom Preset and it's always available. No need to remember anything. Plus, after the 3rd-party developers kick in with some software, you'll be able to download any number of custom profiles to your computer and restore them back to the camera at your leisure.

<< apparently there are no numerical values in the menu, and only sliders. >>

The Watchdog is going to give you those numerical values as soon as some contributor puts the camera on a bench and susses them out.

<< they failed to make the controls for those settings very precise or professional >>

It's not an SDX900, Luis, it's just a $5K camera, but you knew that going in. What would you do with that information anyway. If you've got to have it, then move up to the high-end pro stuff. With this camera, the sliders and steps show you relative values. You dial in the look you want, set it and use it. That's the price range you're in here.

"With this camera, the sliders and steps show you relative values. You dial in the look you want, set it and use it. That's the price range you're in here."


I realize the price range we're in, and I don't have a problem
dealing with relative values. I was only saying that it would have
been more user friendly if we had numerical relative values
as opposed to slider menus, as in the DVX. I would just find that
easier to use, repeat, and check settings. With a numerical scale
there is less room for error, that's all I was saying.

I'm not slamming the camera, only pointing out what I see as
an easily avoidable shortcoming. But at the end of the day, it
is a minor inconvenience, and one I'm willing to deal with.
I'm under no delusions of getting an SDX900 for 5k.


-Luis

I agree with you regarding the numerical scale; like I said, that'll be the focus of a Watchdog article at some point when such info can be determined.

Aside from the fact that there are many more parameters, this is really no different from the custom presets on the Sony cameras where we like to refer to the center (default) position of the slider as 0. Moving to the right one click at a time produces a setting of +1, +2, +3, etc. while moving the slider to the left of center is denoted as -1, -2, -3. It isn't too hard to note readings in this fashion and share them with others.