Thanks Jim and Jay.

<<Amen to that Jim!
(I think I'll be quoting from you - if you don't mind ...)>>

Thanks from Robin, Charles, Jay, some of my favorite listers all in one thread...I've got to drink and post more often <g>.

It would be fun to have a link on the site just to see a few seconds here and there of the work, technically perfect or not, that people feel is some of their most visually "emotional".

This whole thread has really been an eye opener. When I originally posted here, I was hoping to find someone who had perhaps had a chance to spend some time with the camera.

Obviously not. Instead, there was a huge amount of guesstimating and a form of heavy corporate bias towards Canon which shocked me completely. Professional forum? Professional at what exactly? Cinematography or Canon sales?

The reason I pulled out of this thread was that I simply couldn't see the logic in being told by a load of people who hadn't even touched the camera that I was wrong. That's not professionalism, but plain patronising arrogance.

Yes, I know full well what moire is but my original concern was that it was appearing for too much to the extent of being practically unusable. Period. Not just my opion but pretty much every DOP I spoke to in writing my article both in the UK and US who had spent some time with the camera. YES, it is a known problem to the extent that Canon in Japan have been addressing the issue. I admit that the images didn't show this clearly enough but at the same time, is that enough to say the problem doesn't exist?

The answer we found was the lens. Sticking an Arri film lens on via the P&S Teknik adaptor sorted out any serious moire. The supplied lens is a jack of all trades but not a master at 25p.

There was no agenda or tactics. It was simply being close to deadline and wanting to speak to people who knew what the hell they were talking about about the XL2 which clearly wasn't here. Simple.

What the heck did you expect, Clive, the bloody camera hadn't even been released yet, when you first posted!

Too, if memory serves me correctly, several of us asked--pleaded with--you to post a raw image, which you never did. So what was anyone to think?

Jay

So clive...so your solution to eliminating the moire was to put an $8000 adapter with a $xx00 cine lens on the camera. hmmm. I have a tiffen soft fx filter I can sell you for about a grand. Even cheaper I can send you a DVD on how to lower the sharpness and detail on the camera...for say $500.

I apologize if anyone attacked you personally in this forum (it certainly wasn't me), but perhaps your assumption that we're all a bunch of idiots paved the way. The fact that you ran away when people were just asking for some evidence of the problem you exposed also wasn't much help...

Many of the users of this forum have been in this business for years, certainly a few know a little bit more about video than you do. Most of us pointed to the fact that if the moire isn't in the actual camera image...then it can't be the camera's fault. Many of us saw NBC's $100 high definition cameras moire-ing all over the olympics this year. Most of us who have been working with digital capture devices for the last 10 years know that moire is a fact of life, and that's what most of us said. Sounds like a professional discussion to me.

Barry

FWIW, watching Inside the NFL the other night, a niclely lit and staged HBO series, I was struck by an extreme vibration in the small checkered lights at the front of the set. It was during a pan up to the talent. It was high end video...that's what it does.

Bush's big national press conference earlier this year, he chose a tie pattern that looked, even to millions of regular viewers, like he was wearing a nucular (sp intentional) device around his neck. It was high end video...that's life.

Barry for the record I don't believe those were NBC's camera's, a large number of them were rented from house's in and around L.A. but i don't think that changes the point any.

Clive: wat this the article in showreel magazine?

Clive (or anybody)

Could you explain how using a higher resolution lens can reduce moire. I don't understand the physics, but I would have assumed that it would have actually exacerbated the effect if anything. I also don't understand how a lens can or can't be a "master of 25p". How does the quality of the optics interact with frame rate (or use of progressive v interlaced) to produce moire?

Just to be clear, these are genuine questions, not an attempt to cast doubt on what you say.

Thanks
Duncan

**certainly a few know a little bit more about video than you do**

Thank you for precisely proving my point. You know nothing about me and what I know and you certainly hadn't touched the XL2 yet you have a habit of sounding off Barry. Not impressive.

The solution is simple. If you want to make a film, get a DOP who knows what they're doing and HIRE some film lenses. That's if you HAVE to use the XL2 at all which is debatable.

Anyone who tries to say that the standard lens is fine because moire is part of life is selling you the XL2. The moire was excessive with the standard lens in 25p with the camera we were given. FACT.

This argument is over because everyone is getting so hung up on words in posts and missing the actual point.

GET THE CAMERA AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES rather than listening to Barry and other Canon kissarses who are trying to play down my observation THINKING that its corporate scaremongering.

Byesie bye

Clive: I understand your point but I would like to know if the
article in showreel magazine is from you (just interested) per
my question above.

I personally have no doubt in whether you saw the moire or
not. A lot of people here are trying to see if this happens on
all the camera's or not. That is the main interest.

If I'm not mistaken you had a pre-production model? So this
might not be as sever a problem on the current models out
than it was with yours (not saying it isn't there). I think most
people are trying to assess that among other things.

Your last piece of advice is always sound. Get the camera
yourself before plunking down that much cash. I would not
take anyone's word for something as personal as camera
quality but myself. Ofcourse others can guide you, that is no
problem.

I would like to keep it civil here people.

I'm not rooting for Barry here, but I think he meant to say he
knows some very knowledgable folk here on the forum (there
are, I do not count myself amongst them in regards to these
issues, just to make that clear!) and he feels they might know
more. Probably just worded a bit "wrong" which easily happens
with text.

I agree that as it stands now it sounds like you don't know
anything about it, which we indeed do not know since we don't
know who you are.

Let's all try to keep it professional and discuss the issues in a
professional and technical (with proof preferred) manner and
we can then all make up our minds about everythink.

Thank you.

Clive, I have to disagree with you. You blame Barry for the very thing you've been doing. You've made it sound like the XL2 is the only video camera having any moire issues. That simply isn't the truth. That is all that Barry is saying.

You have and still do ignore the request for uncompressed images from your footage. Why?

Explain why I (and others here) see moire patterns when I/we watch movies on a 36" Vega television that were shot by a DOP that knew what he was doing with FILM lenses.

You claim that the rest of us are "Canon kissarses." When you avoid direct questions and refuse to provide images for others to study and attempt to duplicate--a true scientific method--you leave us with little alternative thought than you are indeed attempting "corporate scaremongering."

Jay

<<<-- Originally posted by Clive Collier : GET THE CAMERA AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES -->>>

Clive, I should get my XL2 PAL version within a few days. At least yesterday the local Canon rep. told the XL2's will arrive today to the country. Guess I should be able to detect if there's excessive Moire, or say, if there's more than with the XL1.

You may have raised an serious issue which has to do with the PAL version or your observation may have been something specific to the preproduct version you had. Back in 1997 I also got the preproduct XL1 for tests from Canon, and it showed some problems the standard product didn't. (The image on a standard TV had also strange kind of Moire effect.)

The slight problem of this kind of forum is that from reading the posts one is not able to hear the tone of the person behind the message. As far as I can say, Barry's comments appear very professional and gentle. So, stay cool, this question will certainly be sorted out with time. I'm pretty sure nobody has any reason to be a "Canon believer". We simply use their product for various reasons, that's all.

I have had my XL2 since sept 2. I have had serious issues with moire and aliasing. It seems like spectacles and straight lines are jagged and dance around. Brick walls will throw you into a siezure if you watch it long.

The features on the camera are fantastic but the picture is horrible. I had a shot where a couple was walking down a path in the local mountains and the whole picture was dancing.

I have shot on the XL1 since 1998, I compared the cameras side by side and the XL1s had a better picture because it does not have a mind of its own.

I hope that Canon can work this issue out.

I don't have anything to do with this discussion, and I really don't know anything about it, but I really have to say these things:

Clive, indeed, people here requested many times for pictures, and you never gave them or a link.
Most of them tried to help, Barry especially, but if you ignore them also, then don't say they are all ' a bunch of Canon kissarses'.

And I have to say, with al the comment here on the forum, I just wanted to tell everybody I really love it here and I think you are all (well, many of you :-)) real pro's, and very, very friendly and helping.
Just wanted to state that with all the comments here on the forum. I've learned more reading these message boards, then I ever learned in my classes of Video.
Maybe I just use this thread to say a big thank you to everyone here, and don't believe it when people come here and say this forums sucks :-) I'm very proud of it, even if I don't have a big speaking roll in many threads.
I learn things here every day.
If people say: I'll go to REALY SERIOUS DV FORUMS, well, I wish them many many lucks, but I'm very happy with this one.

Sorry if it's off-topic, I really had to say it.
Good luck to everyone here :-).