DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XL and GL Series DV Camcorders (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-gl-series-dv-camcorders/)
-   -   XL2 first impression (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl-gl-series-dv-camcorders/31360-xl2-first-impression.html)

Barry Goyette September 4th, 2004 08:19 PM

XL2 full resolution footage posted
The full resolution footage is up on my .mac public folder...you can access it here.


If you have problems downloading it, it is also available on an Imovie viewing page (see top of page)

The shots were made at Pismo Beach, California on friday afternoon. You can see from the first shot that an inversion layer was settling in, which accounts for the lack of color in most of the images...

Lens used was the 20x Is-II lens. All shots were made with the camera set to defaults, manual exposure, and autofocus. 30p mode was used in the 16;9 aspect ratio.

I highly recommend that you download this to tape and take your vtr down to Best Buy and watch it on the biggest HD set they have!!


I'm off to San Diego for some R&R. Hopefully I'll come back with a little XL2 Shamu!

Mark Grgurev September 4th, 2004 09:15 PM

Barry, that was awesome footage!!!

Jaime Valles September 4th, 2004 09:55 PM

That looks great, Barry! Very impressive. Thanks for the footage.

Greg Boston September 4th, 2004 10:44 PM


How far away were you from the bird to get that full headshot? Was it a full 20X to pull him in?

Just curious. Thanks for posting the footage.


Antoine Fabi September 4th, 2004 11:32 PM


is it possible for you to compare footage with the DVX100A, because there is a significant difference between the DVX100 and the DVX100A (color and dynamic range).

The XL2 looks better in 16:9 than in 4:3.
I think you're right, in 4:3 mode i see a edge enhancement (sharpening).
The 16:9 is smoother, more natural luma and chroma.

do you remember what was the vertical detail setting ?


Greg Matty September 4th, 2004 11:56 PM


Regarding your still life frames of the dolls and vase:

The 16:9 image shows the tops of the vase being cropped. I always thought 16:9 was like a wider angle lens so to speak that squeezed additional horizontal information into the frame as opposed to removing vertical information.

Any chance someone can explain this to me since I now have no idea how this 16:9 on a 4:3 DV tape works???


P.S. Can someone tell me what FCP settings I need to use to get this video to play back without rendering? I have the sequence set to 16:9 and also flagged the video clip as anamorphic. I still get the red render bar!!!???

Rich Lee September 5th, 2004 01:48 AM

Yeah, the difference between the 16/9 and 4/3 stills have me stumped as well.

framing wise it looks like any sort of 16/9 frame you would get from any other dv cam that will do a crop and stretch.

would definitly like so more info on this.....

Marty Hudzik September 5th, 2004 02:50 AM

I'm guessing he reframed when in 16x9 mode to try to match the original shot horizontally. I have the XL2 and can verify that when I aim at a target in 4x3 and then switch to 16x9 the field of view definitely increases. I can see 33% more area horizontally without touhing the zoom.

Robin Davies-Rollinson September 5th, 2004 02:57 AM

Agreed on that Marty. You can see the effect here:


There's quite a difference!


Rob Lohman September 5th, 2004 03:17 AM

Greg (and others): the camera was just positioned differently or
more zoomed in for the 16x9 shot. It will definitely increase
horizontally when going from 4:3 to 16:9.

Tape is not 4:3. Tape is tape. In this case a digital DV signal is
layed down to tape. This signal will ALWAYS be 720x480 @ 29.97
fps for NTSC. Whether it is interlaced (I'm not saying your footage
is turning into progressive this way!), 24p or 16:9.

16:9 simply uses a different pixel aspect ratio but it is still reduced
to 720x480 (for NTSC). The increase in resolution (after encoded
to DV) is in the vertical, not horizontal (although it will probably
benefit from the increased CCD resolution to get a better detailed

Also see the following thread if you are going to watch the beach
footage on your computer:


p.s. it looks like the movie has been saved with the high quality
flag already enabled. So you might not need to set it, but good
to check it anyway!

Lauri Kettunen September 5th, 2004 04:31 AM

Barry, thanks for the highly interesting samples.

Does the XL2 have the same property as XL1 that the power is automatically switch off if the camera is not used for a while? If so, is it possible to bypass this feature?

Kevin Lee September 5th, 2004 05:38 AM

A little offtopic...
i noticed the codec used on this clip was dvcpro50. Is there any quality benefits to using this codec to the normal quicktime dv one?

Chris Hurd September 5th, 2004 07:47 AM


Just like the XL1S, the XL2 has a "VCR Stop" feature which will bypass the automatic shutdown if you want it to.

Barry Goyette September 5th, 2004 08:12 AM

You guys (sorry laurie), I mean, you all, were busy last night.


the codec was dvcpro (not dvcpro50). I'm not an expert in this, but I think this is just the standard DV codec.

Greg- as marty suggested, I just zoomed in to fill the same horizontal area. (I left the camera in place). As you suggested, if I had left the camera alone, then we would have more info on the sides. (but the center info would have essentially remained the same). I wanted to show the resolution increase of 16:9, so I did it this way...I guess if you wanted to show the wider angle of view, you would do it the other way.

As for getting it to run in FCP without rendering...you might try opening it in quicktime and taking the stretch out of it...I don't know if that will do it or not. FCP does have the automatic 16:9 preview, but I don't think the QT player does, so I added a preview stretch in QT so everyone could see it in 16:9.

Antoine--can you send me your dvx100A for the test?! :)

Greg B -- I was 6-8 feet from the gull, I think I was at 20x.

I'll see you all in a few days.


Marty Hudzik September 5th, 2004 08:40 AM

Do you think you could post a few images that are shot in better light? what I mean is better color. I am experiencing poor color with the XL2. The footage I shot of the hawk in the tree reproduced the greens horribly...very muted and flat. IT looked like a horrible overcast day on tape but in the real world it was bright and sunny. Also.....I know it's not a scientific measurement, but I shot footage of my almost 3 year old daughter in my living room which has one incandescent light. I white balanced on the white wall as I have always done with my former DVX and shot 1-2 minutes and the colors are way off! And the image seems incredibly soft.

I even showed the footage to my wife and she thought the color reproduction and the overall softness was terrible! She mentioned that it looked like when I used to use a Canon ZR10 for filming my daughter. I had the XL1, The DVX100 (non a) and now this and so far something seems wrong! I have read the manual thoroughly and didn't miss anything obvious.

All of my footage has that lack of real color that your beach footage has. YOu mentinoed it was the time of day or whatever that actually caused that and I understand. But I have been in broad bright daylight and the colors just don;t Pop! And sometimes seem wrong.

Please advise....


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:01 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2021 The Digital Video Information Network