New Full Res XL2 footage online
 

I've posted a few more clips online at full resolution.

All were shot in 30p 16:9 with camera settings on default. Typically I used manual focus, white balance and exposure. Daytime shots around the convention center, (cycling, wide shots, stairs) were on a tripod, All other footage is hand held.

Dusk shots were shot with a polarizing filter mistakenly attached to the lens, so you can expect 1.5 stops more range than what I'm showing here. Most of this footage was shot at 1/60 f3.2 gain 0-6.

This clip is shown in 720x480 dimensions...if you want to view it in 16:9: Open quicktime >movie properties>video track>size. Click adjust. Grab the corner of the frame (should be highlighted red) until the dimensions read 480 x 960. Click done.

http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing16.html

The previous posted clips are now at:

http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing15.html

This is the same file as before except that it has been compressed (see below). It is stretched in preview to 16:9...if you want to view it in native dv format (it will look sharper): Open quicktime >movie properties>video track>size then click normal.

Both files have been compressed minimally from the native DV. I've lost very little in the process, although some of the finest detail appears crisper in the native dv file.

Barry

Barry, is it OK if I mirror your download at my dot mac account, to take part of the load off of your account?

Jeff,

thanks...please do.

Barry

I can do that too, if need be... just give the word.

It's uploading now, I'll have a link in a few minutes.


Here is the link to the new San Diego XL2 footage on the download page. If you have difficulty downloading from the above page, right click on a PC or Control click on a Mac when you get to the download link.

You've got to be kidding?!?! That looks incredible!!!!
I got 20-13 vision maybe it looks better to me but that
floored me, and 30p?

When i try to play this .mov quicktime says that the required compressor could not be found.

Can anyone help??!!>>??

tHANKS,

kevin

Kevin,

I used the mpeg4 codec on this...so if you haven't upgraded to QT 6.5....now would be a great time!!

Barry

ive got it working now, thanks. but now i cant make it into 16x9 ratio. i did what you said to above, but i dont see an adjust button or anything so that i can change the ratio.

any suggestions?

thanks

Are you using qt pro...if so make sure you are in the video track submenu..(there is also a "size" in the parent menu).

Barry

Thanks so much for the footage, Barry. I literally check back every ten minutes hoping for new tests, and just know that we all appreciate them VERY much.

And of course, it looks great. And just makes me want to save my money faster (if that is possible).

That footage looks like extremely clean video. Lets see more 24P, 1/48 material please.

Yes some 24p/cinegama footage would be nice, i have PLENTY of webspace and traffic if needed as i run a webhosting business :) PM if needed.

Holy crap. I'm at a loss for words. The footage I've seen until now looked great but this is absolutely beautiful. Gorgeous, stunning, amazing, magnificent, spectacular, awesome...you name it. This is it. Thank you Barry for this...I feel slightly more complete after seeing that footage and finding out what my next video camera will be. I see an advantage of owning an XL2 along with my XL1s.

Barry,

Thanks for that footage. I feel much more comfortable about what tomorrow's UPS man is bringing. For some reason, I couldn't get smooth playback but the images were nothing short of breathtaking. I even noticed the insects near the floating flowers. I have QT Pro ver 6.5.1 which is the latest. Maybe my mpeg4 decoder isn't up to snuff. Running on a 1ghz P3 may not be quick enough.

Again, breathtaking, stunning, and all those other adjectives that I can't think of right now.

Thanks again,

-gb-

Obviously I appreciate this (I posted that earlier tonight) but I also really do want to see some stuff shot with 24p. For your next test if that is possible, that would be awesome.

The footage looks real nice. I brought it into FCP so I could look at it on my 27" Studio Monitor. Considering it came from DV, compressed Mpeg 4, the compression changed back to DV and the footage distorted and rendered to play back on my monitor, there were surprisingly few artifacts. Barry, I noticed that the aspect ratios of the video from the 2 different sequences were quite different. I'm curious if what you did added to the grayness of the first clip or was that just the effect of the marine layer?

Barry, the footage looks stunning! I really cannot believe the quality. I have a DVX100 and I love it's image, but I think this is spectacular. I'm looking at it on an NTSC monitor through FCP, and the colors look so vibrant... Remarkable!

Just to be clear: This was the XL2 NTSC? Or was it PAL? 30p, right? Maybe later you can post some 24pA footage? Thanks so much!

Good morning.

One of the reasons I posted this new clip is that I realized while the first beach stuff showed the resolution aspects of the camera, it was somewhat lacking in color. The scene at the beach was truly colorless (I do have some shots with color, but I chose not to include them because my camera work was lousy--ego is a terrible thing).

The second clip was shot in three bursts,-- early morning--dusk--midday. All colors are as seen...a polarizer was used on most shots. One clip (wide shot of the lily pond with botanical building in background) was corrected as the original white balance was off compared to the rest of the clips.

Lens used most is the 20x, also used are the 16x and the 3x (slightly soft pan of the convention center).

The last two cuts show the effect on greens of a white balance adjustment.

I think the problems some people are having with stuttering motion is due to the high bit rate mpeg4 encoding.

On the 24p thing....I've always been anti- 24p...but I'll try...may be a few days before I can put something up...My feeling is that it will look the same except jerkier...

This was the NTSC version of the xl2.

Later today I'll post some stills from a still life with gamma, knee and black adjustments.

Barry

You've got to be kidding me, that looks awesome, looks like I know what I'm buying for Christmas now.....

Yeah, let's see some 24p footage....

Keep up the great work.....

Barry,
NIce work! Looks really good and really clear in comparison with what I was originally seeing with my XL2. Well I have had a little more time to work with it and tweak the settings and must say I love the results. I took it into the shop with me and filmed some of our crew in the warehouse and I'm now convinced of the huge resolution boost in 16x9 mode.

Now...onto the colors. Even having seen your footage I still feel like the colors are a little muted when compared with the DVX. BUt they still look great...they just don'y pop the way the DVX does. BUt...that is without turning on cinegamma. I have found that the XL2 will produce the same brilliant colors as the DVX when I enable Cinegamma and push the clolor gain up a few notches. SO far so good.

I still stand by the fact that the XL2 seems to be less forgiving in average to slightly below average lighting conditions. There is no doubt that the XL2 has great controls and can deliver great results. BUT just as easily the thing can give you a not so good picture if you use it wrong.....with great power comes great responsibility.

In my case I used the DVX professionally during the day job and as my personal camera to film my 2 year old around the house in my spare time. And the DVX......in progressive without gain......can and does shoot acceptable video in almost all of the normal house lighting shots I've done. The XL2 does not deliver the same quality of image in those situations without bumping up gain or opening the shutter to1/24 for them. Is that bad? No. I just have to use the features that are there for me.

But remember I come from a background where you never ever use gain! Gian is the enemy. In short....I now see the quality that the XL2 can and does deliver if you provide it adequate light. I also see that there are controls at our disposal within the cam to get good if not great images in less than desirable lighting.

I will be filming by daughter 3 year birthday party tomorrow and we have a pony coming. All of the kids are dressing like princess's and knights. So i should have some real nice footage with lots of colors shot ouotside on what is supposed to be a beautiful day.
I hope to post some samples.

Oh.....and of course this party must be shot in 24p 16x9. After all....it is an epic!

Barry, if you ever shoot 24p, I'd like to see it shot with the 2:3:3:2 mode so I can grab the footage, remove the extra frame and experiment with editing in Premiere, as I don't even know yet if it'll be stable and properly working (it should be, just want to make sure).

For those shots, 1/48th and 1/24th shutter speeds with some basic motion (pans, tilts, etc.) would help determine the quality (and utility) of this mode.

Don't feel pressured to go out of your way and answer every little request like mine, it's really great you took the time to provide this footage already. But if you ever got the urge to look at the 24p option, those are some things I'd be very interested to see.

Thanks

Naah... Didn't like it. Too good. Awfull good. It makes me feel bad that people put such things on the net for others to see. You shouldn't. Bad boy. I was happy with my XL1s and XM2(GL2). But no Sir, you had to spoile it. :)

Take care and thank you for sharing.
Best regards,
Arnaldo

Barry,

I was under the impression that 16:9 equaled 854x480. Wat am I missing?

TIA, Dave

Well dave...this is a question that I've been asking myself, and I'm not sure if I've got it right...so this maybe up to some smarter heads than me...

yes 16:9 in NTSC is 853x480 (at least by my calculations)...just as 4:3 in NTSC is 640 x 480. The DV format, however uses non-square pixels...so the DV NTSC format for 4:3 is 720 x 480...thus by my math...16:9 in DV should be 960 x 480....and this is also the dimensions of the Xl2 sensor in 16:9....so this should be right...

But...and I'm not sure if my eyes are playing tricks on me...

the first clip I loaded, the ocean stuff...originally I posted it in DV format stretched to 960x480...and all looked fine to me....Later I added some more footage, this time compressed in mpeg4...I left it unstretched in the file, but when I stretched it out to 960 here at the studio...things were looking "stretched" to me. But when I compared the new video (sandiego) to the old uncompressed video (beach)...the window dimensions are the same...so I'm not sure anymore...

I owe a beer to the person who can clear this up for me...because I haven't been sleeping well since I posted those videos...and I think this may be why...

Barry

Barry,
Check to see if the footage has been resized and is set to 1.2 pixel aspect ratio which is NTSC 16x9. Some software ignores the pixel aspect ratio and uses square pixels anyway. IN that case you have no choice but to resize the video. However if the software allows, specify in the encoding process to be square pixels. If you leave it as is and the pixel aspect is 1.2 and you resize it then you have the potential that it will be 960x480 and 1.2 pixels. Which will look stretched.

Just my guess as I have seem this happen before.

Hope I get that beer!

Thanks for the reply Barry. Now you have shed some light on a mistake I have been making. I took for granted, with out doing the math, that 720x480 (DV) WAS 4:3. Now, having done the math, I realize that it's actually 4.5:3. This also explains why when I view the package contents of an iDVD project to get the MPEG2 file out of it, the dimensions are 640x480. I always assumed that the MPEG2 dimensions were 720x480 as well and that the DVD player was told whether or not to strech the view depending on if it's a wide screen or standard movie.

Now my next question. With uncompressed 10 bit are the pixels non square as well? I would think so since the format calls for 720x486.

<<Now my next question. With uncompressed 10 bit are the pixels non square as well? I would think so since the format calls for 720x486.>>>


Way over my head man....can we please talk about moire or something useful...I'm just a DV boy...where's don berube?

Barry

The frame size in pixels has nothing to do with the aspect ratio. The aspect ratio is derived by the ratio of horizontal to vertical lines. In other words 720x480 could be 4x3 or it could be 16x9 depending on the shape of the pixel. That si what I am referring to when I say pixel aspect ratio. Each pixel in 16x9 mode is more rectangular in nature than 4x3 mode. Therefore the aspect of the frame is dependent on all of these elements.

Confusing huh?

Marty,

Confusing yes, but this discussion has helped me. I come to video with a background in web and print graphics where pixels are square and resolution is based on how many pixels are contained in a square inch.

DVD *ALSO* IS 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL), it uses the
same aspect ratios. I'm not sure why iDVD is showing you 640x480
because I can assure you that is NOT the resolution of an MPEG2
DVD file. It is probably showing you the altered resolution for
viewing on a square pixel monitor (ie, your computer screen).

When and how did it show you the this 640x480 resolution?

X Barry
 

Barry,

I want to say thanks for clip..........they are Fantastic!!!!!

Can i ask you ,if is possible:
for the next clip can you post the "ORIGINAL CLIP"not compress in mpeg4,but in original DV 30p?
so we can see the true image quality!

PS:congratulation for the quality of the shot and the cutting!


Best regards


Gabriele

Rob,

If you control click on an iDVD project that has already been burned, you can select show package contents then you can have access to all of the media files iDVD uses to create a finished DVD from the project. If you have the QT MPEG2 playback component, you can then open the MPEG2 file for playback and hit command J on the keyboard to view the properties of the file. Also if you just select the file in the finder window in column view, it'll show various properties including the dimensions.

This is how I came to the conclusion the MPEG2 is 640x480. I don't use iDVD at home because I still use a G3 but at work we use iDVD to make quick samples for clients that want their "dubs" on DVD.

At home I use BitVice to encode MPEG2 but can't use the QT MPEG2 playback component so I'll take a BitVice encoded MPEG2 to work and see what the dimension are for it.

having trouble
 

working on a pc, I've right clicked, I've left clicked, I have quicktime, but the download won't happen. just opens window and then nothing. No status window opens, nothing. Maybe I have other issues.

I wish I could see the stuff, it sounds like it was impressive.

never mind
 

figured it out with some help from a fellow poster here in Wisconsin.

Barry,

thanks for the footage,

both files look just gorgeous !

The XL2 seems to have a great dynamic range and great warm colors (but not too saturated )....very nice.

Barry,

Could you please explain how you compressed/exported these clips before uploading. I have some stuff I want to post . . . but I can't get anything that looks like what you did from FCP.

Thanks.

Peter

If you open Movie properties, go to video track, most of the settings are in there.

Settings as I remember

Codec...Mpeg4
Data rate 1000k

Sound Mpeg 4 audio
32 khz

Barry