Second Impressions: Thoughts on Color & Sharpness
 

Several users have reported a lack of excitement about the Color rendition of the Xl2, and several others have made comments that the footage looked blurry. In 3 weeks with the camera I have been largely impressed but just about everything in terms of image quality, but I decided to do some checking regarding these issues.

Sharpness:

there seem to be two things that will cause a blurry image with the Xl2...and these will be no surprise to Xl1s owners as the same issues existed with that camera. First is using the lense in a wide open configuration. There is a noticeable halo-like aberration that occurs when the 20x lens is at wide open 1.6-2.2. This halo is barely visible on an SD monitor, but is quite apparent on a HD monitor, or Computer monitor.

This softness all but disappears at f2.8 and the rest of the lens fstop range seems to produce excellent sharpness.

The second cause of blurriness seems to be related to use of 1/30 sec shutter in 30p and 60i mode. This blurriness looks a lot like the pull down artifacts one often sees when viewing video to film conversions. It is mostly apparent in moving subjects or camera work. Interestingly, it seems that canon is pushing us to use 1/30 shutter in 30p mode...as there is an indicator in the viewfinder that lights whenever the speed is other than 1/30. I think this is a mistake on Canon's part.

Realistically I feel the native shutter for 30p should be 1/60...it simply gives superior results. For 24p the shutter should be 1/48 (canon's recommendation as well).


Color

I feel the Canon color tuning is about right for most situations, however I think that Canon has chosen to err on the conservative side, probably because it sees this camera as appropriate for broadcast, where colors are limited to "legal" specs. For some users who wish for a more punchy, saturated image, and are less concerned about being chastised by an engineer somewhere down the line, the cinegamma, cinecolor, and color gain settings offer a decidedly nice option for achieving this end.

I spent some time at our local i Madonarri festival (chalk "painting" on city sidewalks) yesterday. I hadn't really played with the color on the camera yet, as I wanted to get a feel for where it was at default. I came up with a list of settings that produce what I'm going to call the SuperPolarized Technicolor Dream. Feel free to use and adapt these. I'm calling them this for two reasons...when you cycle the preset on and off, it is like you added two polarizing filters on-axis to your lens, and the color is off-the-page unrealistic...but very beautiful to look at.

Barry's SuperPolarized Technicolor Dream

Gamma: Cine
Knee & Black: Middle
Color Matrix: Cine
Color Gain: +4
Color Phase: neutral
R gain: +2
G gain: +3
B Gain: -2

Realistically your white balance will effect how you position the R,G,B Gains...Mine was designed to pump the yellow-red portion of the spectrum. Also, for anyone with sane mind...this setting is really too saturated...so I would play with adjusting the Color Gain down to +1 or +2 for a saturated, but more natural display of color. I'll try to post some images later.

Barry

I notice similar results. I used Cinegamma and I punched up the colors a little and in an average scene it adds just the right ammount of color to make it look good. But if I get in an environment that has any type of punchy colors for real....it goes way over board and looks very "technicolor fake". I am trying to find a happy medium where it adds a little color to average scenes but doesn't muck up in colorful scenes.

Still finding that it produces far less color in average to low light situations when compared to DVX or PD150. But oh well.

Regarding the softness. I shot with the lens at F1.8 for about 40 minutes inside of an average lit room and noticed some of the footage looked soft (blurry?) around the edge of the lens. I never...ever noticed this on the DVX, XL1 or PD150. What exactly causes this and why? I absolutely need to shoot with the iris wide open much of the time and will be saddened if this occurs on a regular basis.

<<But if I get in an environment that has any type of punchy colors for real....it goes way over board and looks very "technicolor fake". I am trying to find a happy medium where it adds a little color to average scenes but doesn't muck up in colorful scenes.>>


Marty

Realistically, and in practice...the purpose behind these presets is to have them at your beckoned call to call up when you need them...thus a perfect setting that works in all situations is probably not possible. Cycling through presets is nearly instantaneous on the xl2, so I would build one for saturated scenes and one for "normal scenes" and then you'll have the best setting for both situations.


regarding the softness...this must be something inherent to the design of the xl series lenses, because the gl2 doesn't show this problem either. Perhaps this is one of the reasons neither Sony or Panasonic has ventured into 20x (or interchangeable) territory with their lenses.

Barry

Are we talking about a softness or halo all around the edge? As if you applied a filther to blur the edges? Or when you say Halo do you mean a halo around individual objects that are bright?

I will be using individual presets also once I get my camera back from Canon. They are looking at it now for possible issues. Unfortunatley I had increased the color and then shot outside in nice daylight. In the viewfinder it looked just right. On the TV the colors.....particularly greens and reds are straight out of munchkin land....too much and almost fake looking. This is why I feel the viewfinder is not representing what I was recording accurately or I would have know on the spot to change presets. In the viewfinder it was dead on. But it looks different on TV/Field monitor. Again...this is with only the sharpness of the VF increased.

On another note......zooming in and focusing works fine if I am filming a tree or a building or some inanimate object. But moving people, cars, planes, etc are harder to work with as they are...well.....moving! :)

So what methods do you employ when filming subjects that are moving and in different focal lengths? In a non scripted environment too.

Also....Barry......I went to Circuit City and watched XL2 footage on a Plasma 55" hi def monitor and it looked like hell! Artifacts everywhere and total breakdown of the image. DVX footage also showed this. On this particular day there is no chance of confusing XL2 for anything remotely near HD. Must have been an issue with the TV and it was scaling or something. Cause it looked downright jagged and blocky much of the time. And the colors!!! Holy Cripes they were way too brilliant.

I did this to assure myself that the XL2 was indeed worth the investment after seeing my XL2 footage back to back with a DVX on 3 different standard def tvs and seeing no improvement or differences whatsoever. I however see a big difference on my JVC production monitor. So I thought HI-DEF TV should be able to show me some advantages to the XL2 16x9 res boost.

On this day HD slayed any DV footage by a large margin. Xl2, DVX are no match. What was worse is they both looked worse on HDTV than on SD televisions. It actually killed the image.

sorry for the ramble!

Marty,

Not completely related, but regarding SD on an HDTV monitor. My father-in-law just recently purchased a 43" HDTV DLP television that looked great in the store but once he fed it an SD signal when he brought it home, it looked absolutely horrible. He returned the television since there were only about six channels in HD here and he would only be watching SD video.

Don,
that has been my experience also. But I thought I remembered Barry saying that the footage he shot at the beach looked incredible down at circuit city. That is why I was trying this.

Don -

That's a pretty common problem with HD displays, especially the projection (front or rear) variety. For anybody reading this who is interested in going HD, I would highly suggest that you check out SD footage on the set before you buy it. There are some sets out there that do quite well with it, and others that look horrible.

Wow... that Circuit City test is a bummer. I wonder if something was wrong with the HD display. I could swear I read a post a few days back where somebody said the footage looked excellent on a big plasma display. I'd like to hear more about XL2 user's experiences viewing on large standard def as well as HD displays.
I have no aspirations for ever transferring to film, but it would be nice to have the image hold up well on a big screen.
I wonder how the image would look uprezzed to HD then viewed on a plasma? I'm sure time will tell.
By the way, thanks to all posting clips online! Keep 'em coming!

Thanks Barry, this is exactly the sort of thing I've been looking for! What type of adjustments would you make to this for a more realistic film effect - or is that way too broad a question?

You didn't say what monitor you viewed the footage on
that looked so bad. ALMOST
all of these HDTVs are really cruddy imo. The only one I have been really
impressed with is the Panasonic plasma screen @$10K.

Almost all the others that price less than that
are mosaic/banding/soft/noisy/poor registraton . . . yuck.

Then there's the upconversion factor. I have seen what a $50,000+
Terenex box can do with upconversion and what some of these
built in HDTV coverters do. Believe me, there is NO comparison. The
Terenex box is amazing.

So, in other words, that particular "test" had more to do with
condemning the monitor than the camera IMHO.

A real test would be to take XL2 footage, upconvert it with a Volare box,
record it into an NLE that can do uncompressed HD
and run that signal into a real Sony HD monitor. Then, you'll know
the best that the XL2 is capable of.

And Barry, though I expect the new lens that comes with the XL2 to
be better than the 16X (junk imo), for the price point the 20X
simply cannot be that much better.
I have not used my 16X since getting into the EOS adapter
and EF lens. The sharpness and color saturation is *remarkably better*
with 35mm glass.

The last time I tried the 16X, it seemed no matter what I
tried I could not get it focussed. The reason? The 16X lens is only capable
of about 200-250 lines of resolution imo. Once you get used to what
the camera body can do with real glass, especially film lens, you simply
can never go back to the video glass except for facial closeups where
some softness is a good thing.

All I was saying is that in this particular case the image looked worse on a HI-Def tv. I sure will not go through all of those steps to get my customer a DVD that looks good on hi-def! What you described is not my goal.

In my short time with the XL2 I can say that the average television can't seem to resolve the increase in resolution I see on my production monitor. So why pay for the extra res if the end user/customer can't see it? My next thought is some of my clients will be using Hi Def monitors to view. Maybe on those I will see a big increase and therefore justify the cost difference for me over the DVX100A. But in this test the $3000 dollar TV killed the image. So until I can convince my clients and myself to now buy a $10,000.00 television so they can see the increase in res I get for my $5000.00 camera then the point is mute. I really like what I am seeing with XL2... On my pro monitor. But so far everything I have viewed on any HD or Standard TV doesn't retain the information.....therefore rendering the DVX100 almost the same quality. In 16x9 the XL2 is a little better.

Nobody else sees this?

Jacques,

Am I right in understanding that the EOS adapter increases the focal length of the lens by a factor of 7.5? If this is correct, what lenses are you using and how does it work? Can you do the same with Nikkon lenses as I see that there is a Nikon lens adapter as well.

Thanks,

Matthew

Marty...did you take a dvd to circuit city, or the camera? My experience is based on hooking the xl2 (running off a tape) directly to a Sony Wega HD 34" CRT (one of the most beautiful displays I've seen anywhere) at my home. The footage looks stunning...I can go right up to the set, and there is only the bare minimum of aliasing...the upres technique on that particular set may also be your problem.

Also...yes the xl2 monitor is desaturated compared to the final image...but I'm confused here...last week you were telling us that the final image had no saturation now its too saturated...Look...set up your production monitor and use the adjustments for the LCD to get a closer match to what the final output is...I just did, and I was able to get very close...certainly much closer than the image displayed on the DVX LCD sitting right next to it.

<<On another note......zooming in and focusing works fine if I am filming a tree or a building or some inanimate object. But moving people, cars, planes, etc are harder to work with as they are...well.....moving! :)
So what methods do you employ when filming subjects that are moving and in different focal lengths? In a non scripted environment too.>>

This would be difficult to do manually with the auto lens marty...it's servo system is really built around autofocus, and this is and has been a highly discussed topic on these boards for years. However the autofocus functions nicely in this situation, you might want to try that, next bet is to purchase a manual lens for the camera (I know your dvx didn't need the extra lens...u shouldn't have gotten rid of it :)...but seriously the indexed focusing is one of my favorite things about the dvx...but also remember that focusing a 10x lens is about 50 times easier than focusing a 20x...stick to the wide end of the xl2 and you won't be having so many problems.) Follow focusing a long telephoto lens like this is never easy...sports photographers spend years perfecting it. The servo on the xl2 doesn't make the job easier...but I'm not sure I would blame this all on the camera.

also...the halo I'm describing is like that caused by a soft focus lens.


Jacques...I'm not having any problem focusing the 20x, and I'm getting tack sharp images as long as I'm not wide open.


Barry

Mr. Cherry,

I used the 100-400 EF IS lens for most of our wildlife doc., but
also used the 16mm-35mm EF lens for some interviews. Yes,
the magnification factor isn't a help for normal stuff, but a great help
for super telephoto work. Like I said, I can't go back to the 16X
now that I am spoiled. I literally felt that I could NOT focus it the
last time I tried to use it. The 16X is soft as mush!

I do not believe there is an adapter for Nikon lens other than
the PS technik which I think has a Nikon "flavor", but at a large cost.

Mr. Hudzik,

I guess I am left scratching my bald head. What would make you think
that an HDTV would make SD video look better than an SD production
monitor? Remember, you're upconverting via a cheap converter and viewing
it on what is most likely a crummy HDTV. There is nothing in that formula
that would make the SD video look better. In fact, each of those steps
degrades the video.

<<< So why pay for the extra res if the end user/customer can't see it?>>>

The reason to pay for an XL2 in my situation is that native 16x9 SD video
can be upconverted to HD at a post house that does offer the Terenex box.
The XL2's 16x9 image does not need to be pan and scanned for upconversion to HD.
(if shot in 4x3, it would have to be Panned and Scanned to
fill the 16x9 screen with a 33% loss of pixels)
or suffer the loss of pixels if shot letterboxed (XL1's 16x9 mode).

The average NTSC TV (4x3) will show the letterboxed image (black bars top & bottom).
When you shoot in true 16x9, you will have more pixels to work with,
much as if you shoot in film you have more pixels to work with,
even though the final output of BOTH workflows (NTSC 4x3) has the same number of pixels.

It is always better to have more resolution from which to derive the final product.
That's one reason film looks much better than video on wide out
shots. More pixels/resolution to render the image.

The XL2 will look (I'll guess on this) a bit better than the DVX with an
anamorphic adapter or shot in the DVX's electronic 16x9. The main thing is
that the work flow is faster as you don't have to render out the unsqueezed
image.

I guess it all depends on what you are doing and who you are doing
it for. Right now I am bummed out that HD's TV signal is mpeg2 at 19mbps
which is NOT enough bandwidth for many many situations.
The image turns to a hideous mosaic imo when there is almost any
significant movement in the video. Trying to cover four times the
"resolution" at less than DV bandwidth with an old codec is stupid imo.

"I guess I am left scratching my bald head. What would make you think
that an HDTV would make SD video look better than an SD production
monitor?"

I never thought it would look better than a SD production monitor. I thought it would look better than a SD retail quality television. Because for me I can only really see the benefits of the increased 16x9 mode on my SD production monitor. Let me summarize my experience:

XL2 on Production Monitor:Amazing!!!
XL2 on regular retail tvs: Very Nice!
DVX100 on Production monitor: Very nice!
DVX100 on TV: Very Nice!

See the pattern? Graphically the XL2 seems to excel on a hi res screen. I consider myself a bit anal over picture quality and if I can honestly say that on a regular tv the DVX and XL2 look about the same then they probably do. I was simply looking for some type of sign that somewhere a client or consumer who watched my product on a hi def TV will be treated to a taste of what the XL2 can produce. Thats all

Barry....I initially felt the colors were a bit flat and muted. So I tweaked the menu and color options to bring out more colors. Hence the issue with saying the colors were overkill. I plan to compensate for this by adjusting them back to a mid point that is acceptable. I understand the concept of trying to calibrate the LCD to the production monitor. But the broad statements were that the LCD accurately represents the final picture. This in the same thread that say don't change anything on the LCD except sharpness.

So I am complimenting the wide range of color capabilites of the camera itself while stating at the default LCD settings I am not getting a very accurate view of those colors. Even the DVX didn't give that accurate colors but it is no big deal. As we use it we learn the tendencies of the camera and compensate for them.

Well before everyone get's hung up bashing HDTV's I Have a sony 42" that is definitely not top of the line. But when I plaed backa DVD through component inputs of footage shot on a DVX100 (no A) it looked really good, and that was pretty lousy compression, I sincerely think that something might have been wrong with the test set up at circuti city (maybe you should try best buy... just kidding) I sincerely believe that until there is a portable platform for displaying HD your best bet is to go with the best Sd you can get your hands on. For most people that was the DVX-100 but I believe that is now the XL2.

What I have noticed, HDTV CRT's (tube), such as Barry G's WEGA, look much better and are much more forgiving with SD material. The DLP, plasmas, LCD, projection, etc., from what I have seen, all look like garbage with SD material. Maybe there are some that look good but I have yet to see one.

often at stores like CC they have to use special devices to split one signal and feed 10+ displays to demo TVs/HDTVs. are you sure you used a DVDplayer that is hooked up directly into ONE display or via that splitter? those splitters often damage the original signal. i would not judge HDTV via that method. best method is one DVD player, hooked into the HDTV and then recalibrated/color corrected using the AVIA or HT discs.

I agree with Yi Fong Yu, those demo units at Circuit City are never calibrated correctly, and although they are meant to be used as examples of what you could buy, these monitors are just pulled out of their boxes and plugged in for show.

In fact, I think many people fail to calibrate their monitors, which defeats the whole purpose of buying based on specs, reviews, and tests. Too many "bigger so it's better" kind of mindsets. Who cares if your camera does this and that if you watch it on some crap monitor, right? To me, this is like placing an excellent shotgun mic right on the camera instead of on a boom pole for dramatic shots - I mean, why did you buy it then?

Sorry for the rant.

Well what I do know is this was the TV that they have sitting in there little theater like room and it was playing jurassic park off of a single DVD player. That looked fine. Not Hi Def good but at least as good as standard def on a standard def tv. We directly popped out that disk and put in mine. And it looked bad. Something weird was going on because I have been authoiring DVD's now for 3+ years and know how to compress mpg2. So I know it wasn't the DVD. Lets just forget the whole HiDef thing for now. Sorry I brought it up. I went there expecting to be blown away since that screen might be able to resolve the XL2 better.

Peace All!

Yes, there is an adapter for Nikon 35 mm lenses from PS and I haven't put the 16x back on my XL1s since I got one. The results with my old Nikon lenses are amazing. You simply cannot expect a 16x or 20x zoom lens to compare in performance to a prime lens, especially one that is only being used close to its axis. The newer Nikkor (17-35mm, 28-70mm) zooms also give great results. I haven't tried the 20x (nor any other aspect of the XL2 yet - tomorrow!) but don't expect it to be much sharper than the 16. Nonetheless, it is a tremendous acheivement at less than $2K (IMO).

As for color saturation: I much prefer that the camera accurately reproduce color. If I want more saturation for a particular shot I'll put it in during post. But the public wants highly saturated color. Look at the color films being manufactured today. On the still photography boards the posters complain about how flat raw files converted with one piece of software compared to raw files converted with another. The preferred ones use Kodak's digital sciences which boost the saturation (just as their films and the films of other manufacturers do). No criticism of Kodak is meant here. They are just giving their customers what they want and they do make pro films with natural color rendition. I expect that the manufacturers must go round and round on this when trying to design a new camera (still or video). It's plain what they should do for the low end market - goose the saturation. But what about the prosumer (e.g. XL2) user? He should, presumably, understand enough color theory to appreciate the implications of accurate color reproduction but clearly many prosumers (and even pros) in the still camera market do not. I'm too new to the video arena to have an appreciation for the feelings here.

New Footage Posted
 

I've posted a few more clips taken with the settings I posted at the beginning of this thread. You will see a few clips in the middle where I've cycled the CP off and on to show the effect of the preset. What impresses me most so far about the color and gamma controls on the xl2, beyond the ability to oversaturate colors beyond any need...is that it looks pretty good doing it...very little posterization or artifacts from the adjustments, and second, the dynamic range with cinegamma and cinecolor is just amazing (I have a clip in 24p that I'll post later that blew me away in terms of highlight and shadow detail/color) but for now note the closeup of the chalk with the shadow (almost as good).

Realistically, these clips are oversaturated far beyond what was visible at the festival, but I'm posting them to show some of the color range of the camera.

http://homepage.mac.com/barrygoyette/FileSharing24.html

Barry

A.J.

I'm definitely in your camp regarding the need for a camera that produces colors accurately from the start. Although I will say that adding color in post is problematic with DV due to the relatively high compression used in the codec. The Xl2's adjustments give us a good opportunity to get it closer in camera with pre-compression 12bit processing.

Barry

Barry,

Yes, you have a point there. The problem I have is that you are more or less stuck with whatever decision you make at the time of recording. I think you do have some latitude with respect to increasing/decreasing saturation (and adjusting gamma as well) but the 8 bit width is indeed limiting. What I'd like, of course, is 12 bits of R, 12 bits of G and 12 bits of blue right off the sensor (which is what I get from my still camera or scanner) to fiddle with WRT color temp, saturation etc., but I doubt I'll see that at a price I can afford in my lifetime.

A.J.

Barry,

Do you find it easier to tweak DV image colors in post if you shoot slightly under saturated and slightly lower contrast?

I ask this question because coming from a film background, we often take lo con ftg into color timing. And when I shoot digital stills, I shoot Raw format which gives me a low contrast, low saturation image (which is my backup/no longer negative) and I color correct from there achieving beautiful results.

I am also asking this because a lot of people mention the "washed out" image from the XL2 (I'm very happy with the camera btw). Maybe it was Canon's thought to default to a lower contrast/saturation image that may be easier to manipulate in color correction (just a thought).

Evan

Part of my motivation to test the color matrix and gain settings on the xl2 was to answer some of the comments that had been made regarding the xl2's saturation. In practice, the xl2s default settings look great to me on my HD set at home, although they do look a little flat when viewed on my computer (to be expected given the difference in color space and profiles), or on my production monitor (which is set to have a flat look--at default, the xl2 looks like everything else I display on it).

Definitely it's better in the film world to start with a lower contrast original, as there is more data available to the colorist, however in the DV world working with a highly compressed source,and 8 bits of data, My feeling is that getting it in camera...or at least getting close....is probably a good idea. I've done some experimenting in the past with color correcting in camera versus the same effect in post. In-camera is gives a cleaner final product. To answer your question directly..Is it easier to tweak DV colors by starting from a low contrast, under saturated point...probably easier to adjust contrast in this situation...not necessarily color...posterization is the most common artifact besides noise that comes out of post color and tonal correction...and posterization will typically become more of a problem as you expand the range of color and contrast. Regardless, I think it is best to start as close as you can to your final image (if you know what you want when your are shooting).

At the very least, these first tests show me that the xl2 color processing is operating very cleanly...with little of the artifacts I've seen from my gl2, and dvx associated with gain adjustments.

Finally, these samples show that the camera is capable of going "overboard" on color (not possible with the gl2)...which means you have all the range you need...that I think is a good thing. I personally would never shoot with the camera turned up this high...unless it was for a particular purpose, but it's nice to know that the camera has more gas than you need.

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by Marty Hudzik : Well what I do know is this was the TV that they have sitting in there little theater like room and it was playing jurassic park off of a single DVD player. That looked fine. Not Hi Def good but at least as good as standard def on a standard def tv.-->>>


Right, but their are reasons that Jur. Park looked far better than the DV
footage.
(A sorta repeat from my eariler post)

1) shot in film so there is much more resolution to work with. That matters.
DV's macro blocks don't help. In fact, a guru from Sorenson told me that
one should do a "save as" uncompressed before encoding to mpeg for maxium
results when using DV.
Others do that and then add a .1 of a pixel blur to help break those
macro blocks up even more.

2) Hardware noise reduction and the best MPEG2 encoders are used
for the Hollywood big boys. That get rid of unwanted pixel information
and with film's larger color space, unwanted banding.

So, even though the final output is NTSC at 720x486, when you start
with 2Kx2K or 4Kx4K pixels before encoding (as opposed to 720x480 at 5:1
compression), and larger bit depth, the final mpeg 2 render
will always look much better coming from film (or HD) than DV.

So this is going nowhere fast.

I never said I thought my XL2 should look as good or better than Jurassic Park on DVD. OF course that is going to look better.

However if I pop in JP at home on a standard def TV it looks very clean. Of course the characteristics of film are there because it was initially shot on film.

IF I watch my encoded XL2 dvd at home it looks really clean too. OF course it is clean but with the look of the XL2....not the look of Jurassic Park.

On a DVD player hooked to the HDTV at CC JP looked clean. My XL2 footage looked artifacted. There is definitely an issue with whatever upsampling they do. I don't know what it is but it is there. Can it be worked around? Eventually. BUt I was going off of what Barry had said.....something like "go to your local circuit city and watch your XL2 footage on a hi def tv and be prepared to be amazed!"....those aren;t his exact words but something like that.

To restate my opinion. My standard def pro monitor can see a lot of detail and clarity from my XL2 that none of the televisions I have tested can't. I was hoping that a hi def TV would be able to see this too. In my limited test it not only didn't see it but seriously degraded the image beyond what it looks like on SD.

I guess it is wrong to think that the XL2 is ever going to look as good as it does on my field monitor on any retail television under $10,000.00. IS that the case?

I admit one tv is not a good sample to make conclusions.....but on a day where I needed some validation as to why I spent the extra money on the XL2 over the DVX100A the HD didn't work in favor of the XL2. Granted the DVX didn't look any better but it didn't look any worse. And my personal preference is that I don't really care for a lot of the little quirks of the XL2 body and controls. But I keep coming back to it and seeing the incredible clarity on my production monitor. That makes me want to keep it and work out the kinks with the design that I don't care for.

But when I think that I am willing to live with what I view as shortcomings of the design for greater image quality, and then on most of my clients tv's/monitors you won't be able to see it....then I wonder why I invested this much and then deal with quirks when the end result is the same as if I used DVX.

some images for you
 

I have complained of lack of color.....you all know that. I played with the settings and came up with one that gives me the look I want in most areas. Here are a few frame grabs.

www.iciclestudios.com/images/gandi/horse.jpg
www.iciclestudios.com/images/gandi/cup2.jpg
www.iciclestudios.com/images/gandi/parts.jpg
www.iciclestudios.com/images/gandi/samples.jpg
www.iciclestudios.com/images/gandi/vinyl.jpg

they are jpg compressed......sorry. I need to keep my bandwidth down. Hopefully these will help to get the idea across that the XL2 can produce really nice color images. Viewing these on a tv is essential as they look a little washed out on my LCD laptop screen.

Let me know what you think......I resized them to 960x480 to retain the proper aspect ratio.

Marty--I was going to stay out of this one...but you just had to drag me back in...

First off, I never said make a DVD of your footage and take it down to Circuit City...I said take the Camera to Best Buy....I finished it off with, I think you'll be impressed (not my actual words either).

second. you've made a habit of reporting lots of flaws in your images, and then blaming it on the camera. A good scientist forms a hypothesis (the xl2 sucks...for instance..) and then sets out to disprove it....which in your own way you are doing....sort of...but a good scientist doesn't publish his findings until he is reasonably secure his findings are correct. You started out thinking your camera was broken because the color was too dull. Then you tweaked the color and said the viewfinder was bad because it didn't match the image on your monitor (even though you knew that you could adjust it)...then you said the image was bad because you you played a DVD of it on one TV at Circuit City. A good scientist would probably have played with it on a few sets, just to make sure the set wasn't the cause of the problem....The XL2 is an excellent professional product that allows you to set it up to fit your personal needs...it might be best to work out the kinks, and then post on any problems that you find.

Finally, you keep saying that you expected to be "blown away" by the camera, as compared to the DVX, and thus you are disappointed....indicating along the way that you were duped by comments made here on the forum. Well I can't remember anyone ever saying that the camera blows away anything. Any comments I've made have had a very measured tone relative to specific aspects of the camera, and I stand behind every one of them...except that you probably shouldn't view DV on the 55" plasma monitor at CC. Several users have been impressed by the resolution in 16:9, and you yourself say that you have been impressed with this aspect. Regardless, this is a DV camera, and thus it is very much limited by the DV spec. Perhaps you might be happier if your expectations were a little lower to start with.

I hope you don't think I'm slamming you here, I don't mean to. I just think weight of your critiques would be stronger if you got your data better in line before reporting it.

Barry

Marty,

What setting did you use for those images? From the few you posted I like the look - especially the horse frame-grab.

Barry,

I appreciate the camera set-up that you posted earlier. A good place to start.

When you are playing with your camera set-up, are you focusing on something in particular and viewing on your calibrated studio monitor? Did you calibrate the monitor to the camera's bars?

I really want to play with the set-up and my first thoughts are to wb the camera and do a 1st set-up shooting a test pattern and then a few items in the real world. ie different colors and different details, int/ext. I know that this can get to be a rather involved process but to build the appropriate presets (I wish there were more than 3) I guess it might be necessary. As far as more presets (involving filters etc.) I guess for now I'll just need to take good notes.

I was looking through the "Read About It" threads and nothing I read there really talked about a particular publication that covered this (or maybe I missed it).

Do you have any advice on how to run these tests that might be more efficient than what I mentioned or possibly a guide or publication referral that may help?

Thanks,

Evan

I never, ever said the viewfinder is broken! I said that in my experience so far it is not that accurate as to what you will see on the final tape. I even said the DVX isn't either. Don't know why that is being taken way out of context. I even said I will learn to adjust to the XL2's settings like I did with my DVX.

I also have posted some beautiful images to try and couteract the theory that the XL2 has poor color. I may have even been partly responsible for that starting. I am trying to make ammends that I may have jumped the gun before checking all of the options.



I really don't appreciate the tone here because I have clearly stated that there must have been something wrong at circuit city as it looked awful. The DVX too. The theory was that DV as a whole is having an issue looking good on an HDTV. But since my test was less than scientific I would just let it go.

IF you are happy with the XL2 Barry that is great. I am still on the fence. I like it's image quality but am a little uncomfortable with the design. We are entitled to our own opinions.

Did you even read the message above where I posted some good stuff about the cam?

Feeling frustrated at the lack of people to acknowledge that I am trying to work with the camera and not against it.

I posted one set of images and asked for opinions. The next set I posted I am bragging about how good they are and how colorful they are. How do you derive that I have made a habit of posting images with flaws?

<<<When you are playing with your camera set-up, are you focusing on something in particular and viewing on your calibrated studio monitor? Did you calibrate the monitor to the camera's bars?>>>

Yes, the studio stills I shot were monitored on a JVC studio monitor. I wasn't going for any kind of "match" so I didn't try to calibrate the monitor specifically (not a bad idea though). My process was to set everything at default, manually WB the camera, and then make adjustments to the presets...largely to find out what affect they have on the default image. In a production environment, I would be taking that info and applying it to tweak the image in the direction I envisioned for the project, so it would be more important to calibrate everything on down the line.

>>I wish there were more than 3>>Hopefully soon the SDK will allow us to store a number of presets on a laptop.

A good resource for this subject is probably the ASC video manual

http://www.theasc.com/cgibin/store/a...talogno=10203#

haven't read it myself, but it looks like it has several chapters on setting up your camera...it will probably be more general, but these books are essentially filled with articles by some pretty great minds.

Marty- your stills look great...really great...I can't figure out why a guy getting such great stuff can be so conflicted about his camera... : )...buyers remorse is a terrible thing.

Barry

<<<<Did you even read the message above where I posted some good stuff about the cam?>>>

Marty..sometimes a timewarp exists on the web...like when you and I are typing at the same time

<<<Feeling frustrated at the lack of people to acknowledge that I am trying to work with the camera and not against it. >>>

I think It can be painful and frustrating to watch someone work through their difficulties in a forum like this. Like you said, you may have been (partially) responsible for more than a little fodder on the web regarding the supposed weak color of the xl2, and then you write:

>>> Cause it looked downright jagged and blocky much of the time. And the colors!!! Holy Cripes they were way too brilliant.<<<

Now, someone (like me) is going to copy that line, take it out of context, and start a new thread over at DVXUser...well you know what happens next....

you post a set of beautiful images, and tell us how happy you are with the camera.

Maybe it would have been best to work through the "issues, problems etc." and then post your conclusions rather than your fears. Early on several users (and I think you were one of them) referred to the images from the camera as blurry (we'll this didn't match up with my experience, but I kept my mouth shut). I then did some testing and found what I believe to be the cause of the issue...and I posted it in a direct and measured (unemotional) fashion. I think this does service to everyone. In fact, as you now know, the camera produces an image of incredible integrity...but when someone posts a blanket statement to the contrary...it seems to have legs within this and other forums, and it's misinformation that we all have to spend energy correcting.

<<<I posted one set of images and asked for opinions. The next set I posted I am bragging about how good they are and how colorful they are. How do you derive that I have made a habit of posting images with flaws?>>

I said you have a habit of "reporting" ...not posting.

Marty...please don't misread my "tone". If you read the last line of my post you'll see that I'm encouraging you to dig deep for the flaws of this camera...if you find them, we all want to know...not so we won't buy it, but so we know the limitations of the tool. I reported on several this morning, for exactly that purpose.

Barry

EDIT------Barry.....(timewarp again....apparently you were typing the one above this while I was typing this!)-----

"Marty- your stills look great...really great...I can't figure out why a guy getting such great stuff can be so conflicted about his camera... : )...buyers remorse is a terrible thing."

Barry....You have hit the nail on the head. My budget has allowed for me to barely.....barely buy the XL2. I sold my DVX and came up with the difference. Now I am concerened I made the wrong decision as I need a new 16x9 field monitor, new batteries, a new case and apparently a new Canon ta-1000 tripod quick release plate as my high end bogen tripod and head has a plate that doesn't fit on the camera right. I mean...it does but when you need hand held shots it is seriously in the way of your hand....no ammount of moving it forward or back alleviates this.

On the other hand I could have gotten the DVX, anamorphic adapter, 16x9 field monitor, 3 batteries and case and still have change to buy some other extras. My initial impulse is to do that!

However after 5-6 days with the XL2 I began to see it's impressive image clarity and resolution. I loved it. On the pro monitor it literally smokes the DVX. When I watch the same footage on regular televisions I don;t see the clarity. And I have tried it on 5-6 different brands and models and they don't show the advantage of the Xl2 over DVX. In addition the noise or graininess of the DVX is also lost on the regular televisions. So both the DVX and XL2 are essentially rendered equals. (image wise...not funcionality).

So I am left wondering if the advantages of the extra clarity and resolution I am seeing is worth it when nobody but me will ever see it. And then only on my studios monitor.

If my trying to justify the extra $2000.00 for the XL2 over the DVX is making people uncomfortable I am sorry. But I need some clarity on exactly what to expect.

I'll leave it at that for a while.

Marty,

I have said before and I'll say it again.... It boggles me that ANYONE would even dare compare XL2 footage to HD. It's not even in the same league...not even close!!!!! Anyone who tells you that XL2 footage looks as good or close to HD is not serious!....unless they're watching fooatge on a small 6" LCD.....
Like you I am not impressed by the overall camera....and that's why we returned ours.... the price/performance ratio being our biggest gripe...now if it was priced similirarely to the DX100a it would be a no brainer! :-)

Maya-

Just for the record, here is what I said:

We were viewing the footage on a 34" sony Wega HD set. The footage I shot was primarily in 16:9, stretched manually by the monitor. Well, all I can say is I've never seen anything like it. Viewed from about 10 feet the image was remarkably detailed...but when I got close to the monitor there was almost no evidence of the sharpening, noise, and aliasing that I expected to see (from viewing a SD-DV source on a HD monitor). Much of the footage was relatively backlit surfer-in-the- water stuff, and so it had very high contrast edges...I thought for sure that this would bring out the aliasing that "the famous cinematographer" spoke of in his "report" from dvexpo. Sorry (ok, happy) to say...I have never seen a cleaner, more HD like image projected on my HD set...not from my dvx, xl1s, gl2 or the compressed streams off of DirecTV. The color seems natural, the contrast about what you'd hope for.

Ok, now I don't own a $90k+ HD camera, so you'll notice I made no comparison to such a thing..I spoke only about how the image looked on the set, and compared it to other DV cameras that I have experience with, and a comparison of the satellite HD streams I have seen.

Regardless, a more appropriate comparison will be with Sony's upcoming HDV offering...there we are looking at two consumer formats in a relatively similar price range. From what I've seen so far (which isn't much), I don't think the difference is going to be as great as one might think. While the sony might hold a theoretical edge on pixel resolution, there is nothing in any of the images posted that indicate the lens is up to the challenge, add to that the poor color and compression artifacts, and I think the XL2 (and DVX) will probably hold up well in comparison.

Barry

<<<-- Originally posted by Maya Taylor : Marty,

I have said before and I'll say it again.... It boggles me that ANYONE would even dare compare XL2 footage to HD. It's not even in the same league...not even close!!!!! Anyone who tells you that XL2 footage looks as good or close to HD is not serious!....unless they're watching fooatge on a small 6" LCD.....
Like you I am not impressed by the overall camera....and that's why we returned ours.... the price/performance ratio being our biggest gripe...now if it was priced similirarely to the DX100a it would be a no brainer! :-) -->>>

I never compared it to Hi def....just hoping a hi def monitor would be able to deliver the sharp crisp details that I see on my professional monitor. Thats all. On my pro monitor there is a significant increase in clarity over any other DV camera out there. HAnds down the XL2 blows then all away. But on a regular monitor the playing field is leveled. It's then that I start to question if it is worth it.

But I never expected it to look like hi def.

Marty: I have to ask why you bought the camera when you could
barely affort it. Why did you buy it the minute it came out?

I'm really wondering why certain people are buying the equipment
as soon as it comes out. Can you shed some light on this for me?

This question has nothing to do with how you feel about the
camera, I'm just trying to understand certain reasoning behind
things like this.

Thanks!