16x9 Lens

[Mike Minor]

Hey all. I was just wondering if for true 16x9 on the XL2 you need a 16x9 lens. If so, whats the best one to get? Thanks.

[Barry Green]

You need no additional lenses. The XL2 shoots 16:9 with any lens that fits on the camera.

[Mike Minor]

I don't understand how that can be true 16x9 though....isn't the point of 16x9 that it's a wider shot than a normal 4x3? How can it be wider if it's the same lens?

[Chris Hurd]

<< How can it be wider if it's the same lens? >>

Any Canon XL lens is made for a 1/3rd-inch CCD block. In other words, the image plane is the size of the CCD image sensors. In the XL2, the native 16:9 aspect ratio is defined as the full width of that image plane at 960 by 480 pixels. The 4:3 aspect ratio of 720 by 480 pixels is just a narrower sub-set of that width. So any XL lens (or any EOS lens, any high-quality glass with the proper resolving power that you care to mount) will suffice for native 16:9 recording.

For a better understanding of this concept, see two of my XL2 Watchdog articles:

Canon XL2 CCD Block Overview

and

Canon XL2 16:9 and 4:3 Fields of View Comparison

Hope this helps,

[Mike Minor]

Thanks a bunch-makes a lot more sense. I guess it seems like it's the opposite of other cameras(4:3 sacrificed for 16x9, as opposed to the other way around). I guess the new question is are there any seperate lenses that should be purchased, or is the standard lens pretty good?

[Chris Hurd]

<< I guess the new question is are there any seperate lenses that should be purchased, or is the standard lens pretty good? >>

This is a fairly common question here. Please browse the board's archive using the search tool; you'll find numerous discussions about lens recommendations. See also my XL2 Watchdog article, Guide to Canon XL2 Lens Options. Hope this helps,

[Rob Lohman]

Mike: it is in fact NOT the opposite of other camera's, it is EXACTLY
THE SAME! However, they just decide NOT to lop off the access
areas in use on the chips. They just don't use it. It is 100% the
same thing.

Also see the following thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=36373

[Chris Hurd]

And to correct a common misunderstanding, 4:3 is NOT "sacrificed" for 16:9 on this camera. 4:3 on the XL2 is every bit as resolute as it has been in the history of DV. It produces a standard 720x480 image in 4:3 recording. You're not "losing" anything by recording in 4:3 with the XL2.

[Barry Green]

Well... that depends on how you define "losing" something.

You do get full resolution. But you're using only a 1/4"-sized patch of the CCD. On every other 1/3" camera, shooting 4:3 gives you access to the full surface of the CCD (or most of the full surface, in the case of something like the PDX-10). In the XL2 you get only a smaller subset of the 16:9 subset of the CCD. Though it is true that within that subset there is enough pixel density to create a full-resolution image.

[Rob Lohman]

Barry: although that is true, keep in mind that the GL series uses
a 1/4" sensor as well for example (there are a lot of camera's that
use this as well). And the actual pixels inside that 1/4" area are
still more than in the GL2 or XL1S series, so resolution is not
sacrificed (although depth-of-field is a bit).