I'm quite sure the'll show up on transfer to beta.
The problem is probably created before the video is recorded to tape.

Im a bit shocked, why do you guys even own this camera if the image is flawed with a black bar on the bottom of the picture? I mean, how can you do any kind of work whether it be a commercial or a short film or anything that requires somone to look at your footage?

Damn, and I was a few days from getting a XL1s, guess I'd better do some rethinking. I'd hate to crop the bars out of my footage in post for all of that.

Personally, I hate the black bar at the bottom in post, it bugs me more than anything. I just picked up a PD-150 and the 720x480 image in After Effects is clean edge to edge, top to bottom. However, I have shot several commercials for local television with my XL1s and the black bar at the bottom has never been an issue for me. I can only see the bar in an After Effects composition or if I set my NTSC monitor to underscan but once it's turned off, it can't be seen.

Donbarzini or Chris or anyone who has contributed to this thread:

Ok, now Im confused.

Do you see the black bar on your footage or is it unnoticeable to the untrained eye?

As noted many, many times in this thread...

You will not see the lines on an NTSC monitor or other device that underscans. You -will- see it on full-frame digital playback.

Visible even to the untrained eye.
 

Lets all understand one thing here. I assumed miniDV is came about so that we can digitally edit stuff. So we can open the doors of NLE. Ok, now that we got that straight. Using any other camera besides the XL1s you dont get bars at the bottom of the TRUE FULL FRAME of 720x480. What does this mean? Well a normal NSTC monitor or TV in the USA does not show the whole frame. It actually chops it out. But if you do any type of streaming web work or DVD format of 720X480 you will definately see the bars from your computer, because it will display the full frame. If you capture stills you'll see the bars because the computer displays full frame. What I dont understand is that if miniDV is a format so we can digitally edit movies, why does Canon design a flawed camera? Why dont they just correct the problem rather than saying its not a problem?

For the people that do not understand the problem: there is a few
pixels high black line at the bottom of the frame. This is not a
problem when:

- Your output is for TV use only
- You crop your output (to add black bars for example, as I do)
to make it widescreen

You might not have a problem:

- if you do not care about a two - four pixel high black line. I know
I don't personally. If I download a quicktime movie and there is
a little black line at the bottom I'd probably not even notice it
(especially not if I'm playing it full screen)
- if you go DVD. Although these might be played on a computer
too, they 99% of the time are played full screen. You won't notice
the black bar because it will blend in the with the tiny little black
line that is already surrounding your monitor/lcd
- picture in picture effects. But since these will be resized and
probably cropped you might nog have a problem. Besides, you
might be adding a little border to seperate the image from the
background one

When you do have a problem:

well... this seems to be a personal thing. I'm not bothered by
it personally. But then again, it should be fixed anyway because
it just should not be there. Maybe someone should post a full
resolution jpg/bmp file that shows the defect cleary (white wall
footage??) so that all who are in doubt of getting this camera
can see for themselves first hand.

I hope I haven't stepped on any toes here, that is not my
intention! This is just solely my opinion and what I think about
the problem and possible solutions.

Thank you.

Great idea about posting the pic with the flaw Rob, thanks for clearing things up for all of us dullards out there!

I think someone posted a still image with the bar, but what would be better is if someone shot some footage and the put it in quicktime or realplayer and posted it on here.

just an idea

My XL1s also has the black bar at the bottom. I was wondering, has anyone sent their camera to Canon and had it come back sans black bar? No sense taking the camera out of service for weeks just to have it returned with the problem remaining. From what I read in this thread, it would seem the black bar is just a fact of life. If I had known, I'd never have purchased the camera.

Ron,
I've not seen anyone remark that this is something that Canon service has fixed for them. In fact, just the contrary. It looks as if Canon considers this acceptable and within the camera's design specification. In my opinion, someone made the assumption that "prosumers" would either never notice this flaw or would never cause trouble if they did notice it.

Many of us are disappointed. Personally, I love many aspects of the camera's design. But I'll be damned if I'll buy another Canon video camera if they continue to stonewall this issue. (Of course, since I already have 6 Canon probably couldn't care less <g>.)

I have put up some footage from my camera. Picture in jpeg
and bitmap format and a the same footage in a 2 second
PAL dv movie (was only allowed to upload 5 mb per file).

http://www.geocities.com/robvisuar/dv.htm

Much ado about nothing
 

While I certainly agree that Canon should fix this problem, I must say that in the whole sceme of things it is quite insignificant. No layperson is going to look at the very bottom of the screen. Its well below title safety so it can be used for professional work and you'd never see it when transferring to film. Furthermore, this is a rather inexpensive prosumer camcorder. Step up to a shoulder mounted professional camera like the Sony dsr-500 if you really expect perfection.

I'm forced to agree with Chris Ward (by the way Chris are you going to ShowBiz Expo in L.A. next weekend).

Long story short: as outlined above: this thing is *not* a problem if you're doing NTSC or PAL video. You'll never see it on a TV or video monitor; the black bar is at the edge of the frame and far outside the safe area.

It definitely *is* an issue if you're doing video for the web or CD. It *can* be seen at the edge of the frame on a computer monitor. You'll have to crop and re-size if you want to get rid of it.

The XL1S is not the only camcorder to exhibit this, nor is Canon the only manufacturer who has camcorders which exhibit this. And it is a product of the Panasonic CCD's used in these camcorders.

Most likely, Canon will position itself with the "this is not a bug, it's a feature" stance, as it is not something which can be altered by the Service Dept.

Please do not think I'm "apologizing" for Canon. I am not. I'm just telling you realistically what to expect. Hopefully I'll have something solid to relate back after ShowBiz Expo next weekend (June 1-3). That's the next time I get to see the guys from Canon USA. Hope this helps,

Ummm, so Chris.

If I shoot and take my footage from the camera to Avid, and make a Beta copy as well as a vhs copy, then you wont be able to see the flaw on the final product?

Correct.

Re: Much ado about nothing
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Ward : While I certainly agree that Canon should fix this problem, I must say that in the whole sceme of things it is quite insignificant. No layperson is going to look at the very bottom of the screen. Its well below title safety so it can be used for professional work and you'd never see it when transferring to film. Furthermore, this is a rather inexpensive prosumer camcorder. Step up to a shoulder mounted professional camera like the Sony dsr-500 if you really expect perfection. -->>>

Huh?! No, no, no, Chris. Certainly, it's true that these lines will not appear on a tv screening. But the streaming market is a big one for Canon and it's direct competitors; perhaps the biggest market in this class of camera. To that end, these lines certainly can be a significant factor during compression since they present the compressor with a static band of flat color.

"Furthermore, this is a rather inexpensive prosumer camcorder. Step up to a shoulder mounted professional camera like the Sony dsr-500 if you really expect perfection. " I'll just bet that you didn't copy that text from a footnote on one of Canon's advertisements. So a Sony DSR-500 is "perfection", eh? Well, we wouldn't have to go that far to escape this little problem. We'd only have to move to the XL1s' closest competitor, the Sony DSR-PD150.

Chris, this may not be a significant problem for -you- or for -me-. But it -is- a significant problem for many current and prospective buyers of Canon's top-of-the-line video camera. Furthermore, it's a problem endemic to Canon's 3-chip cameras (my GL1's footage looks like I shot it from a prison cell, with thick vertical bars on both sides) and one that they've taken a bet on.

There is a small army of eager beaver trade and consumer electronics journalists out there just starving for their next 1,000 word payday. It's probably time to give them a whiff of this meat.

I still don't see this as a serious problem. Ken, I think you're over-reacting to what is basically a minor flaw in an otherwise outstanding consumer camcorder. As for the pd-150, I've used it professionally with decent results, but I like the picture of the XL-1(s) much better. However, neither unit is in the same league as a true professional camera like the Sony dsr-500/570. Of course, that would cost four to five times as much... BTW - I've also used the GL-1 with very good results: Never saw any "prison bars".

Now, as for the consumer electronic journalists, I happen to be one myself and I could care less about this "meat".

Chris,

I, too, like my XL1, my XL1s and even my GL1. I don't regret buying them. For my current purposes they serve me well. But with respect to this design/manufacturing flaw I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree as gentlemen on this subject.

What publication(s) do you write for, Chris?

Fair enough. I write for Videography magazine. In fact, you can read my article about using a bodyjib in their May issue, and I'll have a hands-on article about the XL1s (with the manual servo lens) some time this summer.

Ahh! I thought your name seemed familiar. Indeed, I am a subscriber to Videography (just received a new issue today, in fact). In fact, I very much like the magazine, Chris. Good to see you here.


Best Regards,

Chris Ward's documentary "Outwitting Hitler," shot with an XL1, GL1 and PD150, ran nationwide on Showtime last year.

XL1S imaging problem/question
 

I didn't think I'd be looking for answers like this so soon after spending so much on a camera that I thought would be near perfect in its class. Oh well, I sure have them now!

Just for the record, I'm using a PAL XL1S and I use a Mac for capture and edit and yes, I too have the black bar problem at the bottom of the frame. It's not as bad as some of the frame grabs I've seen posted - just a 1 pixel-high bar extending halfway from the right to the middle of the frame. This then joins to a 1 pixel-high pale bar extending from the middle to the left frame edge. Same style as you other guys are getting, but less of it.

It would appear that the fault has aspects of physical mis-alignment as it appears, but slightly further down the scanning sequence.

Naturally, I'm well disappointed. I had hoped that it was a fault with my particular camera that could be repaired or exchanged under warranty with no further hassle, but if they're all the same, then I've just wasted a lot of money.

I wish I'd bought the JVC GY-DV500E I was also considering prior to purchasing the XL1S.

Anyone wanting me to sign a petition to Canon, count me in!

Matt... I have exactly the same thing. Perhaps it is a PAL
thing that is different? Check the url I posted a couple of
posts earlier.

I do agree with Chris Hurd, I still do not see a real problem. Even
for use in PIP, you would resize this anyway. A little crop wouldn't
hurt here at all (since your gonna resize anyway). Perhaps the
people who having a real-world problem with this put up some
footage or screens grabs identifying exactly what they have a
problem with?

Reply to Rob
 

I checked the URL and your fault (for that is what it is) is the same as mine. For comparison, take a look at

http://www.mattmcardle.co.uk/canon_xl1s

and see for yourself. There's a few seconds of movie (Quicktime) up there too, if you have the patience to view it. You'll see those damn lines flicker and dance!

I don't entirely agree with you and Chris Hurd about it not being a problem. OK, for standard TV you aren't going to see them, and PIP-ing you are bound to crop, but I'm really with the multimedia guys on this one. That flickering baseline is hugely noticeable, especially viewed full screen on a monitor which people are BOUND to want to do if they have an option.

That means a post-production re-size and crop, no getting away from it and that costs time and money, as Ozzie has graphically demonstrated in this thread.

This is TOTALLY unacceptable and very unprofessional of Canon to ignore the issue, whatever spin 'apologists' and Canon hardcore fans like to put on it.

I think that Canon have misled us all on this one and they should sort it out.

Now were talking! I have been saying from the beginning of this
thread that those flickering lines are much more of a problem
to me then the black little lines! No-one seemed to acknowledge
or care back earlier. Glad I am not the only one to have this
problem. Luckely for me the output is letterboxed anyway so it
doesn't pose too much trouble at the moment, but who knows
in the future. This is one thing I would like to get fixed indeed!

I'll check your footage out!

My XL1S doesn't exhibit flicker. But wow, the flicker noxiously salient on that Quicktime.

Another thing I noticed about the Quicktime: the image not only has a black border along the bottom, but also has thin black borders on the left and right a la the original XL1. What's the deal?

Robert... my XL1s has both these symptoms too (check my url
I posted earlier)... It looks like the flickering and the bars on
the side are PAL issues only??? Perhaps some NTSC user could
put up a page similiar as to mine and matt's?

I just got off the phone with my sales rep. When he asked me to measure my "black line" problem I found that in interleave mode I had 3 solid black lines plus one gray line. In frame mode, it was 3 solid black plus two gray lines. He told me that he never heard of anyone with more than a single gray line at the bottom of the frame. Is it just me? Just wondering how many lines other XL1s owners were seeing.

second thoughts
 

My second thoughts are I wish I didnt buy the XL1s.

If I knew this was a problem to begin with I would never have purchased it. I definately would have bought a *Professional* Camera.

CANON FIX THIS PROBLEM!

Chris, Perhaps you should just put a stick about this nice little "Feature" Canon has so that people know right off the bat? Perhaps this will get Canon to aleast do something.

At the rate this thread is going, there's no need to stick it to the top. It's always there anyway.

Chris, I notice that recently your signature changed...Was it due to this forum? ;)

Any NTSC people who want to put up a still frame with a short
DV movie (couple of megabytes / seconds)?

Hi,

I'm a new user to this forum and I just joined in after reading this thread. I thought I'd add my experiences with these black lines (I have a PAL XL1s). I learned about these black lines the hard way. Here's the story:

I shooted some footage in 4:3 frame mode to later do some 3D camera tracking. After days of work the tracking came out pretty good and it was time to add some special effects in the scene. My intent was (among other things) to add some raytraced water in the scene which reflects the original footage. After hours of work it was time to do the first test rendering. When I finally saw the outcome I was shocked. Where the he** do these stripes and other strange blemishes on the water surface come from?

Because I'm still learning the process I thought I'd made a mistake somewhere and I started to tweak the 3D scene. Again after days of work I finally realized that the stripes were coming from the footage that had the black bars (just like in Rob's example earlier in this thread). The bars got raytraced to the water. Because the cam track was already done and the 3D scene already modelled, I just can't go and crop/resize the footage (the perspective gets screwed up).

So days of work went down the toilet. Well not exactly but yet again I had to do some more work to get rid of the stripes. The only positive thing here is that there isn't any money involved in this. Imagine if this happened on a real production. Someone would be pulling hair off his head :/

The bottom line. The black bars are a real problem to me. If standards says that a frame should be of certain size, then why doesn't Canon obey this? Please Canon, Fix this and the XL1s can prosper again...

karibrown: "If standards says that a frame should be of certain size, then why doesn't Canon obey this? "

That's -precisely- the point! Arguing, as some here have, that this is not a problem because the lines fall outside of the normal NTSC and PAL viewing area, is rubbish in an age where televised viewing is only one potential destination for footage. Also, contrary to some assertions, this is not a wink-and-nod problem shared by all manufacturers.

Definitely not a "wink and not" problem. This is strictly and purely wrong. No excuses from a $4000 camera when a $900 dollar camera does not have the same problem. Not even the XL-1's main competitor - the Sony PD150 - has the problem.

I sit here and watch this "little" problem mushroom and cost me thousands of dollars in editor time, equipment time, and just plain time. We were able to fix the problem in the rough cut by blowing up the picture 102% but somehow that effect was not uniformy rendered in the final cut, so it's back to a re-do of the final cut after the sound has already been mixed. Not a small problem at all and I await some sensible solution from Canon. Hell, if this were a car there would have been a recall ages ago.

If Canon is billing the XL1 line as a inexpensive professional piece of gear, which it seems to be doing, this must be a top priority before it can be called "professional."

Exactly
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Ken Tanaka : karibrown: "If standards says that a frame should be of certain size, then why doesn't Canon obey this? "

That's -precisely- the point! Arguing, as some here have, that this is not a problem because the lines fall outside of the normal NTSC and PAL viewing area, is rubbish in an age where televised viewing is only one potential destination for footage. Also, contrary to some assertions, this is not a wink-and-nod problem shared by all manufacturers. -->>>

Exactly Ken. I too just purchased the XL1s and it sickens me to hear that this problem exists. I expected to be able to shoot stuff for the web as well as TV, but man what to do now. It really ticks me off how some people are too concerned with defending Canon.

I wonder if a class action lawsuit would get Canon's attention?

I'd have so much more faith in the company if they step up and fix this mistake at no charge to their loyal customer base. I've been purchasing Canon products for over 15 years.

For Mr. Cisco.

<< It really ticks me off how some people are too concerned with defending Canon. >>

Please try to understand, I am most certainly NOT "concerned with defending Canon." Instead, my responsibility to you is to tell you how it is. How it really is, not how it should be, or what I think, or how I feel. This is how it *is* and whether or not I agree with it doesn't really factor into this equation. If all the sudden I became emotional and started carrying a banner for the people complaining about this, it would accomplish exactly nothing and would do a serious disservice to you as well as myself.

And here's how it is.

Canon USA doesn't view this as a problem. That is, not yet. I'm working right now on getting them to issue some kind of FAQ page, or statement, or something at least acknowledging all of the attention this is getting, but don't hold your breath. They are not known for moving very fast.

The reason why Canon USA doesn't perceive this as a problem is because the issue is at the edge of the frame, outside the TV-safe area, meaning that in very general terms, in "most" situations you'll never see it (doing a picture-in-picture is one exception I can readily think of).

With regard to web video delivery or video CD's, Canon USA doesn't perceive this as a serious problem here, either. Their point of view is, why wouldn't anyone *not* crop the image down to the TV-safe area anyway, using Media Cleaner Pro or any other toolset for this purpose. Their line of thinking is, surely an image crop down to TV-safe is already an established part of the media output process. In other words, from their point of view, cropping down to TV-safe is a given. Something you'd want to do anyway. So where's the problem.

Now. Please note that I'm reporting to you their take on it. I'm not agreeing with it. Nor am I defending it. All I'm doing is reporting it. At the same time I'm telling them, "look, this is being perceived by the customer base as a serious flaw." I'm reporting to them your take on it.

And now another thing. Unlike a lot of other message boards out there, this one is not a platform for venting anger or frustration in the way it usually comes out on other places around the net. I can understand your anger and frustration, but please, consider reacting in another way. Vote with your dollars.

If this is an issue you simply can't live with, you can certainly say so here. I was really impressed with Ozzie Alfonso's explanation of how his production suffered a serious bite as a result of this. That's something that will get their attention. The other thing that will get their attention is if a bunch of slightly used XL1's show up for sale on our Community Marketplace boards, or Ebay, or other trading posts around the web. That always sends a signal. The Sony camcorders (past the VX1000 and a few others) don't have this issue.

This whole thing is a function of the Panasonic CCD's used in the XL1 and other camcorder models by Canon as well as other manufacturers. I'm trying to build a list of those too. If you think you can organize a class-action lawsuit, go for it. I salute you. If you can secure legal representation and move forward with it, then I'll even report about it.

But please, let's try to hold back a bit on the passion and not accuse each other of being on one side of the fence or the other. All that accomplishes is, drawing lines in the sand and hurt feelings and no progress whatsoever. Instead let's talk about this from a technical standpoint, and discuss the impact on workflow and business. That's what we really need here in order to be productive. Hope this helps,

Chris has noted earlier that Canon routinely cruises through here on reconnaissance missions. If true, they've very likely already read this thread and their marketing group (the true driver for all product-driven manufacturers) -may- be considering what their response might be. This, of course, is my speculation. We have no evidence of Canon's cognizance whatsoever.

To be sure, however, this flaw was the result of conscious decisions tempered somewhere in the interests of costs and profitability of the product. Like it's peers, Canon's engineering group is far too sophisticated to have simply overlooked such a fundamental aspect of the XL1/1s' imaging system. That said, only market pressure is likely to force the issue out of the internal memo -pushing cycle and into an external response. Legal maneuvers would probably be fruitless and only enrich the lawyers since such action would basically have to challenge the product's warranty claims, a generally dicey proposition that would get bogged-down (in the U.S.) at individual state attorneys offices and, internationally, even worse. In the end, nobody's camera would get fixed in our lifetimes.

No, the more effective course would be to widely publicize this flaw, both inside and outside the trade press, and then let the competitive forces of the free market persuade Canon to earnestly address this problem both retroactively and prospectively.

But, skeptical as I am that Canon has any intentions of offering remedy, we should give them a reasonable chance to do so.

p.s. This post hit the boards at the same time as Chris' post, above. I earnestly agree that we absolutely must refrain from any internecine conflicts on this subject. Further, I agree that continued reporting of the discomforts and inconveniences that this problem has inflicted on you may build a powerful body of evidence for Canon to face.

>>No, the more effective course would be to widely publicize this flaw, both inside and outside the trade press, and then let the competitive forces of the free market persuade Canon ....<<

I think this is a very effective idea. For all the great reviews the XL1 received when it was first introduced, isn't there a mag out there with the guts to update their review with this story? Probably not, because they all take Canon advertising money.

The Lawsuit Idea
 

Not only is the lawsuit idea bad for reasons stated above, but also because I don't think there is a strong case.

The bruden of proof for the plaintiff would be to show that Canon has committed fraud and that plaintiffs has been harmed.

Trouble is, I am not sure that Canon does say that the camera does support a standard of 720 x 480 pixels. I took a quick look at the Specifications section of the Xl1s Instruction Maual (p. 120) and it says only:

"Television System: EIS standard (525 lines, 60 fields) NTSC color signal.

"Video Recording System: 2 rotary heads, helical scanning system DV system (Consumer digital VCR SD system) Digital component recording."

Now unless anyone can say that the 720 x 480 pixel standard is implied by these statements (and they may, I am new to this area) these statements don't say anything about such a standard.

Canon warranty says that the camera is "warranted against defective material and workmanship" It's unclear that a design flaw would be covered under such language.

No doubt Canon has a good business practice requirement to address this issue.