DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon XL1S / XL1 Watchdog (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl1s-xl1-watchdog/)
-   -   XL1S imaging problem/question (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl1s-xl1-watchdog/1743-xl1s-imaging-problem-question.html)

Jerry Bixman May 8th, 2002 09:19 PM

Hello group,
I am not the author of the original post, I only referred to it for the group opinion of its accuracy.

Jerry Bixman

Original Post from
Digital_Video@yahoogroups.com
Author
gtreible1@suscom.net

Ken Tanaka May 8th, 2002 09:33 PM

I don't think that the differing pixel aspect ratio sounds like a plausible explanation, Jerry. It seems to me that if that was true every comparable DV camera's imported footage would show black-bar(s) and the bars would occur in the same frame position. As evidenced by reports here, as well as by the transcript of the message you relayed to us, the bar(s) occur in different locations on different cameras. Some on the sides, some on the bottom.

Rob Lohman May 9th, 2002 05:46 AM

As far as I understand it, pixel aspect has nothing todo with
resolution (unless your converting from one pixel aspect to
another). Pixel aspect just indicates what the height of a pixel
is in relation to its width. So if you have a pixel aspect of 0.9
your pixels should have a height of 90% of its width. The
NUMBER of pixels (ie, resolution) does NOT change. You also
have a screen aspect ratio that comes into play:

4:3 (NTSC)
16:9 (widescreen)

etc.... Pixel and screen aspects are two different things. The
onyl time you need to worry with pixel aspects is when you
paint pictures in photoshop or do computer generated
imageray (CGI).

Aaron Koolen May 13th, 2002 06:05 AM

Just to add to the discussion with my latest queries from Canon for what it's worth.

"Thank you for your E-mail inquiry.
I would recommend having the camera serviced at a local authorized service facility."

Still no denial or affirmation....I really would have thought that a company trying to sell a NZ$9000 camera would be helpful with issues like this. Guess they sell enough of them not to worry about the odd person asking questions...

Aaron Koolen May 15th, 2002 11:12 PM

Just wondering if anyone has had any luck with information from Canon about this yet? Tried again to get some information but no luck with Canon New Zealand.

Constantino Pittas May 16th, 2002 01:59 AM

Is there any PAL XL1s owner with the problem?

Or is it a NTCS specific problem?

Rob Lohman May 16th, 2002 03:25 AM

My PAL XL1s has it too.

Aaron Koolen May 16th, 2002 05:05 AM

Damn. I was so hopeful there for a second.. ;)

It's quite funny actually, but I just looked at the Canon demo/promo web video on CanonDV tonight and I saw a black line or two along the bottom of the footage there also! I wonder if they shot it with an xl1s? :)

Chris Hurd May 16th, 2002 09:57 AM

Of course it was shot on an XL1S! ;-) My next opportunity to interact with Canon USA powers will be at ShowBiz Expo in L.A. in about two weeks. No doubt they are already aware of this thread and the problem, but drafting any kind of corporate response is a lengthy and drawn out process. I can tell you that from direct experience with similar issues years ago on the XL1.

Aaron Koolen May 16th, 2002 02:29 PM

Excellent. Can't wait to hear if you can get some action on this issue.

Good luck - and man I wish we had expo's here in New Zealand like you guys do in the states!

Guest May 16th, 2002 06:33 PM

Just checked my digitized footage in FCP from my XL1s and I have the black lines at the bottom as well.

Chris Hurd May 16th, 2002 06:44 PM

Yes indeed they will all have it, without exception. It's a "feature" of the Panasonic CCD's used in the XL1S and other camcorder models. Since the CCD block is outside of their manufacturing process, Canon is most likely going to advise cropping down to the action safe area in post so that it shows only the equivalent field of view that the videographer had in the viewfinder when they composed the shot.

Aaron Koolen May 16th, 2002 07:31 PM

Yeah I can imagine them saying that, but I'd consider that a rather sad response. The viewfinder only has 88% coverage, so that's a lot of area to lose. I guess the issue is really only a problem with internet style footage right? If you're going to film, you will cut the bottom probably anyway to get the right aspect ratio, and if you're filming for TV then the under(over?)scan will hide the line anyway.

Ozzie Alfonso May 16th, 2002 07:41 PM

Chris,

Surely you jest. Cropping all the way to the action safe area? That's a hell of a lot of cropping! Besides, it wouldn't be cropping but blowing up the frame. We've found that a 2% blowup is the minimum necessary to get rid of the lines. But why have to do that at all? There IS a slight degrading of the image. I do hope Canon doesn't pass the buck on this one. Do Panasonic cameras exhibit the same problem? If so, why not just switch over to Sony chips? They certainly don't have the problem.

Yes, now I'm the one who's joking.

Guest May 16th, 2002 07:46 PM

I agree 100% with you Ozzie, cropping in post is not a solution for this problem.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network