Hype XL1s
 

I have had the XL1s for about 3 years now. I am ready to sell it. I think out of all the footage I have shot, only about 1/4 of it is worth anything. I have tried everything and just can't get this camera to perform the way "it should" manual or auto. It is completely worthless in low light and a huge pain to get a decent, crisp picture. I have read for many hours and tried millions of settings. I feel like a complete boob as this is the ONLY peice of hardware I have yet to tame. I don't feel this camera is worth anywhere near what I paid for it as my $200 8mm takes better shots in some cases... The only good shots I get from the XL1s is on a bright sunny day. Indoors, crap. Low light, crap. Even medium light, crap!!! What the heck!!! I am not stupid, I know how to adjust the camera for these different scenarios, but it doesn't seem to make a big difference....


Has anyone else had this issue? and what was done to solve it?

Hi Marco,

It sounds like maybe your taste and what the XL1s produces are just worlds apart. That word "crisp" kind of gives the problem away, in my opinion.

I used to have similar thoughts about mine until I figured out something very important: Lighting is everything. If I find or set up just the right lighting I can get images that please me very much. After almost four years of frustration I'm finally happy with *some* of what I shoot.

In your case is it simply a mismatch? Probably. I hope you get a good price for it!!! :)

Observations: VX2000 v. XL1
 

My brother bough an XL1, and flaunted it around quite a bit. When I decided to get into this a little deeper about 3 years ago, I researched pretty heavy XL1 against VX2000( or even PD150) at that time. Ultimately, I felt VX or PD Sony were more forgiving and usable in a wider variety of situations. Since I got the VX 2000, I have shot head to head with brothers on various shoots. We shot at weddings, we shot at cafes concerts, and in broad daylight concerts. I noted that the Sony seemed to provide a generally crisper, though colder image-- not a problem for me. The XL1 offten had to be put away in available light. The XL1 seemed less crisp, and to have redder tones. With respect to auto focus ( I know it is is a no no for professionals), the XL1 seemed to not be able to track as well-- which could be a function of the lower light capability of the Sony. I also liked the fact the Sony felt more portable, could be hand held easier, had a display, and seemed easier to control.

Ultimately, I think the XL1 and its prodigy are meant more for tripod and setup shooting where the operator has a lot of control of the situation and lighting. The Sonys- even the FX1 which I have just started using and which suffers somewhat in the light gathering category, seem to be more of a run and shoot set up. The XL1 appears to be able to take a lot more accessories made for it, though the Sony can also be outfitted with a bit more enginuity.

I have to say that the XLs were sexier looking :)

Yeah I wish I could have played around with the XL1s before I bought it. I still don't understand why it is so bad in lower light, you'd think for that much money it would outperform the cameras that are a 10th of the price. Any recommendations for another camera that performs well in most scenarios?

>>I have tried everything and just can't get this camera to perform the way "it should" manual or auto. <<

Make that read - the way you wanted it to perform. You probably would have been way ahead if you had sold it (or returned it) 3 years ago when the resale value was higher and you first noted it did not meet your expectations.

Many others find that the XL series meets their requirements/needs/expectations very nicely. Sorry to hear that it did not meet yours, but then, that is why there are many different camcorders on the market with different features, strengths, and limitations.

You're right on that part. While it has shot some pretty wonderful images over the last few years, it hasn't performed how I would expect it. Before I dump it, I am going to send it to Canon for a tune-up/overhaul, maybe that will help some.

There should be others in your area that know much about the Canon XL series. Before you send it off, you might want to check with someone else to see that there is some problem with it. Sending it off will cost you even if there is nothing wrong with it. The resale value of the XL1s has gone down some with the intro of the XL2. Don't spend more than you have to. You could even post some bad footage for others to look at, and evaluate.

Mike

Sounds like a plan. You can see the bad footage at http://www.timelakefilms.com then go to productions, then UoP Football. Horrible footage.

Suggest you Look at Z1 or FX1
 

For Shooting on the fly like you are doing with your Football video, I'd go with the Sony VX2100 or PD 170 (pro level) if you can still get it, or in Hi Def, the Sony FX1 or Z1. Of course, in Hi Def, the new Canon H1 is out, and every one is gaga over that. Then there is the JVC, the Panosonic... o man.

My other brother has a saying, having, bought Sony products for years... Sony means no baloney. They don't seem to put a lot "junk" on their stuff but their stuff is pretty solid. People complain about lack of "film like setting" 24p, etc., but it seems to me the real problem with video not looking like film is depth of field, not frame rate. Enter the mini35 adapters..

The clip did not work right, but looked like more of a encoding problem than from bad footage to begin with. The site is cool!

Want a good run and gun camera, that has some future, get a Z1. I have a friend who shoots nothing but easy or auto mode and the footage is great, and downressed too! I would not mind having one myself. Do have a JVC-JYDH10U, anyone want to trade?

Good Luck----Mike

Looking at the footage from the football game I would say it is the operator not the equipment. Most the shots are overexposed and the lens is kept short for much of the time. In all honesty, you are not using the XL1s in a way that can showcase its abilities.

You say you know all about the settings/etc. but what was your white balance, shutter, etc. etc. on the football shoot? I would have done a warm white balance, used the ND filter (NOT the aperature) to crush the light, shot in 30p, set the gain to -3db, bumped the shutter to 1/250+, turned the set-up level down a couple notches, bumped the color gain a notch and moved the color phase one notch toward green. Then I would have used the lens long and used the great DOF I created with the above settings to control the focus by racking.

The XL series cams are not point and shoot... a DVX or PD170 out of the box will give you a better look. A skilled operator can make the XL cams do things no other cam in the class can replicated. In general, the Canon XL1s was soft and warm while the Sony stuff is cool and sharp.

Having shot a feature doc (brief mention and quote from me in this weeks Entertainment Weekly) in all natural light with an XL1s I can tell you that it performs just fine with low light, just requires some tweaking and creativity.



ash =o)

Thanks for the feedback I sincerely appreciate it. I did have the gain at that level but it would look way too grainy, I don't know how to tweak out the grain-e-ness. I don't have much experience in lower light. In natural light I can get it to look great. I did have an ND filter on it. I shot in frame mode, so if I zoomed in too close and then tried to follow the ball it would get too blurred or choppy. The next game I filmed I didn't have frame mode on and shot at 30i 1.8 1/100 I believe also with the ND filter.

Grainy at -3db??? Hrrmmm... do you have the color saturation way up? You can turn the sharpness down a couple notches to combat grain and you can crush the blacks by turning down the setup level. If you can control the DOF it will help negate the choppiness you talk of. 30P is GREAT for sports! Another low light tip, use a 1/30th shutter in 60i mode...



ash =o)

Thanks a bunch, I shall try some of these suggestions.

want to sell your xl1s?

andrew_m_todd @ hotmail.com

Yeah. . .

I'm gonna have to disagree on the general premise of the first post.

I'm not gonna say it's the greatest cam ever, and there are definitely things (24p and the image controls) I like better about the DVX, but the XL1s is pretty sweet.

Yes, it's a little soft, especially in frame mode. You can always use a custom preset and turn up the sharpness one or two notches.

As for documentary vs. controlled light/movie-style shooting--I've done a fair amount of ENG-style stuff with it, and other than the fact that I use the manual lens which causes me to have to focus manually (autofocus on stock lens DOES blow--I'll easily admit), there's no real issues. Outdoors, I usually use the ND filters (you HAVE to, pretty much--unless the sun's about gone), and the 5600k preset usually does good things, and bumping up the color gain one or two notches looks great on sunny days, and helps on overcast ones.

Indoors/low light - you can go up to +12 dB gain, in my opinion, without it looking too grainy. 18 if you're desperate, and shooting brighter areas helps hide the grain. This camera seems to love warm light, like overhead incandescents and lamps. I shot a birthday party (long story-for a good cause. I swear) a week or two ago, and when I looked at the footage, I was surprised by how nice it looked under the available light. I used the 3200k WB preset, and sometimes had the gain up to 18, but was usually around 6 or 12, depending on the room. Bumping up the shutter to 1/30 will gain you an extra stop (right?) of sensitivity, though motion will look weird (kinda like frame mode), as as well.

For movie stuff -- like she said, all about lighting. Learn to light well, and you can do magic.

If the cam white balances too cool/warm, try a preset, or white balancing on either something slightly blue (to make the image warmer) or slightly orange (to make it cooler).

I will likely not get rid of it for a long time, (one reason being 'cause I bought it as a super-expensive luxury toy, and don't often get paid to use it, and don't make enough film stuff to justify buying one of these new cams), but also 'cause there's no need, really. I got a decent prosumer SD cam here, with a nicely ranged lens for the ENG stuff, and with my filmlook (fake 30p v 24p, but oh well). So, uh yeah.

So Bass hath spoken.

Hey thanks I'll try some of those settings as well. I have been slowly tweaking the settings to get it to look the way I wish. Just takes some time...

Although on the other hand. . .sometimes (mostly, even), it's just about turning the cam on, setting it to manual, white balancing, and setting the exposure appropriately.

help me with a setting for my XL1s
 

wrong thread...... edit... sorry

I agree with Ash
 

Watch some NFL films....they are shooting 16mm, using Arri-S with 400', but there is a reason they are still (to this day) using film cameras, and this is exactly what Ash is trying to coax you with the XL1S....remember, you are shooting outdoors in direct, hard light - you'll have to bring the highlights down - expose for the midtones - use the ND filters to get the aperture wider and shoot longer....yes, it's harder to track, but racking focus and follow-focus techniques are what make the subject jump from the background and keep it a pro look. I have more experience with film cameras than video, but some of the same techniques apply - just a different medium. Also, if you are looking for sharper images, you don't want the look of film anyhow - it will look like a video image. Keep working it..don't give up...There's a reason thousands are shooting with the Canon XL1S - and if you look along the sidelines of any pro football game (and I shot many pro NFL games) most shooters are using Canon....good optics.

bought marcos camera.. just waiting for it in the mail... excellent transaction so far.. i would recommend him to anyone considering ever buying anything from him... unless of course i recieve a box full of bricks...

Here's an example of what I did with an XL1 back in 2000.

Encoding is rather primitive, considering what's available today. But back then we had to accomodate dialup connections.

http://starbulletin.com/2000/04/14/n...ort2_ISDNa.mov

http://starbulletin.com/2000/06/21/news/video.html

http://starbulletin.com/2000/06/30/news/video.html

http://starbulletin.com/2000/11/18/news/video.html

In all the years I worked with an XL1 and XL1s it performed quite nicely under all sorts of conditions.

I have used the XL1S for the past couple months now, I'm not really sure I'm understanding the gripe on here about it's low light performance, I'm almost wondering if it's some of you aren't fully understanding how all the settings work and interacts with each other.

I've used the XL1S for shooting night time fires and other video with low light and honestly the quality is great. I mean if the enviroment were any darker then in some cases I would have been shooting in complete darkness, which in that case you would have to use a night vision lense or something.

Like I said, I don't see what the problem is but if you're honestly having problems you might want to invest in a light kit. Lighting is everything in video. It can make or break the quality of your video.

That's just my .02 cents.

i think the point is this: if you want a good quality picture - light right.. people who shoot on film dont run around in the dark.. they use lights.. people who shoot good quality video dont run around around in the dark.. they use lights .... if you have the $$ to spend on an xl1s then you should spend some $$ on some lights.

That's technically not the point of the post, well what I mean is that's not how this thread started. The origional poster stated how he is about ready to sell his XL1S because he feels it does bad in low light.

In fact he called it completely worthless in low light. I STRONGLY disagree, I have shot at night and in very low light conditions more than I can remember, and in fact I'm getting for this spring to shoot a music video which most of it will be done at night.

I went out and did some test runs to see what kind of setting I wanted to use, I got great results. It seems to me that the person who started this is wanting a camcorder that has crisp, clean video in total darkness. It doesn't work that way.

When I worked in TV we shot on Panasonic DVC Pro's that, in my opinion, did worse in low light than the XL1S and those costed way more than the XL1S did.

You can't just take a camcorder into a dark place and expect clean video, the key to that is good lighting. If you study lights and methods used for lighting then you can achieve the quality you want. It's not a matter of the XL1S sucking, it's the lack of using proper lighting techniques.

The origional posted states how he spent many tireless hours of reding about the settings, but what he should have done was instead spent many tireless hours reading about lighting techniques and how to achieve the looks you want.

With my light kit I can setup lights at night and using gels and filters I can make the area I'm shooting in ook as if it were lighted by a bright full moon and the results are phenomonal. In fact in the upcoming music video I am going to be shooting I will probably use this technique for most of the video.

My advise to the poster is if he hadn't sold his XL1S, don't. It's a great camera! Instead invest in a light kit, some gels and filters and buy some books and read up on lighting.

Once you understand how to use the gels and understand how to balance your camera's colors to achieve the looks you want... you can do anything; day or night.

I've been doing video production for a long time, and the XL1S is a awesome camcorder. Some of the best fire video's I've ever done were with my XL1S and I've shot on Hi8, Beta, and DVC Pro.

I'm not saying that the XL1 is the best out there, yes there are flaws and there are way better camcorders out there. But for the price, it does a helluva job and it is a great camcorder that can and does produce great quality as long as you have control of the enviroment and using proper lighting techniques which you can do anywhere.

I have power source rigged in my vehicle so that I can power my lighting and everything from it when doing stuff in remote locations.

quote:
It's not a matter of the XL1S sucking, it's the lack of using proper lighting techniques.


isnt that what i said??

Nope, you said the point of this thread was that if you want good quality picture, light right.

That wasn't the way the post started, it started by a guy who wanted to ditch his XL1S because he feels it does bad in low light - regardless.

sorry.. i didnt mean the point of the post... i just wanted to comment on the misconception that you can achieve good footage in extremely low light situations without the aid of lights.. i dont know any camera without the aid of nite vision that can. for your footage you'll be shooting at nite for your music video i assume you will be using lights. the footage would obviously look horrible without any source of controllable light.

i am looking forward to getting marco's xl1s in the mail.. it should arrive on wednesday. ill be using it with a letus35 (35mm still lens adapter) which adds more light loss. I'll post my observations on its lowlight capabilities with and without my lighting kit..with the same camera that this post was created

And the results are?
Realize it hasn't been that long. How's the camera working out?

How's that cam working out for you Andrew? Got my VX2100 on Friday and have been testing it like crazy. So far it works much better in low light (for my needs). I have to only play with the settings for a few seconds to get the result I wanted from the XL1s.


Someone mentioned lighting and how I should have spent more time researching that. I did not have the option for lighting in the instances in which I needed low light performance. It wasn't as if I didn't think about it, I just could not use it. I needed the camera to do it, not some flood lights.

That is so cool, Marco!! Good for you. A good match. :)

I'm hoping your comments don't bring any more rebuttals about XL1s settings or lighting. If this thread was a breathing thing we'd have to take it out and shoot it--seems to me it's been beaten nearly to death. ;)

Hope you're liking your new camera, Andrew!

the camera is working great. im using it with the letus which is giving me nice footage. Unfortunately i overthreaded a step down ring so im in the proccess of ordering a new threaded mount for the lens from canon. I dont have any major complaints about low light performance and ive only been shooting with the adapter on which adds more light loss. outside it works amazing without any additional lights and indoors ive been using a a 500w with softbox and it looks great. i shot a local concert the other nite in a very lowlite venue and it came out great using just the stage lights. i was pleased with the sound quality too of the on board mic. I just bought a lcd projector and got a chance last nite to se the footage theatre sized and i was pretty impressed. Ive got it hooked up to my pc for editing.. love it :) I just bought 3 mnore lenses for my adapter which gives me 28mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 2 x 50mm f1.4 and a 135mm f2.8. looking forward to those. the adapter flips the image and the xl1s has an easy fix for framing.. just switch the evf to the right hand side. im reformatting tonite so i should be able to get some footage up soon.
im buying the ma-100 off these boards on friday and look forward to trying out some new shotgun mics

That's one thing I have to say is amazing on the XL1s is that onboard mic! I have recorded some very wonderfully sounding music with it. It picks up everything with little or no distortion.

I wish that I could say the same about the Canon onboard mic...I found it terrible for most shoots - my AT815 shotgun clamped in a Light Waves System and Sony radio mics all connected via XLR to the MA-200, sounds SO much better, and the added positive note is that they do not pick up tape mechanism noise like the Canon mic does.

in a venue with loud music the camera noise isnt an issue :)