That is helpful of you, Dan, thank you.

Wee Han, Thanks for suggestion on the Cannon or Nikon filters, of course it is no offence - this forum is here so that members can make suggestions

Brendan, These diopters (closeup) filters would be of no use in your bird photography. I am waiting to see the results of your new Steady-Stick.

Bob

Thanks Bob!

Brendan,

The closeup diopters (or closeup filters) are useful when you do not want to bring along a macro lens or do not have a dedicated macro lens to work with. They work by reducing your focusing distance to a fixed distance (the Canon 500D will be 50cm) and you vary the mag rate of the subject with your zoom lens.

The weight is less than a pound and is about double the thickness of your normal UV filter.

The cost for the 77mm 500D is 139.95 (from B&H).

If you dwell into occasional macro and cant justify getting a dedicated macro lens, this is the one accessory you should use with the stock lens.

Cheers

WeeHan

Thank you WeeHan. I only use macro 180mm fixed Sigma for flowers with Digital Rebel

It does look like nobody is using XHA1 for bird flight; nobody is being specific about the extra sharpness or improved image quality that can be achieved when shooting bird flight with any HD cam. Perhaps there isn't any advantage.

Perhaps i should be grateful that XM2 (GL2) has optical x20 and continue to practice and sharpen skills; read my XM2 Manual for the first time to learn how to tweak away from all the default settings I've been using all along; change from 4:3 to 16:9 before I'm arrested for being an antediluvian nuisance ...

Dear Brendan,

As a former owner of an XL1s and a user of a GL1, I can positively state that there is a tremendous difference between using an XM2 and an XL H1 or XH A1.

When I bought my XL H1, I kept my XL1s for a while. My (foolish) plan was to use the XL1s as a second camera. I soon saw how great the XL H1 was and how much an improvement it was. I never used the XL1s again, so I sold it.

Even if you are going to produce a SD DVD, the XL H1 is dramatically better (as is the XH A1 and XH G1).

It would be my recommendation that you shot in HD. If you don't, then your footage will be less useful in the future.

Now for specific points to show how the Canon XL H1 and XH A1 and XH G1 are better than the XM2.

1. You have much more control over your image.

With the XM2, GL1, GL2, XL1 and XL1s, you control the image overall by setting the aperture and shutter speed.

With the XL2, XL H1 and XH A1 and XH G1, you have specific image settings. One example is the "Knee" settings.

"Knee" can be used to compensate (somewhat) for a bright sky that would normally be blown out and featureless.

If you set the "Knee" to low, then the camera will tone down the brightest areas of your image. Imagine a person's face backlit by a bright sky. With the low "Knee" setting you can brighten up the person’s face without blowing out the sky.

This is just one of numerous settings that you can use to customize your image to your specific needs.

While these settings may seem complicated at first, there are numerous "Custom Presets" available for the cameras. Also, with a little reading (and use of DVInfo.Net) you can become familiar with the purpose of these settings and then use them to your example.

2. The standard XL H1 lens is better, much better. The well reviewed 6x wide-angle zoom is also available.

3. Other features, such as auto focus, are better.

4. Other features are present on the new cameras, such as zoom preset.

Imagine you see an empty nest. You could set the zoom preset to the nest, or set the focus preset, your choice. Then, while you are filming something else, you notice a bird about to land in the nest. You could then just press the zoom-preset button to immediately zoom to your preset zoom setting. Of course this is just a hypothetical example, but these new features are actually useful.

I realize that the XL H1 is expensive (and infinitely more expensive than not buying a new camera).

downside of less resolution
 

This is very timely, Dan.

I was about to give up if nobody came back with a firm opinion about the working advantages of XHA1 et al. You had told me about the benefits of the extra resolution in post but that was not quite enough to swing it for me.

On the scope for improving in post would you please address these specific questions:

Here is a link to some bird flight footage: http://www.birdcinema.com/view_video...fec5da1b71d36c

When you have spare time please have a look at this compressed collection of bits edited out of one clip. Having cut up the bits to eliminate the worst portions I stretched the remainder. Doesn't that mean that I have asked the surviving frames/pixels to spread themselves over longer timeframe and that I have thereby reduced the image quality of the footage? Is this another reason for having at my disposal the extra resolution of the XHA1? I should be able to prove this for myself but I don't view my stuff, original or otherwise, on my telly. Do you use an independent monitor to test out your image quality before and after post?

Thank you for staying around this thread.

Dear Brendan,

I will watch your footage as soon as possible.

Before then, here are some answers:

By "Streching", I assume you mean that the timeframe has been modified, so that the effect is some degree of slow motion, in other words, the resulting footage takes longer than originally shot. For example, 10 seconds of footage streched to 15 seconds.

If the above is correct, then the resolution (number of pixels in each frame) has not changed.

When I edit, I use Vegas 7.0, but the same applies to Vegas 6.0. I view the footage on my monitors which I have calibrated (to the best of my ability) using SMPTE Color Bars.

When I used to edit SD footage, I used the firewire output of my computer, connected to a Canon Camera (XL1s in my case, at that time), connected to a Sony SD Field Monitor.

Now that I edit HDV footage, my monitoring setup is not up to professional standards. I intend on purchasing a high quality HD monitor in the future.

So, currently I still use some very good Sony HS94P 19" LCD's (which I have calibrated to the color bars). My experience is that when I burn a DVD and then play it on a very low end Sanyo 30" HD CRT set, the footage appears fine. I have not had any problems with color or anything else.

A proper, professional HD monitoring setup would be far superior for critical work. For

I, of course, monitor my footage while recording. When practical, I use a Sony 9" SD Field Monitor. I am in dire need of a professional HD Field Monitor. However, the SD Field Monitor is useful as it is easier to catch problems in the image on the Field Monitor than it is on the XL H1 viewfinder.

I capture the footage using Vegas, monitoring the progress on the computer monitors, then edit the footage, again using computer monitors.

I do not know why you never watch your footage on the telly. You can calibrate you monitor, if you can generate proper color bars. If you can not generate the color bars, you may find that they are broadcast at certain times, or you could use a DVD with color bars.

I will start watching your footage now.

Dear Brendan,

I watched your footage.

I noticed that there were double images of the bird in certain frames. I feel that this was probably due to the way that the footage was shot, in combination with the technique to "strech" it (to create slow motion).

If you know that you will be creating slow motion from your footage, I recommend a shutter speed of 1/120th or 1/100th instead of the usual 1/60th.

Also, their may be other reasons why the footage has double images. If the original footage does not have double images, then there is hope that reasonable slow motion footage can be created in post.

In general, I liked the footage, but the double image is distracting.

You're right on both counts, Dan.

There were double images in the original ... all my own work, by hand, of course ... the closer the Egyptian Vulture came to being vertically overhead, the more I was shaking. I was going to make the excuse that there was not a wall or a stake to lean against within a mile of me; then I remembered that the car was 10 feet away ...

Back in 2006 I had no awareness of frame rate possibilities. Everything was shot @ 1/50 (default). Now thanks to a few generous DVInfo members like yourself I know all about frame rates ... go on, ask me, ask me where the button is on XM2 to enable me change the frame rate; I found it, yes, I did, eventually, today. So this would be a good time to ask, while it's fresh in my mind ...