Does the canon XL1 have true 16:9 screen ratio. I know the XL2 has it, but
was wondering if the XL1 had it.

Leo

"leo" <dusty-roads@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:McDed.5948$5i5.2812@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
Not sure exactly what you mean ...

In a nutshell, its 16:9 image is placed on a lesser number of CCD pixels
than its 4:3 image. That is because it has native 4:3 CCD's, not 16:9.
You will lose resolution compared to the XL1's 4:3 image, approximately
back around S-VHS "quality".

It reputedly then encodes those lesser number of pixels over the entire
bandwidth available, giving a theoretically slightly better performance
than similar class cameras *in the encoding* process.

Regards,
Hughy

Maybe I did not make myself clear or do not know how to put it. I think
that a NONE true 16:9 ratio is stretched to make it that way, and a True
16:9 is not stretched at all and all the pixels are used. I was wondering
if the XL-1 which is cheap will produce a True widescreen


"Harry Kiri" <completelyfalse@harrykiri.com> wrote in message
news:417c4017$0$13762$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"leo" <dusty-roads@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aKZed.7955$ta5.4241@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...

"Stretching" is often done using an anamorphic lens, when the 16:9 image
is stretched vertically to fill a 4:3 frame "in camera". The result is
then "contracted" back to it's original 16:9 aspect ratio in the edit
suite. This helps to overcome the limitations of 4:3 cameras by using
all the pixels on the 4:3 CCD, so the resolution is largely unaffected.
However the image seen in the viewfinder will be distorted by vertical
stretching during the shoot.

Regards,
Hughy

I just ordered the XL2, I hope this is not an issue with this camera

"Harry Kiri" <completelyfalse@harrykiri.com> wrote in message
news:417c970e$0$13767$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

"leo" <dusty-roads@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qkifd.8710$ta5.1708@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...

I think the XL2 is native 16:9. If so, you won't have any of the issues
I've described.

However ... I don't accurately recall the XL2 specs, but I suspect that
in 16:9 mode you might not get the same incredibly good image
stabiliser, which was about the only saving grace for us with the 2
XL1's we originally had (and we still have and regularly use one of
them).

I can't be sure, but I seem to recall that on the XL2 16:9 CCD's, there
are no extra pixels outside the image area. If so, then electronic
stabilisation could not be "added on" to supplement the optical prism -
the combined method approach is how the XL1 series stabiliser came to be
the best in the business at this price level (possibly at any price
level?) Time will tell if the XL2 is as good in this respect, I
suppose.

We wouldn't buy another XL series camera, mainly because Canon couldn't,
or maybe wouldn't, fix the issues with the first XL-1 lens, which we
live with to this day, notwithstanding Canons many attempts to fix both
our XL1 cams. That was more than enough for us to walk away.

However to be fair, Sony didn't do too well in retro fixing problems
with their cameras either, what with the DSR-250 and PD-150 and shutter
speed issue (or was it gain, I can't remember the exact problem), when
manual control was selected. And also the noisy silicon in the audio
preamps of the VX and PD-150 didn't impress me much, either, even though
a work around was developed. Having said that, IMHO Canon's behaviour
with the XL1 problems was far worse, their first lens was (and still
is), comparatively speaking, a shocker and should have been replaced at
no charge to the customer. That is all now history, of course. With any
luck, Canon have learned a lesson from it.

Wishing you good luck with your XL2,

Regards,
Hughy.

Harry Kiri wrote:

Guys, instead of saying "I think" or "maybe" or "I'm not sure but...", go to
Chris Hurd's excellent XL2 site at http://www.dvinfo.net/canonxl2/index.php
and get the truth from hands-on users.

Mike

Always like to hear from the horses mouth, and thanks for the info. I own a
PD-150 too and I always wanted a Canon XL camera, since I see most people in
the higher echelon of the business using them. I also believe that Sony is
better at correcting bugs in camera and stuff, but not glad to hear about
Canon participation in correcting faults. I had to jump into this deal that
I got with the XL2, or else I would not have bought one.

Leo


"Harry Kiri" <completelyfalse@harrykiri.com> wrote in message
news:417dc604$0$13755$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Great information, you have on your web site. Do you own a XL2 ?


"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2u61uiF26lna0U1@uni-berlin.de...

You have a very informative web page on the XL2 and before. I did not find
or maybe did not look good enough on information on what happens after you
do the video. How does the 16:9 video act on regular TV's that do not have
the 16:9 option. Can a Video shot in 16:9 format show in letter box on a
regular old tv?

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2u61uiF26lna0U1@uni-berlin.de...

"leo" <dusty-roads@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:znxfd.8394$5i5.2190@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...

A true 16:9 image will expand to fill the entire height of a non 16:9 TV
receiver. The image will therefore be distorted on 4:3 TV receivers.

When a *letterboxed* 16:9 image is viewed on a 4:3 TV receiver, it is
designed to appear with a black border above and below the image.

The portion of the screen area which contains the moving image will have
the correct 16:9 aspect ratio so will *not* look distorted. The reality
is that a "letterboxed" video is actually a 4:3 aspect ratio signal i.e.
the two black bars plus the 16:9 aspect ratio image in the middle, form
a 4:3 aspect ratio picture.

The watchdog is a very informative website, as you say. As it stands,
the Watchdog description of the CCD layout indicates there are no
**extra** pixels on the sides of the CCD that would support EIS
(electronic image stabilisation). So my previous comments on XL2
stabilisation are probably near to the mark. Time will tell, of course.

Regards,
Hughy