Announcement

**Chet** · 13 December 1999, 15:09

Carter
I agree with everything you said about adequete lighting being a must. My partner and I always tell clients that camera's need light and if they turn the room lights down it will be a problem for us but they do it anyway so we bring our own camera mounted lights. One thing you said makes me realize that I have another test to do. You said that you were tethered to a monitor and saw good definition and color but I said I was looking through the xl1 view finder and saw only dark shadows. It could be that the view finder isn't giving a good representation of the camera output in low light. At events we also use a sony 910 camcorder and even in low light you can see what your shooting through the view finder. It just goes to show that you can still get some good work from the older less expensive equipment. Thanks for the info.

Chet

**This_Idiot** · 13 December 1999, 15:33

Guys,

I think that this is a lesson that very few folks have learned. With modern cams it's so easy to get suckered in to what the viewfinder is showing that you don't discern what might cause problems later. I invested in a 5" TV from Radioshack which is fine as a lightweight TV monitor and not too expensive. recently I snapped some video for some friends in a band. The lighting (typically) was great for RockNroll, crap for video and I was using a Panasonic SVHS-C with a mono viewfinder. The poor thing didn't know where to focus, but with the external TV, a tripod and some guesswork I at least managed to get some footage.

Shame that the damned cam ate the SVHS tape !

**CarterTG** · 13 December 1999, 16:04

Yup Chris, that was the other thing that needed mentioning... with entry-level consumers going ga-ga over color LCD viewfinders, the intermediate amateurs find themselves in a market where every camera now has one whether it's wanted or not. For stationary shots, a CRT monitor is a must.

I received my XL1 not long before a big shoot and didn't have enough time to test it. I devoted most of the available time getting familiar with the camera. After the (mostly outdoors) shoot, I noticed that a small bit of the footage was way overexposed. I came to the realization that the viewfinder was set at the factory to be a smidge on the dark side. This was likely causing me to overcrank the iris when in the field. I've since re-adjusted the viewfinder brightness through the covered dial underneath the eyepiece. There's not a whole lot of travel in that dial, but what's there should be adequate enough. For shooting situations where lugging a CRT isn't practical, relying on a better-adjusted viewfinder becomes critical.

Chet
One final thing to note is that your actual eye position within the viewfinder makes a difference in the image you see. Like all LCD screens, the perceived brightness of the image can actually change depending on how high or low the eye is in relation to the plane of the screen.

It'll be interesting to see when Canon finally rolls out their new <A HREF="http://www.canondv.com/xl1/accessory/accessory_new.html">accessory XL1 viewfinder</A> and see how much improvement it gives for the steep (even for Canon) MSRP

------------------
Carter
------
Abit BH6 v1.02 ATX motherboard
Celeron 433mhz Slot1
128mb PC100 SDRAM
[C:] IBM 10.1gig 7200rpm UDMA33
[D:] IBM 10.1gig 7200rpm UDMA33
[E:] FastTrak66 RAIDed 2x13.5 7200rpm UDMA66
[F:] 24x CD-ROM
[G:] SanDisk USB CompactFlash reader
Matrox Marvel G200 TV AGP
Canopus DVRaptor PCI
SBLive Value PCI
DLink Ethernet PCI
SupraExpress 56k USB
Win98, MSP 5.2
Canon L2
Canon XL1

**Elie** · 13 December 1999, 17:11

Hi Guys,

Very interesting thread, with a few suggestions to Chet..

Regarding weight balancing, I bought the dual battery charger holder which I attached to the MA-100, the cost $250 Can. Now I can have 2 batteries feeding the XL1 increasing the shooting time and giving me better weight distribution (also made the camera allot heavier with 2 batteries).

What you might want to do is buy yourself a 2-3" LCD monitor and attach it somehow to the XL1 that way you don't depend entirely on the VF but rather the LCD monitor which will provide a better picture resolution and the brightness needed for a better shoot.
Casio has some available I believe and so does Sony.

For me it never ends I gotta keep buying stuff for my Cam, the next big thing is wireless microphones, I heard Sony hase some good quality 900 mhz for $200 Can. any suggestions?

I have a quick question regarding pixelation on the XL1..
When I shoot lets say an hour video, on playback I notice sometimes (this may happen once per tape) that the whole picture gets pixelated for about 10 frames and then everything ok. Sometimes I get a loud beep for no reason.

Does it have to do with the quality of the tapes one uses, I mainly buy Panasonic ME60 and only use the tape once. any comments?

I took the camera in to Canon for a full diagnostic and they said everything checked out ok Hmmm...

Regards,
Elie

[This message has been edited by Elie (edited 14 December 1999).]

**CarterTG** · 13 December 1999, 17:31

While I'm in the throes of editing a 10-tape production with the new setup, I quite honestly haven't had time to take the XL1 through its low-light performance paces... but then I always go with the precept that there's never a substitute for adequate lighting.

Just for kicks I did an impromptu evaluation of how the XL1 stacks against my ol' L2 in a room with a 300watt torchiere lamp. The dimmer dial was only cranked up ¼ of the way, but I don't think that equates to a 75watt incandescent as I've seen 75watt bulbs provide far more light than this. Tethered to the S-video of a 27" Trinitron, the XL1 with 3x WA was able to provide admirable detail of most dim objects. As expected, shadow detail I could still see with the eye was lost in black with the XL1... but I don't expect any camcorder in this range to do appreciably better. One thing of note though is that despite the dimness, colors still came through in an accurate way and with a surprising amount of sharpness. There wasn't any noticeable graininess that I could discern... and the image certainly didn't look "almost dark" as you describe. I always have the camera set on Manual with a thumb on the iris wheel.

When the single-CCD L2 (with 3x WA) had it's turn, it also rendered dark shadows the same way the XL1 did. In the dim light, color saturation suffered as the L2's image looked more black and white. Overall brightness of the TV image was roughly equal. No matter how much finesse I levied on the focus ring, the same sharp edges weren't quite there. Where I could read small print with the XL1, the L2 could only show that the words existed. Despite that, kudos had to be given to the aging L2 for keeping control of graininess. Years ago when I had another Hi8 single-CCD camera pitted against the L2, a similar test yielded an ungodly amount of large grain noise (red/blue/green specks) in the lesser unit. I attribute that to the L2's 410k pixel CCD versus 270k for most other Hi8 units.

So an XL1 doesn't exactly clobber an L2 in low-light performance. Should that be a surprise? No. When 3CCD cameras started trickling down to the masses (Sony VX1) it wasn't surprising to realize why their low-light performance wasn't exceptional. Given only so much light, the 3CCD units have to split the available light to each sensor. The XL1's saving grace is that it uses Pixel-Shift to provide the best of both worlds... an effective 410k pixel sharpness and larger pixels for better low light sensitivity.

Despite all the mumbo-jumbo on the camera side, the excercise of shooting in a dim room only points to two solutions... you either have control of the room light or you don't. If you were hired to shoot a dim dance room, I don't think it would be out of line to ask that they bring up the dimmer a bit so you can capture a better shot. After all, the client would ultimately benefit from granting your wish. If that isn't feasable, then the 2nd option would be to use a camera light. Under most circumstances I would say that using a 10-20watt light is better than none at all... but if you're in a dark dance room where the subjects might be quite a ways away from you, 20watts won't help much. You can crank up your selection of on-camera light power, but at some point you risk capturing subjects that have a white-hot glare-look and/or a spotlight look as the light falls off at the edges of the frame. The appropriate alternative to this would be to flank your stationary camera with a pair of 300w clip-on halogen worklights diffused by a thickish tracing velum hanging in front. In certain cases, this would be as obtrusive as asking the client to turn up the room lights... but it's far preferable to pushing any camera to its low-light limits.

Much of the above presumes you are asked to capture an event.. but if you are in charge of creating a production, then the goal of simulating a dim dance room would probably be best done by staging plenty of lighting and crank down the settings in the camera.

HTH

------------------
Carter
------
Abit BH6 v1.02 ATX motherboard
Celeron 433mhz Slot1
128mb PC100 SDRAM
[C:] IBM 10.1gig 7200rpm UDMA33
[D:] IBM 10.1gig 7200rpm UDMA33
[E:] FastTrak66 RAIDed 2x13.5 7200rpm UDMA66
[F:] 24x CD-ROM
[G:] SanDisk USB CompactFlash reader
Matrox Marvel G200 TV AGP
Canopus DVRaptor PCI
SBLive Value PCI
DLink Ethernet PCI
SupraExpress 56k USB
Win98, MSP 5.2
Canon L2
Canon XL1

**Chet** · 13 December 1999, 18:44

Carter
I think you gave me the answer I was looking for. I figured there was some adjustment for the view finder when in your last post you said the video on a monitor didn't look bad. I'll go and find the adjustment. Thanks

Chris
We've had one of those radio shack 5" monitors for about 3 weeks and I made a bracket for it so it sits right on top of the camera and it works good for studio work but I'm hoping I can brighten up the view finder so I can see in low light at these event things we seem to be doing more often. I wish we did more studio work. I appreciate the suggestion. I can't take the credit for buying the little monitor. My partner bought it for his father for Christmas and it wound up on the xl1. He bought his father another.

Elie
We have a Sampson UM1 wireless receiver on the xl1. It works really well. We've got a hand held and a lath mike for it and we're very happy with it. I haven't tried the dual battery pack but I'll bet it does help the balance alot. For me it's a tripod or a unipod for this camera in the future. The weight disapears. With the extension plate for the unipod it gets it away from the body to make it usable. If you ever decide to use the unipod, I'd recommend the slik with the spring loaded top section. There's a toggle that allows you to raise and lower the unipod about 6 or 8 inches which allows for flexiblity in tipping the camera to get the shot. Without the spring loaded section the unipod is a straight stick that is either too long or too short and not quickly adjustable.

Thanks for your replies. As usual I got some good information from this group. I check the posts on the group every few days and my editing on the Marvel G200 is getting better. I print out alot of info and keep a note book.

Chet

**Chet** · 14 December 1999, 18:57

Carter
Thanks again for the info on the brightness control under the view finder. Your right that there isn't much adjustment but it is better and maybe it's enough. I still plan on using our lights for some extended periods even in the dance shots but I use a camera mounted light and drag around a couple of motorcyle batteries in a small rolling suitcase but even they don't last forever so your posts gave good info about the viewfinder and cameras in general.

Chris and Elie, thanks for your info as well. With another problem solved and I'm back into listening mode for a while.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Chet

**Elie** · 14 December 1999, 21:19

And a Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to you too.
I guess were all here to exchange information and help each other out right

Regards,
Elie

Announcement

Cannon XL1 / Elie / Carter

Cannon XL1 / Elie / Carter

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment