XL2 resolution

[Brian Louis]

,[Calum Guthrie] “are my settings wrong, the XL2 is not like other DVs in terms off CCD usage”
The XL2 is a SD camcorder, Although imaging chips is using sq pixels in a widescreen format the video is DSPed to normal SD formats, the formats on tape are 720X480, .89PAR for 4:3, 720X480, 1.2PAR for 16:9, so you should be using standard NTSC presets to reflect this, also you should not be judging the video by what you see on the computer, but by the video shown on a external video monitor

[Vince Becquiot]

For direct to disc, you can’t go wrong with Adobe on Location. I would look at HP laptop with dual hard disks, dual lamp display.

Vince Becquiot

Kaptis Studios
San Francisco – Bay Area

[Malcolm Neakl]

Well, mines a Euro one so Pal then? If I was recording direct from to disk, could I use its natural resolution, or will it still be Pal 16:9 res?

And whats the best format to render in do we think? YUV uncompressed 8bit or video for windows uncompressed?

sto pro veritate

[Brian Louis]

[Calum Guthrie] “If I was recording direct from to disk, could I use its natural resolution, or will it still be Pal 16:9 res?”
Going direct to disk from the XL2 via firewire results in the same format as on tape (720X576) with the appropriate PAR for the format, its convenient as you don’t have to capture a tape but you wouldn’t have a archive, the analog outputs may give a bit better color as they are usually before quantization but you would have to convert it to a format that could use the information like SD-SDI and have the appropriate codec(10bit) and capture hardware.

[Malcolm Neakl]

What would be the point in Canon popping in a 960 wide CCD?
Basically am I to understand the image recorded live from firewire is the exact same image quality as recorded DV tape. That though the CCD is 960×576, any output I use will have converted those pixels information to 720×576?
(nit picking really since I never watch my stuff on any size larger than a youtube video at the moment)
Is the reason for this line effect, then, because I’m looking at my work on an LCD screen?
So for example a straight edge of a table is nice, turn it a bit and it becomes two straight edges, seperated by one pixel depth. (like an etch-a-sketh.)

sto pro veritate

[Brian Louis]

[Calum Guthrie] “What would be the point in Canon popping in a 960 wide CCD”
Most of the other prosummer cam were using chips with natural 4:3 chips that were cropped and DSPed to wide screen, using native wide screen chips resulted in bit higher resolutions and a bit better color rendition, and full vertical resolution plus the publicity value

[Calum Guthrie] “That though the CCD is 960×576, any output I use will have converted those pixels information to 720×576?”
Thats whats been said

[Malcolm Neakl]

Cheers for all the replies Brian its been usefull.

After much deliberation Ive noticed this.
The raw file is 720×576 (either recorded on tape or direct to disc both the same res and the same 25mbs) but it looks like (when I view it on nero showtime) it has recorded black bars. I thought this was a feature that only inherent 4:3 cameras needed to do.

This is what I’ve just discovered through practice.
To view it correctly on premier I have to use 720 1.422 or perhaps 1024 1.0. But for rendering time purposes I just use 720.
However trying to export using those settings (720 1.422) my video gets squashed. Any variation of 720 PAR or height, results in poor picture quality. only when I export in 1024×576 1.0 do I see a similar quality to the raw file.

What settings do I need to be exporting in to get my image as perfect as my raw file?

sto pro veritate