                 
|
director of photography, peter gray, dp, cinematography, dop, cinematographers, lighting cameraman, videographers, dv, high definition, 24p, digital films, HDW-F900, CineAlta, Varicam, AJ-HDC27F, 70mm, independent films, lighting directors, filmmakers, filmmaking, HDW-700ACanon XL1 - Tips and Tricks (1999)
If you are about to embark on a DV production, or you are just interested in the ins and outs of the DV format in general, then you will probably find this discussion useful. Not only is there lots of general info about the DV format, but there is also a lot of specifics too. In particular, I describe the many quirks of the Canon XL-1 camcorder based on hands-on experience in drama production. I shot a feature "film" in L.A. (a thriller called "SEE DICK DIE") in the DV format, using the Canon XL-1 camera. The producers plan to blow it up to 35mm film for release (hopefully?). Suddenly, shooting in DV is becoming all the rage these days, and there are now scores and scores of low-budget projects going this route. It is really mushrooming at an amazing rate. DV and it variants, namely DVCAM and DVCPRO, will give you the same sort of image quality as traditional Betacam SP, but with all the advantages of digital. Some say it is better ........ but it is pretty close in terms of quality. The things is that you can buy DV gear for one-twentieth the price (or less) compared to the equivalent type of Betacam SP equipment. So that is the basis for all the excitement about this new format. I guess the Canon XL-1 is one of the more popular mini-DV camcorders used for shooting DV projects, but it certainly not the only camera option ..... and newer (sometimes better?) options are arriving on the scene all the time. The DV format has quickly lead to a rapidly expanding and very volatile market, without a doubt. A lot of people are interested in the Canon XL-1 for its interchangeable lens capability that we hear soooooo much about. For example, the Canon EF series still-camera lenses, can be used on the Canon XL-1 with an adapter ring. BUT, there is a fundamental problem (if "problem" is the right word to describe this?) with this particular feature, that I will now elaborate on. Interchangeable Lenses on DV:Because those EF lenses are normally designed to cover the image area of a 35mm still frame, this means the effective focal length of those same Canon EF lenses are very different when mounted on the Canon XL-1, which has a very much smaller target image area i.e. the size of the CCD chip (1/3"). The conversion factor is 7.2 times ..... meaning the effective focal length of the EF lenses is multiplied by 7.2 times. So for example, the 300mm still-camera lens is the equivalent of a 2160mm on the XL-1. This is much too long to have much practical use on a drama or documentary production. If anything, you need to extend the wide end of the range. So lets consider a fairly wide EF still-camera lens, say an 18mm ...... when mounted on the XL-1, this is the equivalent of almost a 130mm lens! So all the EF series lenses, when mounted on the XL-1, don't fall into a very useful range for drama and documentary production (wildlife videography, maybe). Also the necessary EF adapter ring costs about US $500, so all in all, a lot of money for very little gain. It might be different if you happen to own some EF lenses already, but I think a waste of money, if you go out and buy them especially for the Canon XL-1 camcorder, in my opinion. However, forgetting the focal length issue for a moment, these lenses do have an advantage, which is also a disadvantage at the same time. The advantage is that they have a manual focusing ring, so in theory, pulling focus is possible with these lenses. You absolutely can not pull focus with the original lenses supplied with the XL-1 package by Canon. (I'll talk more about this problem in a moment.) So while manual focusing is possible with the EF series lenses, the focusing ring has a rather short throw (like all still camera lenses), so this means that marking suitable focus points on such a lens is not practical for small adjustments of focus (which tends to be the normal case when shooting drama). To put it another way, if I had some very wide EF lenses in my kit, I might use them very occasionally (and probably to get around a focus-pulling problem more than anything else). I shot the feature film here in L.A. with Canon's supplied 16 times zoom lens, 5.5mm to 88mm (f/1.6 - 2.6). I found it O.K., however, I found it difficult to keep in focus, but I don't think this was a fault with the lens itself (but rather the whole camera system). Canon also have an optional 3 times, 3.4mm to 10.2mm zoom lens, and this lens could be valuable on a production i.e. shooting in very tight spaces like car shots, for example. So being able to change between these two lenses could be an advantage ...... if you own them, can hire them, or beg, borrow, or steal them. The OpTex Alternative:There is another lens option designed to fit the Canon XL-1 camcorder. It is a zoom lens made by an English company called OPTEX. I saw saw this lens at ShowBiz Expo ...... and I imagine it would be ideal for drama work on the XL-1. It looks and works just like any regular (mechanical) lens used in normal cinematography. Most importantly, you can pull focus with this lens ...... making it worth its weight in gold in my opinion (I'll explain this in a lot more detail a little later on). I don't know if the lens is only for sale, or also for hire as well? In the U.S., I believe OPTEX has their main outlet in New Jersey. You can find out more on http://www.optexint.com and click on "Digital Video Products" or e-mail: info@optexint.com The OpTex XLPRO Manual Zoom Lens is fully manual lens as the name suggests, and can hold focus throughout its range. It is fully capable of throwing focus between two points (i.e. rack focusing or focus pulling .... like I say, more about this topic in just a moment). The XLPRO Manual Zoom Lens has a maximum aperture of f1.4, and a 14-times zoom range going from 5.5mm to 77mm. It has a minimum objective distance of 1 meter (3.3 feet approx), which means this is the minimum distance you can focus the lens. And it also has a macro facility for extreme close-up shooting. Overall, the lens seems to be fairly good to me (..... but I say this without actually using it myself). The OpTex lens retails for $1750, by the way (but so far, I haven't been able to find anybody renting it in the L.A. area, which is where I happen to be based). Up until recently, the lens interchangeability feature of the XL-1 has been a bit of a farce really, but happily that is changing! Since writing this, Canon themselves have brought out a fully manual lens system for the XL-1. I haven't used this lens myself, but I sure do like the sound of it. Canon 16-times Manual Servo Zoom Lens featuring manual focus, manual or power zoom, auto or manual iris. Focal-length range is 5.4mm to 86.4 mm (16x). Speed is F1.6 Filter Diamerter is 72mm.
Rack Focus or Pulling Focus:All the lenses on the low-to-medium-priced DV and DVCAM-format camera are incapable of "pulling focus" (with the exception of the XL-1 with either of the lens systems described above). Focus pulling is a standard technique used in all drama production (i.e. the job of the so called, Focus Puller). This means that when your actors approach the camera, or the camera approaches them (i.e. a dolly in .... or out) with anything other than a very wide lens, then the corresponding focus adjustment can not be made. The Focus Puller normally marks the various positions of the actor/s on the lens barrel, and pulls between these points as the actor/s move within the shot. This can be highly pre-arranged with extreme precision with so called "marks", or can be more open and spontaneous to varying degrees. The skill of the Focus Puller is to do with anticipation, timing and speed of the adjustments themselves (takes a lot of practice to do it very well). Anyway, none of these "cheaper" DV camera can do this, because the lenses are "electrical" or servo controlled, rather than mechanical. So the implication is that you have to learn to shoot without focus pulls whatsoever (especially a problem with drama production!!!). I had to do this on the DV feature I shot. It impacts your storyboard and the types of shot that are possible. Basically, you have to work around this limitation ...... which means using much wider shots in general, and avoiding to-and-from actor/camera movements. So clearly, this impacts shooting style and "production value" to some extent! Digital to Film Conversions:Do you need to blow up to 35mm film for release? Unfortunately, I don't think the Canon XL-1 is the best choice in this respect. This is because it has significantly fewer pixels than other camcorders. But Canon makes up for this by using something called "pixel shift" technology. By offsetting the green CCD in relation to the red and blue CCD's, they can get an image on a monitor that looks just as good as the Sony camcorders (which have more pixels). But note the reference to "on a monitor". It is a different story when you blow up to film (or at least I think so). I think you will loose resolution when you blow up to film. So the image will look softer looking when projected on a big screen. But maybe it is still good enough ....... you need to do a test and see for yourself. The result might be good enough for you, if you really like this camera. Just keep in mind that the difference between cameras in a similar price group, can be relatively subtle. The choice of lab can be just as important (or much more important) than the choice of camera model. DV blows up remarkably well to 35mm film, considering the equipment is relatively inexpensive. But all the artifacts also "blow up" (i.e. are greatly magnified) on film, so you need good, clean, well-shot source material. As you may know, it is also expensive (about US$700 and upwards per minute) to convert digital formats like DV to 35mm film (optimistically, that's about 90 x700 = $60,000 plus for a feature). This means that there is a good chance that you can find a way to shoot directly on film for the same budget (or perhaps cheaper with large doses of sponsorship), compared to shooting digital. Be careful, as DV can be a false economy if you need to end up with a film print in the end. But if you only need to release on tape, then DV makes perfect sense. There is one lab that I'm familiar with, Swiss Effects (Patrick Lindenmaier) that converts a lot of DV to film. They have found from experience, that the Sony VX-1000 camera gives a better result converting to film for three reasons. Firstly, the general camera head, or image recording technology, is better in the Sony VX-1000 compared to the Canon XL-1 (the Canon XL-1 has less pixel resolution, and as metioned above, uses pixel-shift technology to compensate for this). Secondly, Sony allows control over the sharpness of the image, whereas Canon doesn't ....... so shooting with a lower sharpness setting improves the quality of the conversion to film. And the Sony camera has a devise called Dynamic Contrast Control or DCC (which is permanently turned on) that helps the image a lot, and Canon doesn't have this feature. The Canon XL-1 does however, have a better quality lens than the Sony VX-1000, and this does make up the gap to some extent. And the Canon XL-1 is a significantly more user friendly camera compared to the Sony VX-1000 (as the latter is particularly hard to focus with its sub-standard viewfinder). If you are staying on tape, the quality from either camera is quite good (more or less Betacam SP quality), and there is not a lot of apparent difference between them. But the differences are more apparent when converting the digital to a film format like 16mm or 35mm. This is because the overall image is magnified greatly on a cinema screen, the imperfections (i.e. digital "artifacts") become much more noticeable. To me, the ability to turn off Image Enhancement (Detail Level) is a much more important than overall resolution of the camera for conversion to film. You have NO control of Image Enhancement (Detail Level) with the early models of the Canon XL-1. What's this? Well, this is "trick" the camera uses (in fact, most video cameras use it). It draws artificial lines around things in the image, to make them appear sharper on TV monitors. But these "outlines" look terrible on a 40 or 50 foot cinema screen. I believe the later model of this camcorder, the Canon XL1s, allows the user to adjust the degree of image enancement (they call it "sharpness") in 6 steps, plus or minus. This feature is a great improvement. Bottom line if considering a "blow up" to film. You need to choose a lab and shoot some tests. Everything I'm saying above is pretty abstract until you see it with your own eyes. The choice of lab is critical to this process. I'd even start with the lab before choosing the precise camcorder model. Shooting "PAL" rather than "NTSC":There is a lot of interest in the U.S. for PAL-system cameras (rather than NTSC-system cameras) in the DV format. The reason is that PAL blows up much better to 35mm film. This is because there is no conversion of frame rate going to film (this conversion produces artifacts in NTSC, especially where rapid movement is involved). In addition, PAL has about 20% greater image resolution (more lines) as well. I believe most NLE (Non-Linear Editing Systems) handle PAL-DV just the same as NTSC-DV i.e. without any modification, or extra features etc. ...... so the editing process is not really effected (maybe some minor factors, perhaps?). I know a production here in L.A. that recently bought a PAL camera for use in America, the Sony DSR-PD100. But they couldn't purchase it here in the U.S., and ended up buying it in London for US$3500. The same camera in America, but the N.T.S.C. version, cost about US$2700, by comparison. By the way, this camcorder has been superceded by a newer, slightly improved model, the Sony DSR-PD100A selling for around US3600 in the PAL system. Either model of this particular camera is a possible alternative to the popular Canon XL-1. It has several advantages over the Canon XL-1. (1). The Sony DSR-PD100 is cheaper than the Canon XL-1 (2) The Sony camera is a DVCAM format camera, which is a slightly more professional variant of the mini-DV system (yet fully compatible with DV in almost every respect). DVCAM is a more robust system with a higher tape speed, and "locked" rather than "floating" sound. I understand that it also has a better (more professional) timecode system??? (3) The Sony camera has both a standard viewfinder and a flip-out LCD screen ...... a great bonus (especially for hand-held work). Probably also better for critical focusing? Actually, I think just plain better in general (although the LCD screen sucks a lot of battery power, reducing your battery run-time to about half). So on the face of things, it does seems like it might be a better way to go perhaps, but I haven't used the Sony camera in question as yet. And I must warn you about a possible problem with the Sony DSR-PD100. A Sony rep. has apparently said THERE IS AN INTERFERENCE PROBLEM ORIGINATING FROM THE SOUND INPUT JACK/S ON THIS PARTICULAR MODEL, THAT CAUSES A DISTURBANCE IN THE IMAGE. As I understand it, this problem is now corrected in the newer DSR-PD100A model. I always take second-hand reports such as this with a grain of salt, but this sort of explanation would certainly explain why the DSR-PD100 is so hard to get, plus reports of it being suddenly discontinued, and now a new model coming onto the market to replace the earlier model. If you really want the lens-interchangeability feature, then Canon is the only choice in its price range. My main complaint with the Canon XL-1 was that it was hard to keep in focus (I will describe this problem later). And as I explained before, none of these cameras are capable of "Pulling Focus" (except the XL-1 with the newer mechanical lenses). If you need better quality than DV / Betacam SP, then there are a lot of other options. DV is at the bottom end of the digital scale. You might consider (in roughly ascending order of quality) DVCPRO 50, D-9 (formerly known as Digital S), Betacam SX, Digital Betacam, and the various High Definition formats HDCAM, HDCAM 24p, D-9 HD, and DVCPRO 100 HD (which really rivals the quality of 35mm on a big screen). Wide Screen Issues:What about aspect ratio .... or the shape of the final image on the screen? The basic choice is 4x3 (1:1.33) or 16x9 (1:1.78), but in terms of converting to film, you might also consider 1:1.85 (in the U.S.) or 1:1.66 (in Europe). Here is what I believe to be a really good tip. Use an anamorphic lens attachment mounted on your regular camcorder lens to squeeze a 16:9 aspect-ratio image onto the full 4:3 CCD, and in so doing, preserving the full 480 lines of available resolution (in NTSC). Although I haven't tried it yet, I really like the idea of shooting with an anamorphic attachment on your lens to squeeze the 16:9 wide frame onto the full 4:3 CCD. Like I say, you wont lose any of your vertical resolution!!! When the lab unsqueezes it later (a digital process), you might lose a little horizontal resolution perhaps, but it will be minor compared to the alternative of not going the anamorphic route. I think, ideally, this looks to be definitely the best way to go (but like I say, I don't have direct experience with it ........ although I've shot anamorphic in 35mm cinematography on several occasions with great success). With the anamorphic approach, I think you will really see the difference when blowing up to film. I'd recommend this highly (or at least to look into it more thoroughly). I'd also recommend to shoot on PAL if at all possible, as, once again, you can really see the difference blowing up to film. (I've see that with my own eyes). If you use both a PAL camcorder and an anamorphic adapter, you can potentially pick up an incredible 40% in overall image resolution, compared to shooting NTSC and cropping for 16:9!!!!! Can this be possible ..... well, it certainly looks like it. However, I'm not a ranting and raving DV enthusiast above all else. DV certainly has its place. My general advise is that it is best to aim for the Sony High Definition Camcorder or similar higher-end format, and you can always revert back to the DV option as the compromise solution (this is in terms of absolute quality). Of course, there can be other reasons for shooting DV besides strict quality and economic considerations i.e. to do with aesthetics, maneuverability etc. Unfortunately, the manual lens from OpTex (mentioned above) cannot be fitted with an Anamorphic adapter, because no adapter seems to be available at this time (...... but OpTex told me they are currently working on the problem). The difficulty is that the front of the OpTex lens rotates as you focus, and an Anamorphic adapter must be kept still, and perfectly horizontal, at all times. However, OpTex has an anamorphic attachment which fits directly onto lenses with a 52mm filter thread, and up to 58mm with a step up/down ring. The Canon XL-1 takes a 72mm filter, so this attachment doesn't fit that camera, but the good news is that it will fit the Sony VX-1000, DSR-PD100 and most other mini-DV camcorders!!! The lens attachment will horizontally squeeze the image by 1.77 times (I think it is?) to produce the desired 16:9 aspect ratio, using the entire CCD with no loss of vertical resolution. Costs $795 to buy. Like I say, I recommend this approach to "widescreen" if you can swing it somehow. CENTURY also has a similar anamorphic adapter for about the same price. Currently, NO Anamorphic adapter exists for the Canon XL-1 camera from any source whatsoever. This is a major limitation in my opinion if you want to shoot high-quality widescreen like 16:9 or 1:1,85 (and extra especially if you need to blow up to film). Specific Advise for the Canon XL-1:I definitely don't use the "Movie Mode > Frame" setting on the Canon XL-1. It will halve your resolution, and introduce jerkiness, or a strobbing effect, with motion! This will be extra especially noticeable when "blown up" to film, I would imagine. Although this option is said to give a more "film look", don't be deceived. It is really a facility designed for still-image capture, and it is not a true progressive scan as the literature (or other people) might suggest. What I understand is happening with the XL-1 in this mode, is that the camera captures one field (i.e. half the 480 lines = 240 lines in the NTSC system), and then fills in the missing half "electronically". So it fills in the missing interlaced lines to produce a sort of fake "progressive" scan, but at the expense of half your available resolution. When going to film, you need all the resolution you can possibly get hold of ........ so this is not such a smart idea. Not to mention the problems with the jerkiness or strobbing effect in this mode. However, this mode works great when (1) you use "freeze frame" during video playback (i.e. the result is better than in "interlaced" scanning mode) ....... and (2) when capturing a still frame for use in a computer etc. I'm told it also looks O.K. if you stay on tape (and some people tell me they prefer the "look" of the video in this mode ...... several people have told me this, in fact). And I know of one production in Seattle shooting in frame mode, that intends blowing up to film. The second (main) piece of advise I can give you for the XL-1 if blowing up to film, is to not use the 16:9 setting with this particular camera, even if you are wanting 16:9 framing in the end. If you need the 16:9 frame as the final result, still shoot the normal 4:3, but frame for 16:9 in the viewfinder (masking off your monitor can also help in this regard). You will lose overall vertical resolution going to 16:9 no matter which route you go ..... about 20% in fact. But it is better NOT to switch to the 16:9 setting on the XL-1 camera at the time of shooting if blowing up to film. You will get a better result blowing up to film, if you let the lab extract the 16:9 or 1:1.85 frame from the full frame recording, at the time of the conversion process to film (I had the technical reason for this explained to me, but not sure if I can remember it clearly enough to repeat it?). Generally speaking with the 16:9 option ...... with some cameras it is better to turn it on (i.e. the Sony VX1000) and other cameras it is better to turn it off (i.e. Canon XL-1). In the NTSC system, you are basically going to lose about 120 lines of vertical resolution, no matter what you do (this might be 60 from the top and 60 from the bottom, or all 120 from the top, or all 120 from the bottom of the frame). So your vertical resolution will be lowered from 480 lines to about 360 lines going from 4:3 to 16:9. However, if you do this extraction later in the lab (rather that at the time of shooting) you have a bit more scope, and a bit more freedom. And the lab can employ a few tricks in their computer to hang onto some of the "lost" resolution if you give them the full 480 lines to work with. But having said this, some labs recomment switching to 16:9 mode at the time of shooting, because the cropped image is more efficiently compressed to the DV format, producing, they say, less artifacts. It seems different labs offer different advise on this point (and also different advise for different camcorders, although that kinda makes sense to me). The other thing, is that if you don't fix the frame (i.e. crop) the frame at the time of shooting, and it turns out later that you are not completely happy with your framing on a particular shot (or perhaps there is a mic in shot or something like that), then you can adjust the frame up or down a little bit on a shot by shot basis (or at least you have that option if you want to take advantage of it). DV Editing:Also extremely impressive, are the Non-Linear Editing (NLE) systems for editing DV that can be installed on a home computer system. You can buy the complete system, including the computer, for about US$2,000 to $5000, or you can upgrade an existing (fairly recent computer) for as little as US$1,000, or so. They are "On Line" (rather than "Off Line") editing systems, so you stay in the same broadcast quality right throughout the editing process to the final end product (and with no generation loss, provides you don't go through any un-compression and re-compression cycles). All the transferring of data between camcorder and computer is done by FireWire (or IEEE 1394, or i-Link), which is a high-speed, high-capacity serial bus. FireWire or 1394 technology and DV technology are very strongly linked. Moreover, the versatility of the DV editing software (like Edit DV, Adobe Premiere 5.1, Final Cut Pro etc.) is just amazing. It works very similar to top-end NLE systems like AVID etc., and with much the same features, and functionality. So you are getting much the same thing from a DV based NLE system, as an AVID costing in the range $15,000 to about $50,000. No wonder people are buying them up like hot cakes. I re-editing my ShowReel on a DV / FireWire home computer system recently (based on the Mac G3 computer with the new Final Cut Pro software from Apple). The overall process, the quality and results were just amazing. The system was able to maintain the quality of my Betacam SP source tapes that I used (originally from 35mm film). So just perfect for the purposes of updating my ShowReel which is a job I have to do quite regularly. Some people are keen to know about the actual steps taken in editing the mini-DV feature mentioned above. Well, they decided to go the "OFF LINE" editing route. They transferred all their mini-DV cassettes to Digital Betacam (generating new, and better, time code in the process) which now effectively becomes their Master Tapes. From the Digi Beta "Masters", they put it into a D-Vision editing system (similar to Avid) that uses Motion JPEG compression (they happened to own a D-Vision system). After the editing was completed, they generated an EDL (Edit Decision List) and use that to do the final "ON LINE" edit from the Digital Betacam master tapes (an expensive step, but lots of control over image and sound). So the original mini-DV cassettes will only be called upon in an emergency (i.e. if something happens to one of the DigiBeta "Masters"). However, I think it is quite practical to stay in the DV format right through the editing process i.e. do an "ON LINE" edit, and maintain the full "broadcast quality" throughout. In this way, you can keep the whole process in house (perhaps literally in your bedroom?). I personally would make a copy of all my mini-DV "camera original" tapes to DVCAM. DVCAM is fully compatible with mini-DV, but is a more durable system all round, and has some technical refinements that you might benefit from, in post ....... like better time code and "locked" sound. Then work with the DVCAM cassettes during the editing process (most decks support DVCAM), and keep those precious little mini-DV tapes locked away for emergencies only. Then after the edit, firewire back to DVCAM (and mini-DV too, if you like) and that becomes your final master tape (with no loss of quality if you avoid any un-compression and re-compression steps). From here, you can convert to any other video format you require, or convert to film if the need arises. Here is a little tit bit ...... each Gigabyte of hard-drive storage will hold about 4.75 minutes of full-quality DV video and sound .... so 45GB = 3 and a half hours, and so on (you can buy a suitable 45Gig hard drive these days for under $300!) Canon XL-1 Focus Problem:And I'm not the only one to experience problems with keeping the Canon XL-1 in focus. Recently, I talked to another cameraman who just shot a T.V. pilot in San Francisco (called SAUCE) with the Canon XL-1. It sounds like he had exactly the same focus problems as I did ........ so it seems to be a design fault, rather than me just having some bad luck with an individual unit. Has anyone else been having focus problems like the one described below? The problem is about keeping the Canon XL-1 lens in focus once a critical focusing adjustment has been made (i.e. keeping it in focus once you have focused the lens sharply). And this is only a problem in the manual setting with this particular camcorder. In automatic focusing mode, the lens focuses pretty well within the limitations of an automatic focusing system. The automatic mode will tend to work quite well for documentary shooting, and any hunting for focus often just adds to the overall documentary feeling, and is therefore perfectly acceptable. In drama, you cannot use the automatic mode in the greater majority of situations, because the automatic focusing system may focus on the wrong subject, and hunting for focus is usually unacceptable in drama. However, it might be possible to use automatic focus in some particular types of shots (usually tighter shots on the longer end of the zoom i.e. the more telephoto end). The automatic function that I did in fact find more useful in shooting drama, was the little button on the side of the lens that you press to adjust the focus in that moment that you press the button. Again, with a long lens shot, say where you are adjusting the frame from one object to another, then you can momentarily press this little button to effectively "pull" the focus from one focus plane to another. But like I say, it only works in particular types of shots, and usually in fairly tight (or long lens) shots. You can't control the speed of the "pull", so it is all about timing i.e. pressing the button at the right moment so the second object snaps into focus and the "pull" is disguised, or motivated to some extent, by the actor or camera movement. Getting back to the manual setting, which I find I have to use 99% of the time when shooting drama. Firstly, the age-old technique of focusing all (mechanical) zoom lenses by zooming all the way in, critical focusing on your subject, and then zooming out to re-compose you shot; simply doesn't work with the Canon XL-1. Now I will describe the precise problem I have with keeping the Canon XL-1 in focus in manual mode. What I found is that once you have got your lens sharply in focus, and then make any further adjustment on the lens whatsoever, including moving the aperture ring or the zoom setting, then that critical focus is lost. Sometimes only slightly, so it is often hard to see the loss of perfect focus on wide-angle shots. To get around this problem, I use the following procedure on a drama shoot. After all adjustments are made to the camera, and just before shooting, I have a large focus chart held up in the desired focus plane (which is usually in front of the actors face). Then I focus the lens manually, looking at a high-resolution monitor ....... even this procedure is pretty tricky, especially with very wide lenses. On wide angle shots, it is quite difficult to see the point of critical focus ....... and the wider the shot, the more difficult it is. And you can't measure the distance with a tape-measure, and then set the appropriate distance on the lens barrel ...... as you would with a mechanical lens. Wide cine lenses are hard to focus too, so this is why you usually fall back on the method of measuring the distance with a tape-measure and setting the lens for film cameras in this way. Anyway, this is not possible with the Canon XL-1, so the best way around it is to use the focus chart in conjunction with a high-resolution monitor, as I describe above. ConclusionAnyway, I hope you find these comments and opinions useful somehow, on some level. Everything is in constant (and sometimes, dramatic) change, because DV is, in essence, computer technology, and computers are in a constant state of rapid evoution. If I can help anyone with any other information, just ask. Or if you have other opinions about what I've written here, I'm all ears ..... don't worry, most people seem to have widely differing opinions in the DV arena, so I'm used to being contradicted and confused. Why is this? ..... because the absolute "truth" is difficult, almost impossible, to establish in this emerging digital universe. Anyway, I'm happy to pass on whatever news, thoughts, information etc. I can. BTW, if you are a Canon XL-1 kinda gal/guy, you might find the Canon XL-1 Watchdog Site interesting (if you don't know about it already). http://www.mediadesign.net/canondv.htm Finally, you can find a fairly comprehensive list of facilities (labs) around the world doing digital to film conversions right here or go back to the Digital Video Page, and look down the list of contents and click on "List of Labs that will convert Digital Video to 16mm/35mm/70mm Film" Very Best of Luck with your Digital Production!!!! POSTSCRIPT: These comments about the Canon XL-1 were written more than three years ago (in 1999). I understand Canon has done a lot to fix a lot of the little bugs in later generations of this camera. In the early part of 2001, I shot a documentary with a more recent version of the Canon XL-1. Athough I still wasn't entirely happy with the focusing system, things did seem a lot better. In any case, the XL-1 is a lot more suited to shooting documentary, rather than drama. But equipping the camera with a mechanical lens, such as the Optex, should make drama shooting more viable. Even Canon provides a "mechanical" lens for their own camera now, the Canon 16-times Manual Servo Zoom Lens featuring manual focus, manual or power zoom, auto or manual iris. Focal-length range is 5.4mm to 86.4 mm (16x). Speed is F1.6 Filter Diamerter is 72mm. I find the XL-1 very operator friendly, so that is a big plus point (especially for documentary shooting). I also think it is the sexiest-looking mini-DV camera out there. But it wouldn't be my first choice camera if blowing up to film. There is also a new improved model called the Canon XL1s. What's new in the XL1s? DV Control - controls external 1394 through DV Cable - REC/REC PAUSE Super High Resolution and Super Low Light (S/N improved 4dB) 4:3 with 16:9 Electronic Guides on viewfinder Interval Recording Interval: 30sec/1min/5min/10min Recording time: 0.5sec/1.0sec/1.5sec/2.0sec Computer shooting - Clear Scan (61.9Hz - 201.5 Hz in 117 steps) SMPTE Color Bars Power Save VCR Stop - Defeats the 5 minute automatic shut-down Preset Speeds on Grip Zoom - Variable/Low/Medium/High Preset Speeds on Handle Zoom - Low/Medium/Fast CHAR REC: Option to burn data (year, month, day, hour, minute and second) into video Index REC. = "Good Mark Shot" Variable Zebra Level (80/85/90/95/100 IRE) EVF Display ON (partly OFF)/OFF Picture Adjustments Camera Color: Color Shift (± 6 steps) Camera Sharpness: Picture Sharpness (± 6 steps) Camera Color Gain (± 6 steps) Camera Setup: Black Level (± 6 steps) Gain (Two additional gain settings: +18dB and +30dB) White Balance (Two additional manual settings) Audio Dub AV Insert Composite / S-Video input Custom Keys and Presets Two Custom Keys (two settings for camera mode and two for VCR mode) Three Picture adjustment memories Low Power Consumption Easy menu system Accessories include MA-200 (providing 4 XLR audio inputs, and BNC video in/out). I believe this is the main U.S. distributor for OpTex:ZGC And to purchase Canon XL-1 accessories by OpTex in the U.S. California: SAMY'S CAMERA, Venice ISAIA and COMPANY, North Hollywood New York: AbelCineTech, Staten Island Copyright © Peter Gray (1999)
Peter Gray
|
