View Full Version : Is XL2 a "true 16x9"?
08-05-2004, 09:01 AM
I know that in the past, several manufactures have used a 4:3 CCD and then through some "trickery" and mega pixels also made a 16:9 image of it.
Is this what is happening with the XL2? Do they really have a 16x9 CCD?
I have two Panasonic Anamorphic Adapters that I use on both my DVX100 and DVX100A. I would love to see the quality difference (side by side) using an anamorphic adapter vs. the XL2 in the 16x9 mode.
Has anyone done this yet? Of one thing we can be absolutey certain! If Canon has, they must have lost or else they would have commented on it by now.
08-05-2004, 09:17 AM
Nobody has done anything with an XL2 yet because it's not out yet. We anxiously await being able to do the tests you suggest.
As for how they get 16:9 from it, there's two ways to look at it. One is, yes, they're using the megapixel "trickery", using a megapixel CCD and sampling a 16:9-shaped patch off of it. The CCD itself is not shaped 16:9, it's shaped 4:3.
But the other way to look at it is this: technically, Canon *never* uses the pixels above and below the 16:9-shaped patch. So they could have physically snipped those off, and there'd be no difference whatsoever to a CCD that was actually shaped 16:9. So by that definition, I think it's entirely fair to say that it is a "true 16:9" system. However, you lose a little diagonal by not using the full CCD, so the measurement would be .300 inches, rather than .333, so you could say it has a true native 1/3.3" CCD.
08-05-2004, 09:32 AM
As a further clarification- true native 16:9 camcorders- high end broadcast ones- are typically 2/3" and shaped as 16:9 which yields much better image quality.
08-06-2004, 07:09 PM
And 4:3 video cameras never use the whole CCD anyway.
08-09-2004, 05:23 PM
...and standard definition is not 16:9. True 16:9 aspect ratio is an HD format. All 16:9 standar def is anamorphic.
08-10-2004, 05:30 PM
See the above link by chris hurd. *very good graphic
regarding xl2 CCD. *It is rectangular to accommodate
4:3, 16:9, PAL and NTSC in a 1/3 CCD. *Shooting 16:9
will yield a better pixel count or use of the available CCD.
In other words, shooting 4:3 on XL2 1/3" CCD will be
more like a 1/4" CCD.
I think it was quite clever of canon to come up with such a
CCD in my opinion.
Native 16:9 CCD are still in the 10k+ price range.
wait and see how it performs.
also, i still prefer DVX100 and its form factor. Maybe next rev will be 16:9 CCD and eliminate the need of the hard to focus anamorphic adapter.
08-10-2004, 06:27 PM
that's old news. But even though clever idea, not original really. PDX-10.
08-10-2004, 11:17 PM
Even then, not original -- Panasonic invented it first with the MX500/MX5000.
08-10-2004, 11:32 PM
as to a 16:9 revision, that seems unlikely to me. However, come september, Century Optics will be revealing their anamorphic adapter, which although pricey, rumor has it will have its own focusing elements, eliminating the focusing issues. plus itll definitely b made of metal.