Want to know how the XL1 is for shooting in 16:9 format for a transfer to film. Is it better to stay away from this and use regular format of 4

-- Jesse Nemerofsky (JesseNeme@aol.com), August 24, 1999

Answers

Stay away from it! All the under $5,000. cameras eletronically enchace the image to achieve 16:9. You get lower resolution. I have heard of a true optical attachment for lenses made by Optex(?) that give you the 16:9. If you don't go that route and you stay in regular 4:3 for the resolution then you have to pay attention to your framing. You will loose a certain amount of your image when going from 4:3 to 16:9 in transfer. Also, keep in mind on the XL-1, you loose approx. 8% of the final image in the viewfinder. Have I confused you enough!

-- Troy Bass (javava@earthlink.net), August 26, 1999.

I plan on using an anamorhpic 16 X 9 lens for the XL-1, then editing everything widscreen. Right now, I plan on DVD release rather than going to film. If it got picked up, i'd have some really good post house do an On-line edit from the original widescreen footage.

-- Thomas Koch (coast3@execpc.com), October 05, 1999.

That is, I would if there was a stinking anamorphic lens out there. I can't find one for the XL-1. If we all e-mail optex or century, i'm sure they'll succomb and make one for all of us to buy.

-- Thomas Koch (coast3@execpc.com), October 06, 1999.

Thats not true about the res. The resolution is increased with the XL1 when you go to 16:9 mode. In 16:9 mode the Xl utilizes the entire/ maximum vertical capacity of the chips and compresses the image so that you are able to see the entire image in the viewfinder (though you are seeing a compressed image), then decompress either pre-editing or in an online edit.

-- michelle mccabe (michmcca@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000.

No, it doesn't. Switch from 4:3 to 16:9 and back again. Is there extra information at the edges of the frame? No. So the XL-1 loses the extra info from the 4:3 frame.

What it does do is compress the image AFTER dropping the extra info. This is squished into the full 4:3 giving you an anamorphic 16:9 image. Since the camera is compressing less original information, the final quality of the 16:9 image will be better than shooting 4:3 and letterboxing in post. But not much.

-- (wulf@mac.com), February 21, 2001.