My try at clarification...
ahab,
ahab said:
Normally, when people talk about "masking" they're saying that the 16:9 picture actually uses less pixels than the 4:3 picture because it's just letterboxed off.
Right... In a lot of cameras (not the XL2) the 16:9 resolution is compromised by the fact that the 4:3 chip is letterboxed/masked so that your 16:9 picture is using less pixels since the top and bottom have been cut off to create a wider image.
ahab said:
According to the XL2 specs, the 16:9 target area of the chip is 680,000 pixels (962 x 480) and the 4:3 target area of the chip is 350,000 pixels (720x480).
Right again... As Shaw pointed out above, when using 16:9 mode on the XL2, you maximize the amount of pixels on the chip... Unfortunately, the 4:3 part of the chip has a lot less pixels... So it's kind of the opposite of the DVX100A in that the 16:9 is compromised using squeeze mode and with the XL2, the 4:3 is compromised when using it 4:3.
ahab said:
Does this oversized block mean the chips in the XL2 are larger than you're average 1/3" CCD simply as a means of getting the extra pixels for the 16:9 res? (as opposed to having actual 16:9 chips?). If so, to me it doesn't seem like a negative at all, it means the XL2 has as much chip area as any other 1/3" camera, but there's a lot of unused target space on the chip that other cameras with "regular-size" chips don't even have?
The way it was explained to me by an actual Canon Rep (but hey, maybe he was wrong) was that the Canon XL2 chip when used in 16:9 mode uses almost the exact same amount space on the chip as the DVX100A uses when letterboxing 4:3 to 16:9. Then, when using strictly 4:3 mode on the chip, it's using roughly the same size or smaller than a regular 1/4 inch CCD.
On top of that, my understanding is that Canon has crammed megapixels into the 16:9 part of the CCD. Doing so makes each pixel tinier thus (this is my understanding only of course) reducing its ability to gather light. If you want mediocre low-light performance, get a megapixel video camera. For instance, take a look at the JVC HD1... it's got a megapixel 1/3 inch CCD but has mediocre latitude and less than mediocre low-light ability. Same with the TRV950... Weak latitude and a full stop worse low-light performance than the model its predecessor, the TRV900. The difference? TRV950 adds a megapixel CCD. Megapixel CCD's are great for digital still cameras, where you need the additional resolution for the still frame but they're lousy for video where everything gets sampled down to a 720x480 frame anyway.
My logic could be totally wrong and God knows I'm no engineer... But the larger native 16:9 2/3 inch cameras do not utilize megapixel technology as far as I know... They use larger chips and larger pixels. Canon has basically used a slightly larger 4:3 chip and made the pixels smaller so that you get more pixels than on the DVX100A onto the Canon chip. Some people feel that having more pixels means more resolution... That may be, I have no idea. But all these extra pixels are on a chip approximately the same size as the DVX100A chip and in so doing, I have to believe there is some kind of a trade off somewhere...
Meaning that I'm not so sure that the chip is that much oversized... 4:3 is compromised on the XL2 because the XL2 was apparently optimized for 16:9. It's effectively a 1/4 inch CCD in 4:3 mode. So, with both cameras there is some definite trade off...
The DVX100A solution is very convenient, less expensive, and provides a usable shooting range (nice wide angle, and an decent telephoto), and most importantly it gives you everything you need that being: auto-iris, manual iris, autofocus, manual focus, true manual zoom, power zoom, and optical image stabilization which, in my opinion works really really well.
It's all MOOT anyway... Either camera is capable of obtaining superior results... Probably not even that noticeable to the naked eye... My original post was that even though I've never used the XL2, it doesn't seem a whole lot different than the XL1s which I have used. And, the XL1s is a fine camera. For me however, I like to move the camera a lot. I like to put it in tight places all the time. I love the lighter weight of the DVX versus the XL1s... Granted, the interchangable lenses is totally a plus... But all things being equal... For me, the DVX suits my personal needs a lot better... Possibly, if my needs change (less guerilla type run and gun shooting) I would opt for the new XL2.
But in all honesty, I think the DVX is faster and easier to use out of the box... Being lighter is a plus. I've used 16:9 squeeze mode for DVD output and it seems super clear and full of resolution to me... But hey, if I had the money, I might have one of each... LOL.
Now... Are you really confused???
filmy
*NOTE: Much of my understanding of the XL2 comes from a number of other forums as well as a Canon rep so take them with a grain of salt... If you decide on an XL2, I'm sure you'll be a happy camper...
--By the way Lefteye... I see that you're from West Texas/Southern New Mexico... Where exactly? I'm in Las Cruces, NM.