• You are welcome to promote here, but members are also welcome to reply with their opinions.

Canon XM2

Ok, i have been having a play around with the XM2 and its far more professional than anything i have used before.

1. Picture quality is far superior the 1 chip camcorders and the colours are not washed out in the slightest.
2. I like the ND filter option which allows me to film into the sunlight.
3. The in built microphone has a monitor which measures the decibels recorded. I noticed when i speak it averages around -12 db. (ME66 is not bought yet so i may have to borrow one from a local film buddy).

However there are a few things i am not quite sure about...

a) What is white balance?
b) I like to film using the 16-9 widescreen format however when i switch on this option i do not get the usual black horizontal bars at the top and bottom. Is it not meant to appear on the XM2?

I have just finished a script for a horror movie about a radio dj getting a phone call from a dead guy live on air, so i shall see what happens...
 
White balance is an adjustment that allows the camera to record correct colors in varying "temperatures" of light. Daylight is colder (bluer) than most indoor light. Tungsten light is very warm (red), and flourescent lighting is slightly green. By setting the correct white balance, white will be white and the rest of your colors will look correct. If you use the wrong white balance setting, your colors can get really messed up.

There are three basic methods of white balance setting;
1) automatic (not advisable, because it will continue to change, making final color correction almost impossible)
2) preset (pretty good for most situations; especially when shooting on the run. you've generally go presets for daylight/sunny scenes, shade, tungsten lighting, and flourescent lighting)
3) manual setting (best setting whenever possible)

You manually set your white balance by placing a white card or locating a white object that is in the same lighting as your subject, pointing your camcorder at it and filling the frame with it, then pressing the manual white balance setting control on the camera until the camera indicates that the white balance is set.

I sometimes use the daylight preset setting when shooting outside. Otherwise, I use a manual setting. If you use automatic white balance, your white balance will be all over the place. It can not only mess up your colors, but it will destroy a green-screen or blue-screen shot, because it will push the green or blue towards gray to achieve the average white it's looking for.

Regarding the 16:9 format, I'd have to research that specific camera, but anamorphic video has the same resolution as 4:3 DV. When displayed correctly, the image is stretched horizontally. Therefore, on a 4:3 display, you may notice that your subject is narrower (from side to side) or taller, depending on how you look at it. When you bring it into the computer and tell the computer that it is "anamorphic", it should display correctly and be 16:9 aspect. Someone who knows the XM2 may be able to tell you exactly what you are seeing there.
 
Thank you Oakstreetphotovideo.

When i was cast in someone elses film last april i noticed the camera crew kept placing a white board in front of the camera aswell before every scene was shot and when i asked "whats that your doing" they mentioned it was the white balance, but i never knew what that was all about. However now i know more, thank you! I shall put this into practice tommorrow morning. You know, using the manual setting for testing the white balance, does that mean i have to set manually the exposure aswell? Or can i leave that on auto focus?

The 16-9 format does look horizontally stretched and perhaps i could insert the black bars on the edit.
 
Even if you feel the urge to use automatic focus and/or automatic exposure, you are still well advised to use manual white balance, or, at least, a proper preset. There will be many people here who will tell you to avoid automatic exposure and automatic focus. Automatic exposure will make trouble for you when you're doing non-linear editing, because a cut from one shot to another might result in a dramatic change in exposure. There are other reasons to lock your exposure, but I'll leave that for someone else! Autofocus can make trouble, if the focus "hunts", or the camera focuses on something other than your subject. However, autofocus may not be the worst of the automatic options to use.

This 16:9 anamorphic thing is a bit of a mind bender. If you do it right, there will be no black bars ... ever. You are thinking of letterboxed 16:9, where 16:9 is forced to fit into 4:3 format. That results in a loss of resolution and I definitely don't recommend it. Your anamorphic video will fit in a 16:9 display. If the display is 4:3, the display hardware (DVD player or TV) will add the black bars. What you are shooting is about 720x480 (NTSC), and it will be displayed like 852x480 (in square pixels ... I warned you that this was a mind bender). If you add black bars, you'll be reducing your resolution to 720x360. That is not what you want. You keep the full 720x480 and you tag your video as 16:9 anamorphic so the hardware/software knows how to display it correctly.

I'm sorry, if I'm not good at explaining this. I've spent 20 minutes rattling my jaw and waving my arms (which helps me express myself) at clients, trying to explain how that squished image is going to end up looking right, if they will just set their sequence settings in FCP correctly, etc. I'm just not good at explaining this, so you may want to get a second opinion.
 
It seems to me that manual focus/exposure/white balance is more recommended for higher quality.

On my stills camera i have never used manual settings for anything yet my photographs are on postcards selling in high street shops. Maybe i am too lazy to set manually, although my dad often recommended manual settings aswell.

I think i shall have to try out these things and see what i feel most comfortable with.
 
The camera crops the image at the chip when you record 16x9. It will reduce your resolution no matter how you do the conversion. I recommend you leave the camera to record in 4 x 3 and crop it yourself later where you have control over it since you'll be losing resolution anyway:

pros:
More control over headroom and framing in post
More information captured up front
Easier to frame in camera (turn on the 16 x 9 guides)

cons:
More render time in post

If you really want to shoot 16 x 9 in camera, get an external LCD field monitor that will display 16x9 ( http://www.markertek.com has some of these).
 
take time to play with the camera...you'll be happier later for the time spent now.

As for the audio, set that to manual as well, otherwise when your subject stops talking, the camera will crank the gain up to try to hear the person speak and then back down again when the speaking starts. It's better to set it manually and shoot for the +12 during a speaking test than to have the audio fluctuate the background levels to try to keep the overall sound level the same.
 
I just looked up the XM2. I didn't realize it was based on the GL-2. So it does not have a native 16:9 CCD, and Knightly is definitely correct. I use a special lens adaptor to squeeze 16:9 onto the 4:3 chip, which gives full resolution for anamorphic video.

Just to reiterate what Knightly said, you should just shoot in 4:3 for full resolution and crop, if you really want to throw out some resolution. Given that you don't have that much res to start with, throwing 1/4 of it away is probably not what you want.
 
Thank you Knightly and Oakstreetphotostreet.

Hmmm, previously i have always shot on the 16-9 format without a second thought, as i always thought it gives that more of a movie look. Anyway i shall definately have another play around tommorrow morning with the XM2, try out the manual audio and other manual settings.

Knightly when you mentioned +12 db, do you mean -12 db? Or +12 db?

And what does resolution mean? (Sorry i am such a retard).
 
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Shoot 16:9 in camera if you want an anamorphic DVD. If that doesn't matter to you then shoot 4:3 and crop in post. Just realize that a DVD like that won't play correctly on a 16:9 TV.
 
Shaw, shooting 16:9 on a camera with a 4:3 native CCD is essentially the same as cropping, and either can be forced to play correctly on a 16:9 TV. Shooting 16:9 in camera will yield true anamorphic format, but it will do so by using a slice of the CCD, thereby lowering the resolution.

Eddie, Resolution is the number of pixel elements that make up the image. Using DV, you've got approximatey 350,000 pixel elements that make up the image (it varies from NTSC to PAL). 350K isn't a lot of dots to construct an image on a 30" television, so the image won't be really sharp. If you crop to top and bottom off, you lose about 25% of the dots, so your image has only 260,000 pixel elements, which is even worse.

I agree that the 16:9 look is hip. I do like it, and I paid dearly to get it (about $750). However, 4:3 is where your camera will give you the sharpest image. If you shoot with widescreen in mind, you can always make the decision to crop and stretch later. Your other option, is to find an anamorphic adaptor that mounts in front of your lens. That's what I did, and I love it. It also gives you a wider field of view.
 
I may have meant -12...I just use the lines, I was just going off your previous post from memory. I do know that the measure is of Decibels...which would make sense to be -12.

Any footage can be turned into 16 x 9 in post by dropping it into a 16 x 9 timeline, then adjust the footage up and down in the timeline to get the headspace you're looking for...you can also then do 2.35:1 as well (cinemascope) and look even cooler.

Of course if that logic fits, you could make a single pixel tall frame and have the coolest movie ever ;)
 
Oh certainly. I realize the loss of resolution when cropping or shooting 16:9 in camera. It's just easier to shoot anamorphic 16:9 if your output is an anamorphic DVD than to crop and later stretch the footage to be anamorphic. It also doesn't look as good unless you use a high quality scaling algorithm which many NLEs aren't equiped with.

Of course, shooting 4:3 does allow some freedom in re-framing. Since I shoot 2.35 a lot though it works for me either way. :)
 
Actually, Shaw, I suspect that the oversampling on the limited CCD area could product more actual resolution than stretching 360 lines to 480 (using NTSC metrics). I guess my point is that you should shoot 4:3 and use 4:3 if you want the most from your camera, or buy an anamorphic lens adaptor that will allow you to make optimal use of your camcorder's sensors. I don't think the widescreen look is worth sacrificing resolution when miniDV is already on the lower end of the scale. I surely wouldn't want someone to shoot in 16:9 and not realize what they might be sacrificing.

The bottom line here is that everyone, including those with the very best equipment, should make test shots and verify that the results they are getting are acceptable. It all comes down to the look you want, and your target audience. Go shoot some video, capture it on the computer, give it a hard look, and decide for yourself.
 
I am also a large proponent of test shooting...tests are cheap in digital, there's no reason not to. I want a 72mm anamorphic adaptor...any recommendations?

I ask because I can't find one for an XL1s (72mm filter thread)...I think it'll fit the XM2 also (to bring it back on thread ;) )
 
Last edited:
If you're looking for one, I'll be sure to bring mine up there when I visit, and you can give it a try. I have no idea if it would fit on a Canon, but it does screw into a 72mm filter thread.
 
Ok, thank you all for responding i think i understand a bit more...

1. Resolution determines the picture quality so its pointless shooting 16-9 format as you lose some of that quality. 16-9 format can be created in post or by using a wide angled lens.

2. Manual settings give a much greater control over the image. I have been trying out the manual settings and creating different pictures with various tones of light/shade. So i imagine it would be just like choosing the best photograph and shooting that for the scene.

3. Audio gain can be maintained at +12db. However will this be a good thing? In previous films my audio levels have been up, down, all over the place. And is manual control of audio gain required if i use an external mike?
 
Your right about the manual controls! It exactly creates the sort of the picture you want.

Also i have just done a manual white balance by zooming into a white sheet of paper and the colours of what i filmed looked very natural indeed.
 
It sounds like you've made a lot of progress, Eddie. Don't worry if it takes a while for all of this stuff to sink in. I've learned most of what I know by making mistakes and then learning how not to do that again.

The problem with automatic audio levels is that the automatic gain will amplify the background noise a lot during quiet times, because it "thinks" it the mic sensitivity is too low when it doesn't hear any foreground audio. The reason this is such a problem, is that the background noise levels will rise and fall throughout your clip. It makes it virtually impossible to clean up the audio, and it can be quite annoying to listen to.

As an experiment, just set the AGC (automatic gain control) to on and find a relatively quiet location. Let the camera record the ambient background noise for 15 seconds, then talk for 15 seconds, then be quiet whilte the camera records for another 15 seconds. Play that back, and notice how the AGC cranked up the mic sensitivity (gain) while you were not talking, and how that affected your audio track.

Finally, all of this applies as well to external microphones. The big difference with the ext. mic is that it probably won't pick up the motor noise from you camera, when the gain gets hiked up really high. Noise levels will still be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top