Any Tricks for the Canon XL1S?

I thinkt that's quite a bit of an overstatement. Are you using a PAL or NTSC camera?

If you want it to look like Arriflex, rent an Arriflex. There's an adapter for the XL1 you may want to check out. www.xl1solutions.com.

PS,

I'm Using a PAL camera

[Thanks for the reply...yes it is an overstatement, but it wasn't my overstatement. I need to squeak as much high quality as possible out of the camera. Any particular tape stock and accesories that you might know of?]

Ah ok that makes things easier to achieve a filmic look then 25p in frame mode is close enough to 24!

My suggestions:

Underexpose slightly.
Use filters! .6 and .9 ND, a few Grad ND, Polarizer, Tiffen ultra contrast filter
mini35 - great add on that allows the use of 35mm lenses and which retains the 35mm depth of field. The "real" produce costs around 10K but home made versions can be made for less than 100 USD without too much trouble. Just ask if you would like more info on this

The dynamic range of the XL1(s?) isn't very large so the above will help counteract overexposure.

Shaw: Do tell... You piqued my interest, if no one elses..

Sure thing Will

Simply put, the "mini35" works by capturing the projected 35mm image onto a piece of ground glass (glass that has been made opaque by grinding). This image on the ground glass is then focused on by your video camera and recorded. This retains all the properties of a 35mm image. There are of course downsides to this process: you loose some light due to the intermediate glass and, depending on the type of adapter made (which I will get to) you can sometimes pick up grain from the glass itself.

There are currently three different designs for mini35 systems.

- Static Adapter
- Oscillating Adapter
- Spinning Adapter

Each has it's own ups and downs which I will discuss.

Spinning Adapter: Works by spinning a ground CD (cheap ground glass). This makes the grain (imperfections in the glass) invisible when in motion. The downside is that it takes power, can cause audible noise, often very large, and can cause some odd "vortex" type effects due to the fact that the outside of the CD is spinning faster than the center.

Static Adapter: The simplest type. The only problem with this type of adapter is that it requires very very fine ground glass. You will see grain otherwise. No one has managed to create a grainless version yet though there is one possibility which I will discuss later.

Oscillating Adater: This is what the "real" mini35 uses. It oscillates the ground glass so that you cannot see the grain. You also don't get the vortex effect because the movement isn't predictable. Problems: takes power and can cause noise.

There is, however, an adapter version that is being developed (has been to some degree already) which is static and which has NO GRAIN. This would be the best possible solution. It relies on a wax intermediate rather than a ground glass. The trouble is making a good wax surface to use.

I'm currently building one of these wax adapters which I plan on using with my DVX. I can post results and schematics when I finish if you would like. I may even make a few to sell if it works well enough.

Static Adapter Test:
http://ideaspora.net/test_3.mov

Problems: grain and bad light transmission with some vignetting.

Spinning Frame Grab
http://www.dvdof.com/Aldu5.jpeg

Problems: some grain and some mediocre light transmission

The adapter I am working on should solve all these problems.

overdrive said:

I am told that by shooting in frame mode and using a Tiffen Pro Mist filter will make the footage look like it came from an Arriflex. Has anyone had experience with this?

Does anyone know of any other tricks that I can do with the XL1s to improve it's quality? I'm doing a shoot in China and the material will be of an "only happen once" sort of nature and I can't run around with a Betacam as I don't want to look like too much of a pro due to the authorities.

Also...what tape stock preferences do you have? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

i dont really see this being possible for a number of reasons. with all film cameras you really shouldnt be able to tell the difference from arri to panavision to bolex. reason for this is basically a film camera has no real control over what the image looks like, all it does is take un exposed film and it pulls it through the film gate and then winds it back up. The image is 100% up to the lens that is infront of it. Big dp's are constanly backing a specific lens and the camera itself is pure preference.

also in my opinion if your are filming in china and you dont want to draw attention to yourself why are you still shooting with a camera as large as the xl1. Unless you have a huge need for changing lens's you could get just as good if not better image quality with a dvx100a or a sony vx. just a thought

24fps said:

i dont really see this being possible for a number of reasons. with all film cameras you really shouldnt be able to tell the difference from arri to panavision to bolex. reason for this is basically a film camera has no real control over what the image looks like, all it does is take un exposed film and it pulls it through the film gate and then winds it back up. The image is 100% up to the lens that is infront of it. Big dp's are constanly backing a specific lens and the camera itself is pure preference.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. The camera is a huge factor. Go ahead and test some Bolex footage vs. Arriflex footage with the same lens and see what you get. There are many factors, including the shutter angle (220 degrees on Arriflex, 133 degree average on Bolex, and Bolex viewing system is not a mirror it's a reflex prism so light is lost), film movement (pull down claw and pin registration system), etc. An Arriflex will have a superior image.

indietalk said:

Absolutely not true. The camera is a huge factor. Go ahead and test some Bolex footage vs. Arriflex footage with the same lens and see what you get. There are many factors, including the shutter angle (220 degrees on Arriflex, 133 degree average on Bolex, and Bolex viewing system is not a mirror it's a reflex prism so light is lost), film movement (pull down claw and pin registration system), etc. An Arriflex will have a superior image.

Click to expand...

not meaning to argue but i was being slightly sarcastic with the bolex comment. Bolex although a great camera is out of its league when it comes to the cameras of today. you have to rember that camera is ww2 era. lets now take to acutally comparable cameras. shoot them both with the same lens, shutter angle, frame rate, under the same condions, and there will be no differnece. its all about the glass

You're the one that said Bolex could match Panavision, not me

Welcome to IndieTalk

my bad sometimes coffee just gets to me in the evening

24fps said:

its all about the glass

Click to expand...

Yup, Panavision is sought after for their lenses (which only fit Panavision cameras).

It would probably be tough to tell the difference between an Arriflex and a Beaulieu (which like the Arri uses a mirror for the reflex, and not a prism) They're nifty looking too.

Shaw:

Guess my eye isn't as picky as yours.. both of those looked pretty decent (the second was better, IMHO) keep in mind though, I did say DECENT and not good.. heh

Hey Shaw, your samples look very promising!

How different is that from just using 35mm Canon lenses with EF adaptor on the XL-1?

Hey DirectorX

A note first: this can be technique can be used with any video camera - not just the canon XL1s or XL2.

When you use 35mm lenses and the Canon EF adapter you, unfortunately, do not retain the 35mm depth of field - the look this adapter achieves. Why is complex but it certainly doesn't. It also causes all your 35mm lenses - even very wide ones - to become telephoto. Since the imaging chip on most cameras is 1/3" or smaller you can only pick up a fraction of the whole 35mm frame. This effectively multiplies the focal length of your lens so you loose any wide shooting.

I'll post some images soon of my test version. If anyone is interested after that I can post detailed instructions and/or create a few to sell for cheap.

I think I might have to put something together for my GS200.. can always use more toys for it. Plus if it works well it might increase resale value if I include it.. (Assuming I eventually sell the camera of course)