Hi. I’ve been browsing the internet for about a week trying to find out which camcorder to buy. I was about to purchase the Sony DCR-TRV80 when I noticed that Canon had just come out with the Optura Xi. I have searched every site for an impartial review of the Optura Xi (with no luck), and have called every store imaginable. Of all the people I’ve spoken to, 90% don’t know anything about the camcorder (other that it exists), and the remaining 10% are equally split between both products, but their reasons are mainly because either Canon has better optics or Sony is well built, which tells me that they really don’t know. I need to make a purchase within the next two weeks. Do any of you have had the opportunity to see, or own the Optura Xi ? I own several Sony products and are very happy with them, but my 35mm camera is a Canon and they make some of the best lenses in the world. The bottom line is...is the Optura Xi better than the TRV80 ? I know that the Optura Xi will cost slightly more...but is it better that the TRV80 ? Any comments would be immensely appreciated. I would hate to buy the TRV80 and the next week have Robin Liss come out with a review saying that the Optura Xi rules. Help.

Joaquin.

I have a call into the SE U.S. Canon Rep regarding the Xi. Specifically regarding the 16:9 mode - does it record an anamorphic (squeezed) image on the full dv frame after capturing the image using a true 16:9 image on the CCD? I'll post the answer when I get it.

Thanks for your response. In the end I did decided for the Optura Xi over the Sony TRV-80. There were a lot of reasons which I will not get into right now. I should be getting the camcorder within the next couple of days and then hope to be able to answer any questions that anyone might have. In regards to the widescreen recording mode...I hope is good because all the tv's at home are in said format. I will let you know.

Joaquin.

Go to the following site for the 1st objective review posted online of the Canon Optura Xi camcorder:

www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/canon_mvx3i.html

Please note that mvx3i is the same model in the European market as the Xi is in the North American market.

Hey Todd, you have no idea how grateful I am for you pointing out the review on the Optura Xi. Specially when it said really good things about it and its already on its way (I will probably receive it today). I guess I made the right choice then. However, in regards to the 16:9 recording mode the review states the following,

“Unlike the TRV80, which employs Sony's new wide CCD, the MVX3i's 16:9 widescreen is available in anamorphic (stretched) mode only, with pictures being compressed horizontally on a standard 4:3 screen.”

Then when they mention the pros and cons of the camcorder, they list the 16:9 anamorphic as a good thing, but then “lack of proper 16:9 widescreen” as a negative. Could anyone explain this to me...I am kind of new at this. I thank you in advance for your responses.

Joaquin.

Joaquin-
Be sure to post you thoughts on the Canon Optura Xi after you get a chance to play! I'm looking at camcorders in this price range and would appreciate your thoughts. A question I have is why you didn't list the Panasonic PV-DV953 as a possible option? Why only the Sony DCR-TRV80 and the Optura Xi?

Enjoy the new camcorder and don't forget to give us your impression!

__________________
Dan

I purchased the Optura Xi last Saturday in Miami from Pittman Photo.

On Friday, I tried all the cameras on my short list:

Panavision DVX100
Canon GL2
Optura Xi

The best image was from the Panasonic (Duh! at over $3,000, it should be). It is a professional camera with all the bells and whistles. Excellent wide angle zoom. But big and heavy. I'm an ex-film maker (from my youth) and appreciate this camera a lot, but I don't want to be saddled with the expense and complexity at this time. BTW, the progressive mode is dynamite. The 16:9 is NOT anamorphic, but letterboxed. OK, but not great. Needs an $800 16:9 lens adapter that then precludes the use of the image stabilization, something I like as I handhold almost all the time.

The GL2 had a great 60i image. Not so great stills. OK 16:9. Anamorphic, scaled up from the smaller CCDs. Progressive mode (30p) was unacceptable after seeing the Panasonic. Zoom lens is wonderful, great for wild life (not my thing).

Quite frankly, I couldn't tell the difference between the footage shot with the GL2 and the Optura Xi. I tried both of these at Pittman in good flourescent lighting. Both had same warm skin tones (vs. the Pana, which were more life like). Stills are much better with the Optura. 16:9 is better, too, since it uses more pixels on the CCD to capture (native 16:9 on the CCD) then interpolates the horizontal pixels, dropping them out to fit on the DV frame of 480 x 720. You can see how much wider an image you get in the 16:9 mode. Since the zoom is only 10:1 in 16:9 (vs. 11:1 in 4:3 and 9:1 in photo) you get just a bit less height but much more width. This is especially great for interiors.

NOTE: You want an anamorphic 16:9 image in Mini DV. The frame has a resolution of 720 x 480. To take advantage of this resolution, you want the 16:9 frame to be full height (not letterboxed). Thus, the image will be squeezed and some data thrown out. This is way film has been forever - widescreen (cinemas scope, etc.) has squeezed the image using anamorphic lenses to fit the image onto a piece of 35mm film. This is why the Optura Xi had the best 16:9 of all the cameras. It is the only one to use 480 pixels of height on the CCD to capture the image. Both the GL2 and the Panasonic use 320 pixels of height. The GL2 then interpolates and stretches these 320 pixels to 480 while the Panasonic does nothing more than add black to the top and bottom of the frame, leaving the height at 320 pixels.

Even if you use a 16:9 anamorphic lens adapter (such as is sold by Century), the frame will still be squeezed and have a resolution of 480 x 720. So, the Optura Xi ends up the best 16:9 performer of the 3 without the use of add-on lenses.

For viewing, I hooked up a MiniDV deck to the S video input of my 50" HD Toshiba rear screen monitor/TV. The 16:9 footage of both the Canon cameras filled the screen. The letterboxed 16:9 footage of the Panasonic needed to be "blown up" to fill the screen. All the 4:3 looked great from all 3 cameras.

Since I plan on shooting most of my stuff in 16:9, that is why I go on at length about this feature. I also shot with my Canon .8x W/A adapter from my still G1 Canon on both the Canon camcorders. It works great and is now more or less a part of the Xi. I may buy the Century .55x for extreme W/A shooting.

Low light - the Xi and the Panasonic in 24P didn't like low light as well as the GL2 or the Panasonic in 60i mode. So? either shoot in half-decent light or throw in some light. Also, it's easy to adjust the shutter on the Xi. If you're shooting static stuff, this gets more light to the CCD. Night mode seemed to work OK, too. It's easy to set White Balance or to lock down an exposure and/or focus. Likewise, if you have enough light, it's very easy to adjust exposure up or down, using the zebra stripes as a guide.

I'll post some more as I shoot some more.

Feel free to ask me any other questions.

Reuben

Great to hear your feedback, Reuben. I have ordered an Xi - just waiting now for it to arrive. Canon's web site makes it clear that the 16:9 works as you described. No mention anywhere I've seen of how the viewfinder and screen operate when in 16:9 mode. Do they scrunch the image horizontally (i.e. show you what is being put on the tape) or use black bars top and bottom so that you see an undistorted albeit smaller image? I'd prefer the latter (I think!).

How long before all cameras will be 16:9 with 16:9 viewfinders and screens? When they are all HD I guess.

The Optura Xi captures a squeezed, full frame, anamorphic image on the dv tape and therefore shows a squeezed image full fram on the lcd and in the viewfinder. Century Optics makes lcd attachment lenses that expand the image to 16:9.... not cheap and a bit clunky, but obviously better to view.

Quite frankly, you get used to the squeezed image pretty quickly. And looking at the zoom, you get just a bit less height at full wide than in 4:3 (zoom goes just a bit wider in that mode) but you get a tremendous amount of extra space at the edges! Great for interior and landscape shooting.

In Premiere, you set your preferences to 16:9 and you see your fotage in the proper perspective, both on the crt and on an external monitor. So editing is not a problem.

I have the .8x Canon W/A adapter from my still Canon G1 which works great. Next purchase will be either the .55x or .65x Century one.

Let me know how you like your camera?

I've just had a quick look at some of the specs of the Canon and it does look quite impressive.

In regard to the 16:9, does anyone know between the TRV 80 and the Canon which should theoretically give the higher quality video?
They are very similar and I don't know how the different methods Sony and Canon are using for their 16:9 translate into actual picture quality for video. Anyone who has any ideas on this?

It is 16:9 picture quality which is my number one priority. I'm happy to sacrifice a little on other features as long as the camera I buy is generally good in most areas. Both the Canon and Sony seem excellent!

Nikon -

I'd suggest you get your hands on both he Sony and the Optura Xi,run some tape thru them both then look at it on a wide screen TV.

There is so much confusion about 16:9 in mini dv. To maximize quality, the frame shoul be captured at native resolution (960 x 480) then squeezed to fill the 720 x 480 mini dv frame BEFORE applying the compression. I've read that the Canon does this and the Sony does not. I've also read that the Sony PD10x - one of there DVCam mini dv camcorders - shows “vertical smearing” in 16:9 mode. The news group I read that on, I believe, is groups.yahoo.com/group/dv-list (it may be “groups” not “group.”)

With a wide angle adapter, the 16:9 footage lis expansive on the canon. Post any thing you fing out about the Sony?

Reuben

Great info in this forum! I'm new to camcorderinfo.com, but looking for a good Mini DV... a working pro video guy told me today how he loved the Optura Xi as the best in it's price class.... that its Digic chip was awesome and had equal or even better quality/sharpness than the very good Canon GL2. I want to find out more about this Optura Xi. Can it record in slow-mo? A Sony Store rep told me that their 950 model had great slow-mo feature for recording golf swings, etc. with great clarity and the ability to stop on the frame where the football kicker made contact with the ball and you could see the ball folded in two at impact. Is this true? Can anyone here tell me how the Optura compairs to the Sony 950 or GL2? Or if it has a good slow-mo feature?

>>There is so much confusion about 16:9 in mini dv. To maximize quality, the frame shoul be captured at native resolution (960 x 480) then squeezed to fill the 720 x 480 mini dv frame BEFORE applying the compression. I've read that the Canon does this and the Sony does not.

A great summary here and above. I'd just like to point out though that pixel SHAPE must be considered. The output of DV pixels is NEVER square or equal in height and width. Most realize that the 720x480 pixel output of NTSC DV in 16:9 mode uses "wider" pixels so that the viewed output covers more wider area. But even in 4:3 mode the pixels are not quite square. (This is also true of PAL DV). However the CCD is usually equipt with square pixels and thus some interpolation is required by the processor in the camcorder. Ignoring digital zoom and digital image stabilization, I'd like to see a CCD laid out with 16/9 more pixels horizontally than vertically! Very few are so far. I doubt that exactly 960x480 square CCD pixels are squeezed down to 720x480 unsquare pixels in that camcorder, I'll have to figure that out though but it is/should be in that range. I am not disputing that! And essentially that is the best way to do 16:9. (Realizing that the horizontal INPUT [on the CCD] resolution is not kept the same but interpolated down horizontally for the fixed OUTPUT resolution of DV]. It comes down to a philosophy.... does the manufacture design for an optimal (with componets selected) 4:3 output and "ignore" some of the CCD's vertical pixels (rows of pixels at the top and bottom of the CCD) when in 16:9 mode, or do they optimize for 16:9 by utilizing a wider CCD and then "throw away" or ignore some of the horizontal pixels (at the sides of the CCD) to make a comprimized 4:3 mode? I think this is the trend, but alas marketing and features describing people really don't tell us just WHAT the design philosophy is or explain the engineering, they simply use or misuse terms and create new phrases to try and entice customers into buying without letting the customers (who are not all ignorant of physics and details) know what is actually happening and what comprimizes are in their camcorder.

The use of "anamorphic 16:9" is really confusing since by definition 4:3 DV pixels are anamorphic. But using an anamorphic lens to expand the vertical before recording in 4:3 mode (utilizing the maximum area of a 4:3 optimized camcorder when in 4:3 mode) and then adjusting the bits in the video to indicate 16:9 will give the best 16:9 "output" that a normal 4:3 camcorder is capable of. Of course these anamorphic lenses are expensive. In DV sales literature, anamorphic 16:9 is being misused to usually simply mean a wider area of the CCD is used, but this doesn't necessarily imply the top and bottom are ignored or actually not present with a wider physical CCD.

Of the CCDs that are more square or 4:3, you can have troubles making the "output" knowing you will be deleting or ignoring the top and bottom rows of the CCD's pixels - do you do that up front, then apply the DCT and processing (to get the DV output but at 720x320), then stretch the info in 320 rows back to 480 vertical pixels or do you do the DCT, processing, scaling etc. of the input and then scale this down to get the 720x480. This is where Sony and Canon differ in their approach to doing 16:9 with a non-16:9 CCD. One approach requires less processing and the other can optimize the compression inherant in DV to be more utilized on the "interesting pixels". But neither of these are as good as using a larger, wider CCD that is actually physically laid out to be 16:9.

>>I've also read that the Sony PD10x - one of there DVCam mini dv camcorders - shows “vertical smearing” in 16:9 mode.

This is due to the HAD type CCD sensor, not just because 16:9 mode is used. The problem occurs when there is a strong point light source just at the top of the "scene" but not "in the scene". The problem is that the light causes an internal "cascade" in this very sensitive device down the rows so the CCD "outputs" a column of false light. Avoiding this is reasonably easy - you just have to frame shots to not have a bright light at or just above your scene (though that can limit your flexibility of what view you want to shoot). Specifically a bright light illuminating pixels of the CCD in the top row of the CCD, but not being "utilized" in your scene will still cause the "spill down" and it looks like an "alien spaceship beam". Note that this can more easily happen when digital image stabilization is on, or 16:9 mode, because there is a larger "border" of not-used-directly-for-video pickup pixels on the CCD that are nonetheless exposed to the scene (and the problem light is hitting pixels at the top of the CCD causing the cascade down into viewable pixels).

Thankfully, we have forums like CamcorderInfo where we can observe, explore, deduce, and share our info and conclusions.

__________________
Sony HDV camcorder info (FX1, CX7, HC3 HC5, SR1/3/5/10, SR11, SR12, TG1, UX1, Z1) -> http://www.SonyHDVinfo.com

Great replies in this thread! Kerr, you are a true tech-head (ment in the nicest way) and your response was excellent!

I personally have now opted for the Canon over the Sony TRV 80. I will be purchasing the camera in a couple of weeks and after I have had a good play with it will post me views.

On paper it simply seems to have all the important bases covered and I can't see anything to rival it in the same price range. Manual control over depth of field is great imo. I prefer using buttons/dials over a touchscreen and have more confidence in useability and longevity of this method.
Every other feature a user should ever require seems to be there and I also trust the general build and optics of a Canon product over a Sony.

I will report back once I have put this cam through it's paces and let people know in as simple terms as I can what they can expect from the Canon.

This cam looks and feels great everthing in its right place and yet slinky at the same time.
I also spent a lot of time reviewing which model to buy and i'm pleased to say i picked the MVX3i over the TRV80 glad i did.