Differences between 1014xl-s & 814xl-s

Post by **casonova197** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:35 am

How would the comparison between a 1014 auto zoom/e & a 814xl-s. Disregarding the obvious features. Also is the 814xls and 1014xls purely identical in image quality?

Post by **S8 Booster** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:35 am

the xlss and their "pre-dators" e-azs share not 1 single item including lenses which are all new designs for xlss.

the 814 xls lens is at least as good as the 1014 xls lens. if you are to end up on a dv format the 814 xls is the better buy.

t

Post by **T-Scan** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:29 am

The only difference between the 814xls and 1014xls is the zoom range: 1014- 6.5-65mm, 814- 7-56mm, and the 1014XLS has in camera disolves.. thats it. I choose the 814xls because it's lighter, smaller, cheaper $$, and I don't need the the xtra zoom or disolves. for that I use the 1014E and have the 54fps slomo instead of 36fps with the XLS.

Post by **reflex** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:55 am

"8" means 8x zoom. "14" means f/1.4 lens.
"10" means 10x zoom and the same speed glass.

It's what's behind the number that dictates whether the camera is from the mid 1960s, or a gem from the 1980s.

Canon started this naming convention around 1965, and it torments the hell out of inexperienced eBuyers to this day.

Post by **hedfrodady** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:43 am

S8 Booster wrote:if you are to end up on a dv format the 814 xls is the better buy.

Hi S8 Booster,
Could you explain that ? Why the 814 xls is better to end up on a DV format ?

Post by **S8 Booster** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:01 am

it is not "better" than the 1014 but the 1014 does have some extras that are only useful when you project your films directy - like lap dissolves.

you will not need that when your films are transferred to dv for editing.

for dv as final destination the 814 xls will do everything the 1014 will do at a lower price and the extra zoom range of 10 vs 8 is usually no practical issue. thus the 814 is a better buy/option for DV puposes.

anyway, the 1014 has some extra fancy stuff you do not really need like superimposed in viewfinder warning systems and stuff like that so if you "want it all" get a 1014 but the performance will not differ between the two for DV destination.

t

Post by **hedfrodady** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:33 pm

Understood, and i agree with you about the extra fancy stuff if your destination is DV only ;-)
(I already have a 1014 xls.)

Post by **casonova197** » Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:46 pm

I noticed the difference of the lens. Just made a purchase of an 814xl-s for 400.00, and was curious to know about the difference in image quality. I guess i got a good set up. Thanks alot people I appreciate the comments once again.

Post by **Uppsala BildTeknik** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 1:10 am

Is that in Euro?
If so, you could have saved 1 Euro and had a 1014 XL-S instead!

Check this out: http://hollywood-shop.com/images2/equipment_sales.pdf

Post by **marc** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:46 am

S8 Booster wrote:it is not "better" than the 1014 but the 1014 does have some extras that are only useful when you project your films directy - like lap dissolves.

you will not need that when your films are transferred to dv for editing.

for dv as final destination the 814 xls will do everything the 1014 will do at a lower price and the extra zoom range of 10 vs 8 is usually no practical issue. thus the 814 is a better buy/option for DV puposes.

anyway, the 1014 has some extra fancy stuff you do not really need like superimposed in viewfinder warning systems and stuff like that so if you "want it all" get a 1014 but the performance will not differ between the two for DV destination.

t

Some people feel that the laps dissolves look better when originated on film than if they are digitized from straight footage.

Post by **super8man** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 2:55 am

Some people think the original Star Wars looks better than latest release. In all practicality you are correct but time dictates you perform the transitions in post.

Also, when you perform a lap dissolve on original film, the two scenes are forever married together...this could be a problem in later editing...hence the whole crazy a-b rolls of the good ol days...I for one a so glad those days are history...I doubt we could afford a-b roll printing in super 8 even if we had an option for it!

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:36 am

The biggest problem with in camera dissolves in my opinion is sometimes there is a noticeable incompatibility between the two scenes' f-stops.

For instance, if you are shooting in the late afternoon/early evening at the beach and the scene's f-stop is around 2.8 and you do the first half of a dissolve, and the next day at high noon you want to dissolve in your next scene but the exposure setting will be around an f-11-16 split, the odds are the dissolve will look clunky and yucky because the range the f-stop is moving is not equal between fade out and the fade in of the two shots being dissolved.

When editing on tape or in the computer, one can experiment with the duration of the dissolve until one likes the duration.

Post by **S8 Booster** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:43 am

do not see this as much of a problem. done it several times and it works out fine especially at scene transitions for which it mainly is used. as pointed out by canon dissolves should be made in the 1014Ã‚Â´s unique optional XL mode to get deeper disolves. will equalize this somwhat.

t

Post by **mattias** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:41 pm

Alex wrote:the range the f-stop is moving is not equal between fade out and the fade in of the two shots being dissolved.

i thought they used the variable shutter? i agree that optical dissolves look much better, but also that they have to be made in printing in that case. in-camera effects are really impractical.

/matt

Post by **filmbuff** » Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:47 pm

mattias wrote: i thought they used the variable shutter?

Yup