Has anyone had the opportunity to compare their GL1/2 footage to that filmed in another brand's DV camera. I recently did a wedding using both my DVX100 and GL-1. I manned the DVX while my friend handled the GL. When logging and capturing the shots I noticed right away that the colors in the GL-1 are much more "vivid" and saturated than that of the DVX100. Granted the DVX was more "accurate" but the GL-1 shoots highly saturated video right out of the box. I've heard starting with less saturated (more accurate) footage is better for doing post work on. Is this true?
If I prefer the look of the colors that the GL-1 shoots naturally, do I have more flexibility overall with image correction when starting out with a more subtle image in regards to color and contrast?

Glen

I think both of these cameras are capable of matching the other's color gamut. The chips are from the same manufacturer, and the footage I've seen from the dvx looks very similar to what I see with my gl2, although, like you said, somewhat less saturated. Both cameras have enough control to lower or raise saturation to the level that they will match the other "in camera".
(I recently had a discussion with a member, off forum, who compared the camera's side by side, who saw no appreciable difference between them).

Your second question is a good one, as it's my feeling that you are best to get the image as close as possible to what you like "in-camera". With the DV format, Any alteration to the footage in post causes the image to be recompressed, resulting in a visible loss of quality...the more you do the worse it is...so if you like a more saturated result, then it is probably a better workflow to start with a more saturated image...which, again, you can probably get from either camera.

The gl2 has nicely balanced, accurate colors (although it doesn't do a great job with yellows)...I'm not sure whether the dvx100 surpasses it or not.

Barry

Though I think the colors look beautiful on the GL-2 they are by any means accurate. It tends to oversaturate colors, especially in the green spectrum. Grass seems to look almost lime-green compared to the more accurate muted forrest green color it truly is. I personally think the colors produced by the GL-1/2 are more favorable (at least in my opinion) to that of the DVX's. I even upped the saturation on my DVX100 to try and match the GL-1 and it still wasn't the same. However not all shoots favor this bright vivid, super saturated look. I like the fact I can capture dark and moody (film-like) images with the DVX.

As far as comparing the cameras side by side and finding no appreciable differences- I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. I've shot extensively with the GL-1 and DVX100...as I own both. The DVX100's picture clarity/resolution is far beyond that of the GL-1. It's even better than my friends XL-1s...we did a wedding shoot last month and in editing I can easily tell that the XL-1s has lower resolution. And besides all that the GL-1 is using 1/4" ccds compared to the DVX's 1/3" ccds. There is absolutly positively NO comparison for low light shots between these two cams.

My comments regarding similarities of the two cameras were limited to color gamut, and I certainly wasn't arguing for one camera over the other. Look, the dvx is a Professional camera with a price tag at about $1000 over the gl2. It has a dizzying array of controls that allow you to customize your look. The gl2 also has a number of controls (including a color gain feature that will let you dial out all that nasty green) that would allow one to get all dark and moody...I do whenever I have the chance....but while we're at it...

Just checking... but midway thru you started talking about the gl1...the gl1 and gl-2 (I own both) have two completely different chipsets, and completely different color responses. the gl2 has a smaller, but same resolution chip (410k), as the dvx100, and given that both chipsets exceed the DV standard, in terms of resolution--by the same amount...there isn't much support for resolution being substantially different between the two, with DV's 720x480 resolution being the limiting factor.

Indeed, the dvx's progressive mode will give you better vertical resolution than canon's frame mode (although as has been discussed here and elsewhere this extra resolution can be problematic when viewing on a televison...leading one to choose the "thick"-progressive mode...essentially the same as frame mode).

You are exactly correct in that the DVX should be a much better low-light camera, for exactly the right reasons...I have never tested both cameras side by side so I'll have to trust you that it indeed is...

And if it is impossible to dial the DVX up into the saturation zone of the gl2, then there is something wrong with the DVX....I own a gl1, gl2 and an xl1s and have tested the gl2 side by side against all of them and a PD150, and the gl2 has the lowest saturation of the bunch...so if the dvx can't reach this level, then I would say it is limited, at best...However. I have seen footage off the DVX that is very decently saturated, so perhaps it's something in your set up.

Let me quote one more time, the immortal Chris Hurd...."these cameras all have more in common than they have differences...."

Barry

I did a color comparison between the GL1 and the GL2 awhile back, and yes, you can easily get more color from the GL2 in my opinion with the settings. Colors are warmer with the GL1 if both cams are on auto, but the GL2 may surprise you if switched to the sunlight setting for outdoor shots.

Barry I just read you wrong- I thought you were saying the cameras were very similar *period*....not just in color gamut. I don't know maybe my GL-1 is an anamoly...the footage comes out heavily saturated. I upped the saturation on the DVX and it still didn't seem to hang with the vividness of the GL-1.
Don't get me wrong- I absolutly love my GL-1, thats why I haven't parted with it. It's a great back up camera, and I feel the pysical build quality is loads better than the DVX.

Regarding thin mode while in progressive scan- the aliasing you'd see is because of the extreme high resolution run in interlaced mode. Thats why it's best to use an NLE like Vegas have your whole workflow from editing to authoring the DVD in native 24p. I can burn 24p progressive scan DVDs with Vegas's DVD architech with footage shot in 24pA/ thin mode and no aliasing due to the progressive scan.

I'm waiting to see what Canon is doing with their XL-2! Rumors have said 24p but we'll see. Hopefully it wont make me regreat buying the DVX now...then again it's slotted for a $4500 price tag...a bit too much for my budget. Take care!