xm2 low light vs gl2 .... at DVinfo.net

Joe Lloyd · February 29th, 2004, 03:41 PM

ok sorry for yet another low light post. Am I losing my mind, but my new XM2 requires a boatload more light than my gl2 did..... crazy?

David Deehan · February 29th, 2004, 05:24 PM

Joe,

Maybe the GL2 has better low light performance than the XM2 due to its lower pixel density per square inch. The GL2 has 3 x ¼ inch CCD’s, approx. 3 x 410,000 pixels (3 x 380,000 effective pixels). The XM2 has 3 x ¼ inch CCD’s, approx. 3 x 470,000 pixels (3 x 440,000 effective pixels). Therefore the CCD transistors on the XM2 must be more densely packed (per sq inch) than those of the GL2. This would mean that each transistor is smaller. I think the larger the physical size of each CCD pixel the better the camera’s low light performance is. Not being an expert, I may be wrong in using this line of thinking.

February 29th, 2004, 03:41 PM	#1
Joe Lloyd Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Auckland, NZ Posts: 202	xm2 low light vs gl2 .... ok sorry for yet another low light post. Am I losing my mind, but my new XM2 requires a boatload more light than my gl2 did..... crazy? __________________ Catalina Productions http://www.catalina.co.nz

February 29th, 2004, 05:24 PM	#2
David Deehan Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Belfast (Northern Ireland) Posts: 26	Joe, Maybe the GL2 has better low light performance than the XM2 due to its lower pixel density per square inch. The GL2 has 3 x ¼ inch CCD’s, approx. 3 x 410,000 pixels (3 x 380,000 effective pixels). The XM2 has 3 x ¼ inch CCD’s, approx. 3 x 470,000 pixels (3 x 440,000 effective pixels). Therefore the CCD transistors on the XM2 must be more densely packed (per sq inch) than those of the GL2. This would mean that each transistor is smaller. I think the larger the physical size of each CCD pixel the better the camera’s low light performance is. Not being an expert, I may be wrong in using this line of thinking.