GL2 Review- Comparison with XL1s, PD150

[Craig Hollenback]

Barry,
Well I really appreciate all your input...The GL2 looks like it will fill the bill for simple wedding coverage and the price point is really good....not to mention the use of all my current XL1 batteries! I think that I'll get the GL2 to cover my butt for now and continue with the DV500 for the corporate work on sticks. I'm glad to hear that you've been happy with your GL2 (except for the recent breakdown). I checked out your site..."Uncollected" looked great...what did you shoot that with? I'm sure that the DVX100 or similar is within this years purchase for me when needed...Perhaps an XL1s with 24p/30p etc. might become available soon. Again many thanks...best of luck, Craig

[Barry Goyette]

"Uncollected" was shot on the xl1s. Good luck with your new cam.

Barry

[Steve McDonald]

Be advised of the considerable difference in vertical resolution (the number of horizontal scanning lines that contribute to the image sharpness) in the three different modes that are used in these cameras. The true Progressive video mode in NTSC cameras produces a full 480 vertical lines of resolution. Interlaced NTSC mode produces 360 vertical lines of resolution, but the Frame mode of many NTSC Canon models, gives only 320 vertical lines of resolution. They all use the full 480 horizontal scanning lines that are visible onscreen, but the resolution or sharpness is diminished by the way the scanning lines are used in Interlaced and Frame modes.

The Panasonic DVX100 with a Progressive option at either 24 or 30 FPS, gives the sharpest vertical resolution, which also allows for better still images to be extracted from the footage. This is a separate measurement from horizontal resolution (the number of visible vertical lines in the image), which is 640 lines that can be seen onscreen, in all modes.

Several Sony models, including the PD150, also have a true Progressive mode, but they only use 15 FPS when in that setting and the footage is not suitable for realtime viewing, only for still-frame capture. If you like the look of 30 FPS Progressive footage (some don't), you can have the best of both realtime video and still-frame capture with the DVX100 and other more expensive models with the same
30p FPS capabilities.

Unfortunately, when the DVX100 is in Progressive mode, the image stabilizer does not operate and works only in Interlaced mode.

Steve McDonald

[Steve McDonald]

I should have added to my previous message that the measure of horizontal resolution is further complicated by the counting of the distinguishable vertical lines across only 3/4 of a screen with the standard 4:3 aspect ratio. The 3/4 of the width of a 4:3 screen represents the same dimension as its height. This is why DV and Digital8 video is rated at only 500 lines or slightly higher, of horizontal resolution, although 640 separate vertical lines are theoretically visible across the full screen width. Including the offscreen margins that are included in the coding, this is 720 vertical lines.

Steve McDonald

[Craig Hollenback]

Hi Barry...I want to thank you for all your feedback about the GL2 and DVX100...Now that you've had some time to try out the DVX100...and I am about to purchase a camera today or tomorrow...I wanted to ask you how you've liked the DVX100? I understand that the stabilizer is not disabled in 24 or 30p but the auto focus in fact is. If I purchase the GL2, it will most likely always be used with the wide angle adapter (but it's nice to have the 20x for vacation, etc.) and I will need to purchase the beackteck phantom power XL2 adapter as well. I may perhaps use the still image to flash card feature for vacations as well etc. but have never used one to date. I will most likely never go out to film from the camera, but do wish to offer corporate clients a film look to video. Is the lens on the DVX100 all that it's cracked up to be compared to the GL2? Is the low light ablilties of the DVX 100 greatly superior to the the GL2? How's the 30p feature look to video compared to 30 frame mode of the GL2? I'm no longer the steadist stooter and will rely on the stabilzer capabilities of either camera for handheld. All in all is it worth the extra $1000 for the overall general and professional performance of the DVX100 along with giving up the little extra prosumer perks of the GL2? Thanks, Craig

[Barry Goyette]

Craig

If you haven't checked out this thread, you might want to..

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14119

As far as the low light thing goes, in Progressive...I don't notice that the DVX is any more valuable...you have no gain control, and are limited to 1/30 shutter. I haven't done a direct comparison yet, although we did a 2 cam shoot awhile back and the camera seem to have a similar sensitivity in normal light.

Both cameras have excellent lenses..yes I miss the gl2's long telephoto, but in reality for me, and I think most shooters...the wider Leica lens is a dream, with more zoom-room in the area that I shoot most.

The combination of the great wide lens and the true progressive makes for a wide shot that has far more detail than what can be achieved with the GL2 in frame mode with an adapter. Also, there isn't a heavy hunk of glass throwing the camera off balance.

Image quality on the whole...I'm viewing everything on an HD monitor...the dvx image is cleaner with surprisingly natural highlights. In our two camera set-up the main differences seemed to be a slight difference in sharpness, highlight rendition, and color rendition...with the dvx superior in all three areas.


Is the DVX worth the extra grand?...I think this really depends on your budget, and what you want to do with the camera. For me, I'm wanting to shoot original creative material --short films, music videos etc, in typically controlled situations, and the DVX is a professional camera designed for this purpose. The Gl2 is a consumer grade camera with more attention to ease of use, and may function better in run and gun situations.

On a side note,If you've been following the ladyX series, my episode runs next week...almost all of it was shot on the DVX...except the cafe seen which used both cameras. You might want to check it out.

[Craig Hollenback]

Once again, thanks for your candor....I checked out that thread...very interesting! Don't have any info about the ladyX series...is it on cable? Would love to see it. Thanks, Craig

[Chris Hurd]

Craig

Lady X is not on cable... yet. I wouldn't be surpised to see the entire series run on IFC someday soon, though! Read all about it right here, at ladyxfilms.com. Hope this helps,

[Craig Hollenback]

Thanks Chris...terrific concept...makes the gears start turning! Loved Le Fem Nikita...who knows what wil come of this? Tnx, Craig

[Neil Slade]

>Unfortunately, when the DVX100 is in Progressive mode, the image stabilizer does not operate and works only in Interlaced mode.

????

No, it works for me in 24p unless I am crazy.

[Howard Meyer]

Has anyone noticed the electronic ringing on the two Canon Still Life comparisons done by Barry in his first post? Jump back and forth between the GL2 and the PD150 test patterns and its quite apparent---there with the GL2, absent with the PD150. I first noticed it on my GL2 and I posted it on this site as a HALO problem. Frank refered me to a site(see my post) that described various problem issues and there it was. An edge effect caused by over sharpening produces a phantom white line at the interface of a dark and light object. I did not notice it for weeks after getting my camera but now its the first thing I look for. Kind of like a paper cut.
I sent my GL2 back to the factory to correct this "problem" and it was returned, as was, with a note stating that it was "normal". I was just getting ready to send it back again when I visited Barry's evaluation to see if it was addressed. I didn't find any comments on it but it sure showed up in his Still Life photos. If all you other GL2 owners also see this condition, I may not return mine to the factory again but just enjoy the other good features of this camera.

[Barry Goyette]

Howard

I would hardly say that the "ringing" you noticed is absent in the pd150 images. Yes it is slightly less obvious, but it is still quite noticeable. Is this difference a flaw?...not necessarily.

Firstly, by specification the images from these cameras are designed to be viewed on an NTSC monitor, not on a web page viewed with a high resolution computer monitor. The fringing you notice would not be viewable in the specified viewing format, and in fact the fringing is a primary component in making the image look sharp in the lower resolution (ntsc)environment. (ask any prepress professional why we over-sample our scans, and then unsharp mask them (the source of the fringing) prior to printing...it produces a better, sharper result than simply scanning at the resolution of the litho screen, and not sharpening typically results in a slightly blurry image)

Secondly, this effect can be minimized by turning down the sharpness in the camera settings. In the review, I noted that I felt the image of the gl2 is slightly oversharpened...especially when viewed on the computer..and I have many times recommended here that the sharpening be turned down 1 or 2 points. I think this procedure would produce a similar amount of fringing compared to the pd150.

You would be hard-pressed to find any video camera (or even digital still camera) that doesn't produce some amount of sharpening artifact, especially when shooting a black and white line chart like mine...remember, as I said in the review...much of the data gained from test charts should be taken with a grain of salt...and is only valuable if you shoot black and white lines for a living.

Cheers

Barry

[Neil Slade]

Yes, the DVX steady shot (labled "OIS" and shown by the little hand icon in the display)works in all modes- and quite well.

Barry has bought a DVX100 himself, and I would be interesed in his feedback now that he's had it for a while.

A new DVX100A is being sold now with some nice upgrades, including electronic 16:9 OR letterbox and several other useful features.

I am EXTREMELY happy with this camera, as it addressed many of the issues I had some problems with on the GL2-- a very good camera for the money, but lacking a few features I desired in a pro camera. Most notably, the DVX procudes a superior and sharper image, with more accurate color rendition-- albeit, and a price jump from the GL2.

[Howard Meyer]

Barry
Do you remember what the sharpness was set at when you did your evaluation of the GL2?

[Barry Goyette]

Howard

The comparison shots for all cameras were shot with all settings at default, which for the gl2 would mean the neutral or 0 position...this doesn't mean that sharpening is not applied at this level, only that canon's engineers decided that this level of sharpness looked best to them. I feel that for many purposes, this level of sharpening is a bit high, so I usually have mine set a step or two lower...but the best way to set your camera is to view the footage at a variety of sharpness levels on the intended output device....a higher level of sharpness might look better if shot in good light and displayed on an ntsc monitor, a lower level might look best on a computer monitor or for footage that is shot in lower light ( to minimize noise caused by increased gain).

If you've never done a custom preset sharpness adjustment, just be sure to turn the preset ON after you've adjusted the menu settings(button on the side of the camera)...a "cp" should show in the lower left of the screen letting you know that the adjustment is being applied.

Neil-As for my feelings about the gl2 as referenced to the dvx100. I think the gl2 is the best camera priced at $2000, and I think the DVX100 is the best camera priced at $3500. Is one or the other better...yes...do the math. In my ladyX film we did a scene with both cameras...the diner scene...and in some respects--sharpness and highlight rendering--the dvx100 proved superior by a slight margin. But I doubt that anyone could definitively pick the gl2 shots from that scene.

These are two cameras intended for completely different markets...so I'm not sure that any comparison is fair...in many respects the gl2 offers much more for the money in a significantly lighter/smaller package than does the dvx. Does this make it a better camera?...well yes, for someone who only has 2 grand to spend, and wants it for vacations, parties, hiking etc. For someone making their first indy DV epic, The DVX makes a lot of sense considering the next step up is many thousands of dollars more.

When I reviewed the gl2, I was very happy to see that in many respects it held its own against two cameras priced $1500 above it. Is this also the case with the DVX?..yes and no...yes the gl2 still has category leading performance that produces an image quality very much on par with the dvx...but on the other hand the dvx has raised the bar for cameras in its market sector, and thus has a slight edge over the gl2 in terms of image quality, and a significant bump in terms of functionality.

Barry