Gl2 to Xl1s resolution compared at DVinfo.net

Jay Stevens · September 29th, 2004, 07:21 AM

O.k. Looking at the specs it seems the Gl2's, although smaller 1/4 inch chips, give an actual higher resolution than that of the 1/3 inch bigger chips of the Xl1s. Can anyone verify this for me. All the responses I can get would be helpfull.

Thanks

John Lee · September 29th, 2004, 08:22 AM

Hi Jay,

I've used both the GL2 and the XL1s quite a bit and I'd have to say that I haven't noticed any big difference in terms of resolution. I don't have the most experienced eye, but I can definitely say that the color and general image quality of the XL1s is higher than that of the GL2.

I bought the GL2 over the XL1s for financial reasons, thinking that I would get a comparable image to the XL1s with less functionality. I think it was a good investment. The GL2 produces some superb images, but the XL1s seems to reproduce color much better.

I'd have to say also that the GL2 with its default settings has a sharper image than the XL1s, and I don't mean that in a good way. I think the XL1s is a bit softer and has better DoF. I'm not sure what the tech specs on the resolutions are though.

Ken Tanaka · September 29th, 2004, 10:27 PM

Yes, purely by the numbers, this is true. The GL2's ccd resolution of 410,000 pixels is, indeed, higher than that of the XL1S' 1/3" ccd's, which hosts approximately 270,000 pixels.

Jay Stevens · September 29th, 2004, 10:32 PM

Thanks Ken!!! I thought that seemed to be what canon's site was saying and almost hiding in the side by side comparison option. You have to read each one's specs because it leaves it out on the xl1s when showing the side by side. I wonder if the gl2 is really a better pic quality just due to the res.... maybe the xl1s beats it overall in versatility but the res and resulting film mode quality may beat it out on the gl2.

Jeff Donald · September 29th, 2004, 10:40 PM

Pixel size is equally as important (maybe more so). Smaller pixels result in lower signal to noise ratio, may require a stronger anti alias filter and the smaller size requires a great degree of enlargement to fill the same size screen. This greater magnification make make the defects more noticeable.

Jay Stevens · September 29th, 2004, 10:41 PM

Here is a follow up to the original question which was sidebarred with Ken.

Hey Ken, I know you are the expert on this one. I recently went to canon's site and saw that the xl1s had 270k pixels per chip resulting in about 410k pixel total res whereas the gl2 has 410k per chip resulting in about or comparable to 680k total res. Is this true? Also, the top post, w/ I believe his name is Barry Goyette, w/ the comparison of the gl2 xl1s and pd150 states that the sharpness is a bit better than the xl1s but w/ a minute color loss that can be corrected by working with the controls. I'm not quite sure if he is saying there is an actual higher res on the gl2 but states in the end that canon needs to follow the gl2 architecture of 1/4 in. (actually states 1/3 but gl2 but probably meant to say actual 1/4) chips to go into the xl2 (of course this was before it came out). Any final concrete conclusions on this resolution thing for you?

Thank You,
Jay

p.s. - Ken is humble and corrected me on calling him "the expert" but I do believe he has extensive experience with the camera so...... I believe his advice is pretty good.

Jay Stevens · September 29th, 2004, 10:45 PM

Thanks Jeff. That sums up nicely some of what i've read. At least that's what I think I was getting.

Ken Tanaka · September 29th, 2004, 10:45 PM

I currently own both cameras, so I think I can make a stab at this. Out of the box, the GL2 produces a sharper image than the XL1S. But that sharpness is not strictly due to the resolution difference. It's also due to changes in the image processor that Canon introduced in the 18-24 months between the cameras' introductions. Many GL1 owners whined that Sony's comparable cameras were "sharper". So Canon responded with the GL2.

The limited footage I've seen from the XL2 suggests that it also can produce razor imaging.

But you should understand that "razor sharpness" is not a desirable quality for applications such as dramatic work. It produces too much of a daddy-cam look. So I, and many others, tend to turn the GL2's sharpness down a notch to get a smoother image. But it's all a matter of taste.

Rob Lohman · September 30th, 2004, 02:06 AM

The GL2 image is sharper than the XL1S image and it does have
higher resolution CCD's. Whether this generates a more pleasing
image to what you are doing, depends on preference, taste and
the application you will be using these camera's for.

p.s. Jay: I've merged your two threads

September 29th, 2004, 07:21 AM	#1
Jay Stevens Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 75	Gl2 to Xl1s resolution compared O.k. Looking at the specs it seems the Gl2's, although smaller 1/4 inch chips, give an actual higher resolution than that of the 1/3 inch bigger chips of the Xl1s. Can anyone verify this for me. All the responses I can get would be helpfull. Thanks

September 29th, 2004, 08:22 AM	#2
John Lee Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Silver Spring, MD Posts: 152	Hi Jay, I've used both the GL2 and the XL1s quite a bit and I'd have to say that I haven't noticed any big difference in terms of resolution. I don't have the most experienced eye, but I can definitely say that the color and general image quality of the XL1s is higher than that of the GL2. I bought the GL2 over the XL1s for financial reasons, thinking that I would get a comparable image to the XL1s with less functionality. I think it was a good investment. The GL2 produces some superb images, but the XL1s seems to reproduce color much better. I'd have to say also that the GL2 with its default settings has a sharper image than the XL1s, and I don't mean that in a good way. I think the XL1s is a bit softer and has better DoF. I'm not sure what the tech specs on the resolutions are though. __________________ John Lee Levelse7en@gmail.com

September 29th, 2004, 10:27 PM	#3
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Yes, purely by the numbers, this is true. The GL2's ccd resolution of 410,000 pixels is, indeed, higher than that of the XL1S' 1/3" ccd's, which hosts approximately 270,000 pixels. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

September 29th, 2004, 10:40 PM	#5
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Pixel size is equally as important (maybe more so). Smaller pixels result in lower signal to noise ratio, may require a stronger anti alias filter and the smaller size requires a great degree of enlargement to fill the same size screen. This greater magnification make make the defects more noticeable. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

September 29th, 2004, 10:45 PM	#8
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	I currently own both cameras, so I think I can make a stab at this. Out of the box, the GL2 produces a sharper image than the XL1S. But that sharpness is not strictly due to the resolution difference. It's also due to changes in the image processor that Canon introduced in the 18-24 months between the cameras' introductions. Many GL1 owners whined that Sony's comparable cameras were "sharper". So Canon responded with the GL2. The limited footage I've seen from the XL2 suggests that it also can produce razor imaging. But you should understand that "razor sharpness" is not a desirable quality for applications such as dramatic work. It produces too much of a daddy-cam look. So I, and many others, tend to turn the GL2's sharpness down a notch to get a smoother image. But it's all a matter of taste. __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

September 29th, 2004, 10:32 PM	#4
Jay Stevens Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 75	Thanks Ken!!! I thought that seemed to be what canon's site was saying and almost hiding in the side by side comparison option. You have to read each one's specs because it leaves it out on the xl1s when showing the side by side. I wonder if the gl2 is really a better pic quality just due to the res.... maybe the xl1s beats it overall in versatility but the res and resulting film mode quality may beat it out on the gl2.

September 29th, 2004, 10:41 PM	#6
Jay Stevens Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 75	Here is a follow up to the original question which was sidebarred with Ken. Hey Ken, I know you are the expert on this one. I recently went to canon's site and saw that the xl1s had 270k pixels per chip resulting in about 410k pixel total res whereas the gl2 has 410k per chip resulting in about or comparable to 680k total res. Is this true? Also, the top post, w/ I believe his name is Barry Goyette, w/ the comparison of the gl2 xl1s and pd150 states that the sharpness is a bit better than the xl1s but w/ a minute color loss that can be corrected by working with the controls. I'm not quite sure if he is saying there is an actual higher res on the gl2 but states in the end that canon needs to follow the gl2 architecture of 1/4 in. (actually states 1/3 but gl2 but probably meant to say actual 1/4) chips to go into the xl2 (of course this was before it came out). Any final concrete conclusions on this resolution thing for you? Thank You, Jay p.s. - Ken is humble and corrected me on calling him "the expert" but I do believe he has extensive experience with the camera so...... I believe his advice is pretty good.

September 30th, 2004, 02:06 AM	#9
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	The GL2 image is sharper than the XL1S image and it does have higher resolution CCD's. Whether this generates a more pleasing image to what you are doing, depends on preference, taste and the application you will be using these camera's for. p.s. Jay: I've merged your two threads __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors