Still Images GL2 vs VX2000 at DVinfo.net

Hans Kuipers · October 13th, 2002, 11:47 AM

When I look at http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/images/images1.php
the pictures of the vx2000 look much sharper (no alaising) than those of the GL2 in this forum. Isn't that strange since (according to the spec.) the resolution of the GL2 ought to be much higher than the VX2000. Explanation ?????

Frank Granovski · October 13th, 2002, 01:29 PM

Sony has always been known to be sharp, with their higher end consumer 1 and 3 chip cams. Perhaps because of the larger, 1/3" CCDs? Maybe because the moon shoots were done with 20X zoom plus an adaptor? I would think that the GL2 has a similar resolution with the VX2000. That's only a guess, though.

Barry Goyette · October 13th, 2002, 01:52 PM

Michaels images are beautiful...among the best still shots I've seen from a DV Camera. To say they have no aliasing is not correct...the aliasing you see in the moon shot is a product of a very high contrast edge...take a look at some of the diagonal high contrast edges on the 3rd and last images of michael's series. Additionally, the compression scheme on buddys clip is most certainly adding to the aliasing you are seeing. He may also be shooting in frame mode which would also lower the vertical resolution slightly, and increase the presence of this type of aliasing.

The only way to truly evaluate or compare the cameras is to put them side by side on the same subject, which I did with the PD150 in my review (same chips as the vx2000). The two cameras were virtually identical, except that the gl2 exhibits more in-camera sharpening (which can be turned down), and lower contrast.

Remember, when you are viewing a still shot, the resolution of the format 720x480 has the most effect on overall resolution...thus in this respect the gl2 higher res chip would show no more resolution than the vx2000 or vice versa. In a moving video situation, you may be able to see slightly more resolution, but I doubt it. As Chris wisely said in another post last week...these cameras have a lot more in common than they have differences.

Barry

Barry Goyette · October 13th, 2002, 01:55 PM

Ok what happened to odessa's and franks posts...they disappeared while I was writing mine....

Guess I shouldn't be so long winded.

Barry

Ken Tanaka · October 13th, 2002, 02:02 PM

Barry,
Since the "Moon Shots" thread veered off to a comparison of the GL2 and VX2000 I split the thread and started this new one. Sorry for the dislocation, Barry. Please don't be less "long-winded"! <g>

Hans Kuipers · October 14th, 2002, 01:34 PM

Actually I was not refering to the moon shots of the GL2 but to page with the still images of the ducks and the parade!!!!!
When I look at these images to my opinion they are not even good enough for website applications (no offence to the publisher of the images). I realize that the GL2 is not a digital photo camera but anyway I would expect that SVGA+ resolution (which Canon claims in their spec) is better than VGA resolution of the VX2000

Bill Hardy · October 14th, 2002, 02:43 PM

Perhaps you should take into account that all the images taken on the duck/parade page were taken with the camcorder hand held and none of the subjects, moving ducks or humans were asked to remain still. A good example is the old woman in the church. Most of her face was moving because she was gumming on her tongue, hence you see aliazing in the skin creases of her facial expression. I thought to myself afterward, gee, if she could have stopped ruminating it would have been a perfect shot. But if you want a good example of a GL2 frame freeze then you should consider Barry's video still shots of the model Liz. These shots convinced me to buy the cam. Please don't judge the GL2 from shots of kids on moving floats, cheer leaders walking down streets, etc, when in fact none of them were asked to remain still.
All in all I think the GL2 did a pretty good job capturing hand held moving images. Even the moon was shot with me hand supporting the camera, with optical stabilizer on.
Sorry for giving misleading impressions of this very good camcorder. I will try to post better shots in the future.
I would be interested in seeing the link to the VX2000 shots you were posting about. Are these moving subjects also, and was the video taken hand held? How about a link?

Hans Kuipers · October 14th, 2002, 02:48 PM

Ok I understand your point. BUT if the image you want to shoot is "not moving at all" do you think the photo quality of the GL2 is better than the one of the VX2000 (which has less pixels and no pixcek shift)??????

Bill Hardy · October 14th, 2002, 03:02 PM

I could not be sure, especially since I have no clue as to the VX2000 shots you posted about. What do you think of Barry's shot of Liz? This should tell you something of the GL2's capability.
I could detect no noticible aliazing of Barry's still on my system, and I have an unforgiving Powerbook 667 DVI LCD display.
I have also noticed that even the slightest movements with telephoto can sometimes cause aliazing. All the indoor church photos on my web page were taken from a distance, hand held, with telephoto zoom, only the young boy noticed that I was taping him, as you can see.
All I can say is that you re-check the links to Barry's close-up still of Liz at the top post of this forum. He also has shots comparing the PD-150 to the GL2 using objects on a dresser. Then you can decide which cam is right for you.

In my case the fact that I already had two interchangeable 941 batteries, AC adapter and wide angle lens from my GL1 made the choosing of a GL2 simpler. But I understand your concerns; I would have probably done the same if I were in your position, but I wasn't. I needed the best cam for the least expenditure on accesories. And if faced with the same choice I would do the same thing gladly. Plus it handles pretty like my old GL1 cams.

Hans Kuipers · October 14th, 2002, 03:53 PM

I will have another look at Berry's still images. Maybe my PC/monotor combination is just not good enough to judge the photo quality. Thanks for your comments on my questions.

October 13th, 2002, 11:47 AM	#1
Hans Kuipers Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 61	still images GL2 vs. VX2000 When I look at http://www.dvinfo.net/sony/images/images1.php the pictures of the vx2000 look much sharper (no alaising) than those of the GL2 in this forum. Isn't that strange since (according to the spec.) the resolution of the GL2 ought to be much higher than the VX2000. Explanation ?????

October 13th, 2002, 02:02 PM	#5
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Barry, Since the "Moon Shots" thread veered off to a comparison of the GL2 and VX2000 I split the thread and started this new one. Sorry for the dislocation, Barry. Please don't be less "long-winded"! <g> __________________ 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

October 14th, 2002, 02:48 PM	#8
Hans Kuipers Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 61	to buddy1065 Ok I understand your point. BUT if the image you want to shoot is "not moving at all" do you think the photo quality of the GL2 is better than the one of the VX2000 (which has less pixels and no pixcek shift)??????

October 14th, 2002, 03:53 PM	#10
Hans Kuipers Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 61	to buddy1065 I will have another look at Berry's still images. Maybe my PC/monotor combination is just not good enough to judge the photo quality. Thanks for your comments on my questions.

October 13th, 2002, 01:29 PM	#2
Frank Granovski Outer Circle Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hope, BC Posts: 7,524	Sony has always been known to be sharp, with their higher end consumer 1 and 3 chip cams. Perhaps because of the larger, 1/3" CCDs? Maybe because the moon shoots were done with 20X zoom plus an adaptor? I would think that the GL2 has a similar resolution with the VX2000. That's only a guess, though.

October 13th, 2002, 01:52 PM	#3
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Michaels images are beautiful...among the best still shots I've seen from a DV Camera. To say they have no aliasing is not correct...the aliasing you see in the moon shot is a product of a very high contrast edge...take a look at some of the diagonal high contrast edges on the 3rd and last images of michael's series. Additionally, the compression scheme on buddys clip is most certainly adding to the aliasing you are seeing. He may also be shooting in frame mode which would also lower the vertical resolution slightly, and increase the presence of this type of aliasing. The only way to truly evaluate or compare the cameras is to put them side by side on the same subject, which I did with the PD150 in my review (same chips as the vx2000). The two cameras were virtually identical, except that the gl2 exhibits more in-camera sharpening (which can be turned down), and lower contrast. Remember, when you are viewing a still shot, the resolution of the format 720x480 has the most effect on overall resolution...thus in this respect the gl2 higher res chip would show no more resolution than the vx2000 or vice versa. In a moving video situation, you may be able to see slightly more resolution, but I doubt it. As Chris wisely said in another post last week...these cameras have a lot more in common than they have differences. Barry

October 13th, 2002, 01:55 PM	#4
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	Ok what happened to odessa's and franks posts...they disappeared while I was writing mine.... Guess I shouldn't be so long winded. Barry

October 14th, 2002, 01:34 PM	#6
Hans Kuipers Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 61	Actually I was not refering to the moon shots of the GL2 but to page with the still images of the ducks and the parade!!!!! When I look at these images to my opinion they are not even good enough for website applications (no offence to the publisher of the images). I realize that the GL2 is not a digital photo camera but anyway I would expect that SVGA+ resolution (which Canon claims in their spec) is better than VGA resolution of the VX2000

October 14th, 2002, 02:43 PM	#7
Bill Hardy Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 205	Perhaps you should take into account that all the images taken on the duck/parade page were taken with the camcorder hand held and none of the subjects, moving ducks or humans were asked to remain still. A good example is the old woman in the church. Most of her face was moving because she was gumming on her tongue, hence you see aliazing in the skin creases of her facial expression. I thought to myself afterward, gee, if she could have stopped ruminating it would have been a perfect shot. But if you want a good example of a GL2 frame freeze then you should consider Barry's video still shots of the model Liz. These shots convinced me to buy the cam. Please don't judge the GL2 from shots of kids on moving floats, cheer leaders walking down streets, etc, when in fact none of them were asked to remain still. All in all I think the GL2 did a pretty good job capturing hand held moving images. Even the moon was shot with me hand supporting the camera, with optical stabilizer on. Sorry for giving misleading impressions of this very good camcorder. I will try to post better shots in the future. I would be interested in seeing the link to the VX2000 shots you were posting about. Are these moving subjects also, and was the video taken hand held? How about a link?

October 14th, 2002, 03:02 PM	#9
Bill Hardy Major Player Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 205	I could not be sure, especially since I have no clue as to the VX2000 shots you posted about. What do you think of Barry's shot of Liz? This should tell you something of the GL2's capability. I could detect no noticible aliazing of Barry's still on my system, and I have an unforgiving Powerbook 667 DVI LCD display. I have also noticed that even the slightest movements with telephoto can sometimes cause aliazing. All the indoor church photos on my web page were taken from a distance, hand held, with telephoto zoom, only the young boy noticed that I was taping him, as you can see. All I can say is that you re-check the links to Barry's close-up still of Liz at the top post of this forum. He also has shots comparing the PD-150 to the GL2 using objects on a dresser. Then you can decide which cam is right for you. In my case the fact that I already had two interchangeable 941 batteries, AC adapter and wide angle lens from my GL1 made the choosing of a GL2 simpler. But I understand your concerns; I would have probably done the same if I were in your position, but I wasn't. I needed the best cam for the least expenditure on accesories. And if faced with the same choice I would do the same thing gladly. Plus it handles pretty like my old GL1 cams.