Woe is me...... GL-2 inoperable....

Bruce Pelley · March 31st, 2010, 07:19 AM

Hi Tom,

I shoot in a very large church where the cameras (both GL-1's and 2's) due to circumstances are positioned a good distance away from the platform & puplit.

Please keep in mind that the GL-2 has about 50% more pixel power then the GL-1 and it shows when shooting especially at a greater distances.

In this situation the clarity,color,sharpness,definition and video output that the GL-2 produces outshines the GL-1's performance by a wide margin.

All I can tell you that comparatively speaking, The GL-1 picture suffers because at that distance its capabilities are stretched so thin it can't handle the task effectively. At some point, its deficiency in the # of pixels has to show and it does.

I also noticed in low light the image of the GL-1 is softer.

The above is based on very long term personal experience with both units whether they were mine or belonged to others.

In the GL-1's case it's been around 8-9 years.

Tom Blizzard · March 31st, 2010, 08:19 AM

Thanks Bruce, I appreciate the explanation.

I too do a lot of video work at our church. I've had the two GL2 cams for about three years now.

Wow, kinda wish I had talked to you earlier. I just assumed that the GL1, with 3CCD and the same lens would be very similar in PQ to the GL2 cams. As a third cam in our group, I assumed that I could set up the GL1 in the tech booth and just use it as a remote. I'm using anamorphic lens on my two GL2 cams, but I can mix the 16:9 and 4:3 very well. I sure thought that the video coming from the GL1 would be very similar to and would mix very well with the GL2.

Of course most of the rave reviews I read were posted 8 years ago..........Well, live and learn.

Thanks again, Tom

Bruce Pelley · March 31st, 2010, 09:15 AM

Hi Tom,

I want to be absolutely fair.

At considerably closer distances the GL-1 is capable of reasonably good output especially for taking audience close-ups if placed in the front towards the audience & in the hands of a skilled operator.

Where it deteriorates is at greater distances and IMHO rather quickly.

In my situation, I have no doubt that if the GL-1 camera was 25 feet away from the action instead of 100+, then the results would be appreciably better & certainly acceptable.

I hope all goes well in your service and ministry.

Please take care Sir!

Richard Amirault · April 5th, 2010, 09:58 AM

Unless you are using the digital zoom .. how does shooting at a distance matter re: quality between the GL1 and GL2? Assuming that the lighting is sufficient in both instances.

Don Palomaki · April 5th, 2010, 06:49 PM

The lower pixel count of the GL1 can make images with a lot of fine structure look less sharp. A shot that is head and shoulders of one person will look better than a full body shot of a group.

The GL1 (I have one) is long in the tooth, but can produce decent SD video in the hands of a good shooter and editor. One has to be aware of its limits and stay within those bounds.

Richard Amirault · April 6th, 2010, 11:20 AM

.............

Tom Blizzard · April 18th, 2010, 06:20 AM

Tks Don. I agree with your comments. This rather confirms, in a way, what Bruce wrote earlier.

I've noticed even with the GL2 closeup shots, either by zooming in with the 20x lens or moving the cam closer, are much sharper than long shots.
I guess this is a given with most SD cams in this price range.

Got the GL1 back from Canon and it does great with mid to close shots. IMO, long shots are not very good. However, as a third cam, it will do great. I'll use it mostly with my Glidecam and monopod for close B roll shots.

Thanks Don for your explanation . Never thought about that reason.

Don Palomaki · April 20th, 2010, 04:10 AM

It boils down to how many pixels are available to resolve the detail in the shot, and how much detail does the eye/brain need to think the image is sharp and adequately detailed. A head and shoulders shot provides more pixels to rsolve the face than a full body shot with the same camcorder, so it gives the impressionof being sharper.

The other factor is the effective bandwidth of the image - the lines of resolution and how quickly the contrast falls off on finer details.

April 5th, 2010, 09:58 AM	#19
Richard Amirault New Boot Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 13	How does "distance" matter? Unless you are using the digital zoom .. how does shooting at a distance matter re: quality between the GL1 and GL2? Assuming that the lighting is sufficient in both instances.

April 5th, 2010, 06:49 PM	#20
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	The lower pixel count of the GL1 can make images with a lot of fine structure look less sharp. A shot that is head and shoulders of one person will look better than a full body shot of a group. The GL1 (I have one) is long in the tooth, but can produce decent SD video in the hands of a good shooter and editor. One has to be aware of its limits and stay within those bounds. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

April 6th, 2010, 11:20 AM	#21
Richard Amirault New Boot Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 13	............. Last edited by Richard Amirault; April 6th, 2010 at 11:22 AM. Reason: changed my mind

April 20th, 2010, 04:10 AM	#23
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	It boils down to how many pixels are available to resolve the detail in the shot, and how much detail does the eye/brain need to think the image is sharp and adequately detailed. A head and shoulders shot provides more pixels to rsolve the face than a full body shot with the same camcorder, so it gives the impressionof being sharper. The other factor is the effective bandwidth of the image - the lines of resolution and how quickly the contrast falls off on finer details. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

March 31st, 2010, 07:19 AM	#16
Bruce Pelley Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 339	Hi Tom, I shoot in a very large church where the cameras (both GL-1's and 2's) due to circumstances are positioned a good distance away from the platform & puplit. Please keep in mind that the GL-2 has about 50% more pixel power then the GL-1 and it shows when shooting especially at a greater distances. In this situation the clarity,color,sharpness,definition and video output that the GL-2 produces outshines the GL-1's performance by a wide margin. All I can tell you that comparatively speaking, The GL-1 picture suffers because at that distance its capabilities are stretched so thin it can't handle the task effectively. At some point, its deficiency in the # of pixels has to show and it does. I also noticed in low light the image of the GL-1 is softer. The above is based on very long term personal experience with both units whether they were mine or belonged to others. In the GL-1's case it's been around 8-9 years.

March 31st, 2010, 08:19 AM	#17
Tom Blizzard Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: West Rosemary Beach, Florida Posts: 199	Thanks Bruce, I appreciate the explanation. I too do a lot of video work at our church. I've had the two GL2 cams for about three years now. Wow, kinda wish I had talked to you earlier. I just assumed that the GL1, with 3CCD and the same lens would be very similar in PQ to the GL2 cams. As a third cam in our group, I assumed that I could set up the GL1 in the tech booth and just use it as a remote. I'm using anamorphic lens on my two GL2 cams, but I can mix the 16:9 and 4:3 very well. I sure thought that the video coming from the GL1 would be very similar to and would mix very well with the GL2. Of course most of the rave reviews I read were posted 8 years ago..........Well, live and learn. Thanks again, Tom

March 31st, 2010, 09:15 AM	#18
Bruce Pelley Major Player Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 339	Hi Tom, I want to be absolutely fair. At considerably closer distances the GL-1 is capable of reasonably good output especially for taking audience close-ups if placed in the front towards the audience & in the hands of a skilled operator. Where it deteriorates is at greater distances and IMHO rather quickly. In my situation, I have no doubt that if the GL-1 camera was 25 feet away from the action instead of 100+, then the results would be appreciably better & certainly acceptable. I hope all goes well in your service and ministry. Please take care Sir!

April 18th, 2010, 06:20 AM	#22
Tom Blizzard Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: West Rosemary Beach, Florida Posts: 199	Tks Don. I agree with your comments. This rather confirms, in a way, what Bruce wrote earlier. I've noticed even with the GL2 closeup shots, either by zooming in with the 20x lens or moving the cam closer, are much sharper than long shots. I guess this is a given with most SD cams in this price range. Got the GL1 back from Canon and it does great with mid to close shots. IMO, long shots are not very good. However, as a third cam, it will do great. I'll use it mostly with my Glidecam and monopod for close B roll shots. Thanks Don for your explanation . Never thought about that reason.