XL2 side-by-side GL2

Pete Bauer · March 24th, 2005, 09:49 AM

Matthew...but don't you want to wait and save your money for their HD camera? ;-) Oh, oh...Chris is going to send me to Area 51 because I'm wishing too hard!

Chris, I haven't had any bandwidth concerns in the past, but with the renewed interest, I'll check this evening how I'm doing. Thanks for the offer.

Anyway, technology marches on but at any given time, you usually get what you pay for. A GL2 setup is half the cost of being ready to ramble with an XL2 and associated gear. I think if you shoot 60i, narrowscreen it may not be worth the cost. But if you want top quality 16:9 and/or progressive, the XL2 is worth every penny. I was looking at some various clips last evening, and the difference between the GL2 and XL2 for 16:9 progressive footage was VERY obvious.

Matthew Nayman · March 24th, 2005, 09:59 AM

Pete...

I understand the push towards HD but I am satsfied with SD right now. To upgrade to an HD work-flow isn't in the cards for me right now. All my televisions are still SD, and I think alot of digital films shot SD still look great.

For my purposes, a camera with native 16:9 res, 24p, interchangable lenses, and a fairly low price (thier HD will be REAL expensive), is good enough for me.

I do cinematic films so HD looks too soap opera-ish for my tastes...

Matt

Jim Sofranko · March 24th, 2005, 11:00 AM

I have a consideration of another type regarding this thread.

How difficult is it to match the GL2 and the XL2 for a two camera shoot? Is it a matter of bring the XL 2 quality down to the level of the GL2? Does the GL2 have enough menu controls to match color, white balance etc...of the more controllable XL2?

I have to make a choice for an upcoming shoot of using either those two Canons or matching two DVX100's. Matching two DVX 100's seems as if it may be considerably more easy.

Any thoughts? Thanks.

Pete Bauer · March 24th, 2005, 11:59 AM

If 60i narrow, the Canons would probably work together pretty well. Some extra work in post, but not too tough, I'd think. But then, the DVXs would do well for that, too.

I've never shot with a DVX, but gather from other discussions that its 16:9 is probably mid-way between the GL2 and XL2. There's only so much you can do in post to sweeten the GL2's image so you'd mostly be "dumbing down" the XL2's image to get a match...probably be much simpler to shoot with the two DVXs in that case, I'm guessing.

Jim Sofranko · March 24th, 2005, 12:07 PM

Yeah, I forgot that it's 4:3, 30p. But matching is very important.

Jim Giberti · March 25th, 2005, 01:36 PM

Despite some of the things that I've read to the contrary (i.e that you had to work with the XL2 to get the same "out of the box" film look of the DVX), there is a real similarity between the look of the DVX and the XL2 shot in 24p with cine gamma. The big difference is in 16:9 where the image quality drops on the DVX.

I faced this situation just last week when I had the 2 XL2s out on location and needed to cover a World Cup snowboard event for another long term project we're producing. All of that footage from the lsat year has been acquired in XL2 16:9. The only camera available to pick up these WC scenes was the DVX. I took a quick look at the footage and moved on...I knew that we could letterbox the DVX footage and make it look fine alongside the majority of XL2 work.

If it was a controlled film on set where the action and actors would be cut differently, then I wouldn;t have OKed it, but in many cases it will work just fine.

March 24th, 2005, 09:49 AM	#16
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Matthew...but don't you want to wait and save your money for their HD camera? ;-) Oh, oh...Chris is going to send me to Area 51 because I'm wishing too hard! Chris, I haven't had any bandwidth concerns in the past, but with the renewed interest, I'll check this evening how I'm doing. Thanks for the offer. Anyway, technology marches on but at any given time, you usually get what you pay for. A GL2 setup is half the cost of being ready to ramble with an XL2 and associated gear. I think if you shoot 60i, narrowscreen it may not be worth the cost. But if you want top quality 16:9 and/or progressive, the XL2 is worth every penny. I was looking at some various clips last evening, and the difference between the GL2 and XL2 for 16:9 progressive footage was VERY obvious. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

March 24th, 2005, 11:59 AM	#19
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	If 60i narrow, the Canons would probably work together pretty well. Some extra work in post, but not too tough, I'd think. But then, the DVXs would do well for that, too. I've never shot with a DVX, but gather from other discussions that its 16:9 is probably mid-way between the GL2 and XL2. There's only so much you can do in post to sweeten the GL2's image so you'd mostly be "dumbing down" the XL2's image to get a match...probably be much simpler to shoot with the two DVXs in that case, I'm guessing. __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

March 24th, 2005, 09:59 AM	#17
Matthew Nayman Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 917	Pete... I understand the push towards HD but I am satsfied with SD right now. To upgrade to an HD work-flow isn't in the cards for me right now. All my televisions are still SD, and I think alot of digital films shot SD still look great. For my purposes, a camera with native 16:9 res, 24p, interchangable lenses, and a fairly low price (thier HD will be REAL expensive), is good enough for me. I do cinematic films so HD looks too soap opera-ish for my tastes... Matt

March 24th, 2005, 11:00 AM	#18
Jim Sofranko Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Shokan, NY Posts: 217	I have a consideration of another type regarding this thread. How difficult is it to match the GL2 and the XL2 for a two camera shoot? Is it a matter of bring the XL 2 quality down to the level of the GL2? Does the GL2 have enough menu controls to match color, white balance etc...of the more controllable XL2? I have to make a choice for an upcoming shoot of using either those two Canons or matching two DVX100's. Matching two DVX 100's seems as if it may be considerably more easy. Any thoughts? Thanks.

March 24th, 2005, 12:07 PM	#20
Jim Sofranko Major Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: West Shokan, NY Posts: 217	Yeah, I forgot that it's 4:3, 30p. But matching is very important.

March 25th, 2005, 01:36 PM	#21
Jim Giberti Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bethel, VT Posts: 824	Despite some of the things that I've read to the contrary (i.e that you had to work with the XL2 to get the same "out of the box" film look of the DVX), there is a real similarity between the look of the DVX and the XL2 shot in 24p with cine gamma. The big difference is in 16:9 where the image quality drops on the DVX. I faced this situation just last week when I had the 2 XL2s out on location and needed to cover a World Cup snowboard event for another long term project we're producing. All of that footage from the lsat year has been acquired in XL2 16:9. The only camera available to pick up these WC scenes was the DVX. I took a quick look at the footage and moved on...I knew that we could letterbox the DVX footage and make it look fine alongside the majority of XL2 work. If it was a controlled film on set where the action and actors would be cut differently, then I wouldn;t have OKed it, but in many cases it will work just fine.