Xl1s vs. XL2

Goran Conjar · January 8th, 2005, 02:18 AM

Here is some pictures of two camcorders side by side. I had a problem with XL2 which I described in thread "Problem with picture on XL2"! You can read about it here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=37061

Today I upload on my site some old and new test pictures before and after service settings, with and without custom preset setting. Main problem for me was greeny picture without contrast and undersaturated red color. On service they say that is already in manufacture setting OK, but they set picture especially for me to look as close as possible to XL1s.

You can see pictures here:

http://gamma-video.com/xl2/

Oliver Power · January 8th, 2005, 02:50 AM

Hi Goran,

Thank you for posting these pictures. It is a re-affirmation of why we all got our XL2s. Also, I think its interesting to see in the very last pictures, how much nicer the XL2 looks with a 1K light as opposed to the 300w above. With the 1K, the subject's skin looks very warm and natural. Whereas he looks more pale, and green with the 300W. Just out of curiousity, how did you white balance for all of these shots? That obviously will make a huge difference in how the colors appear.

regards,

Oliver

Goran Conjar · January 8th, 2005, 06:44 AM

WB was made on the same white paper from the same distance! But,... for me there was always problem with setting WB on XL1s! Sometimes was good, sometimes bad from the same distance on the same object!

Oliver Power · January 9th, 2005, 05:45 PM

Thanks Goran. The same white balance makes the comparisons really helpful.

regards,

Oliver

Dylan Couper · January 11th, 2005, 06:22 PM

I'm a little dissapointed there wasn't more difference in the picture quality. Untill I need 16:9, I think I'll stick with my old XL1.

A. J. deLange · January 12th, 2005, 03:52 PM

16:9 is a big advantage if you like 16:9 and I do and that's the main reason I bought the camera. Another advantage, IMO, is that the color reproduction is truer on the XL2 but this whole thread is here because some consider that a fault! Finally, the XL2 is a little sharper than the XL1s and the progressive mode is sharper than the interlaced (it's the other way round in the XL1s). This is a plus for me because I look at most of my footage on a computer and thus shoot everything progressive. Everyone has to make his decision based on what is important to him (for example you'll notice that I didn't even mention 24p because that's not a feature I'm ever likely to use.

January 8th, 2005, 02:18 AM	#1
Goran Conjar Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Nova Gradiska, Croatia Posts: 28	Xl1s vs. XL2 - 14 sample pictures Here is some pictures of two camcorders side by side. I had a problem with XL2 which I described in thread "Problem with picture on XL2"! You can read about it here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?threadid=37061 Today I upload on my site some old and new test pictures before and after service settings, with and without custom preset setting. Main problem for me was greeny picture without contrast and undersaturated red color. On service they say that is already in manufacture setting OK, but they set picture especially for me to look as close as possible to XL1s. You can see pictures here: http://gamma-video.com/xl2/ __________________ Goran

January 8th, 2005, 06:44 AM	#3
Goran Conjar Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Nova Gradiska, Croatia Posts: 28	WB was made on the same white paper from the same distance! But,... for me there was always problem with setting WB on XL1s! Sometimes was good, sometimes bad from the same distance on the same object! __________________ Goran

January 11th, 2005, 06:22 PM	#5
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	I'm a little dissapointed there wasn't more difference in the picture quality. Untill I need 16:9, I think I'll stick with my old XL1. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

January 8th, 2005, 02:50 AM	#2
Oliver Power Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Santa Monica, CA Posts: 26	Hi Goran, Thank you for posting these pictures. It is a re-affirmation of why we all got our XL2s. Also, I think its interesting to see in the very last pictures, how much nicer the XL2 looks with a 1K light as opposed to the 300w above. With the 1K, the subject's skin looks very warm and natural. Whereas he looks more pale, and green with the 300W. Just out of curiousity, how did you white balance for all of these shots? That obviously will make a huge difference in how the colors appear. regards, Oliver

January 9th, 2005, 05:45 PM	#4
Oliver Power Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Santa Monica, CA Posts: 26	Thanks Goran. The same white balance makes the comparisons really helpful. regards, Oliver

January 12th, 2005, 03:52 PM	#6
A. J. deLange Major Player Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: McLean, VA United States Posts: 749	16:9 is a big advantage if you like 16:9 and I do and that's the main reason I bought the camera. Another advantage, IMO, is that the color reproduction is truer on the XL2 but this whole thread is here because some consider that a fault! Finally, the XL2 is a little sharper than the XL1s and the progressive mode is sharper than the interlaced (it's the other way round in the XL1s). This is a plus for me because I look at most of my footage on a computer and thus shoot everything progressive. Everyone has to make his decision based on what is important to him (for example you'll notice that I didn't even mention 24p because that's not a feature I'm ever likely to use.