16/9 GS400 better than 16/9 XL1S? at DVinfo.net

Mathieu Ghekiere · December 27th, 2004, 05:12 PM

Hey,

I have the XL1S and my nephew has the Panasonic GS400. If he puts it in 16/9 you really see more at the left and right. If I put my XL1S at 16/9 it just cuts of the bottom and top of the screen. So can I conclude the widescreen mode from the GS400 is better than the XL1S? (Wouldn't surprise me, the GS400 is a newer cam than the XL1S)

Other question: why doesn't that make the GS400 widescreen mode 'real' widescreen?

Thanks for the information in advance.

Rob Lohman · December 29th, 2004, 07:29 AM

It seems that the GS400 uses a true 16:9 widescreen mode
indeed, so you could dub it better than the XL1S. However,
whether the overal image will be better (both in terms of quality
and resolution) is another matter (which not solely rests with
resolution for example).

It *is* "real" widescreen as you call it.

Mathieu Ghekiere · December 29th, 2004, 12:13 PM

Thanks. Yes, I'm not debating about the picture quality, I think for example the skin tones of the XL1S aren't surpassed by the GS400. But the widescreen mode occured to me. But can I ask another thing? If the GS400 has 'real' widescreen, why is everybody raving about the 16/9 on the XL2? I know the XL2 is a cam maybe a thousand times better than the GS400 (no offense, and exagerating a little bitt ofcourse) and it has many many more pro fuctions, and I realise the resolution alone on the XL2 in widescreen mode is much better, but I thought the XL2 was the first (prosumer) cam with 'real' widescreen? (Okay, I know the GS400 is more consumer than prosumer, but hmm you know what I mean :-))

Thanks for the reply though.

Rob Lohman · December 30th, 2004, 06:12 AM

I really don't know for sure. This is the first time I've heard about
this camera. It looks however like a consumer camera a not a
prosumer one which is what most people are interested in here.

That's why it probably has not been talked about much. I couldn't
find for example whether it supports progressive mode, it also
seems it cannot do 24 fps (NTSC model).

So I think the reason everyone was/is so excited is that the XL2
is the first serious film/videomaker camera that has true 16:9
(among, as you know, a lot of other stuff).

Mathieu Ghekiere · December 30th, 2004, 07:35 AM

Yep you're probably right. It isn't capable of 24P, it does hoewever has Frame Mode. But well, okay, I just wanted it to check it, and I've got my answer. Still love my XL1S more at the end of the day :-p
Thanks Rob

Don Palomaki · December 31st, 2004, 05:18 AM

The Panasonic GS/MX Forum here does have some discussion of the GS400.

December 27th, 2004, 05:12 PM	#1
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	16/9 GS400 better than 16/9 XL1S? Hey, I have the XL1S and my nephew has the Panasonic GS400. If he puts it in 16/9 you really see more at the left and right. If I put my XL1S at 16/9 it just cuts of the bottom and top of the screen. So can I conclude the widescreen mode from the GS400 is better than the XL1S? (Wouldn't surprise me, the GS400 is a newer cam than the XL1S) Other question: why doesn't that make the GS400 widescreen mode 'real' widescreen? Thanks for the information in advance.

December 29th, 2004, 07:29 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	It seems that the GS400 uses a true 16:9 widescreen mode indeed, so you could dub it better than the XL1S. However, whether the overal image will be better (both in terms of quality and resolution) is another matter (which not solely rests with resolution for example). It is "real" widescreen as you call it. __________________ 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

December 30th, 2004, 06:12 AM	#4
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I really don't know for sure. This is the first time I've heard about this camera. It looks however like a consumer camera a not a prosumer one which is what most people are interested in here. That's why it probably has not been talked about much. I couldn't find for example whether it supports progressive mode, it also seems it cannot do 24 fps (NTSC model). So I think the reason everyone was/is so excited is that the XL2 is the first serious film/videomaker camera that has true 16:9 (among, as you know, a lot of other stuff). __________________ 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

December 31st, 2004, 05:18 AM	#6
Don Palomaki Wrangler Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Northern VA Posts: 4,488	The Panasonic GS/MX Forum here does have some discussion of the GS400. __________________ dpalomaki@dspalomaki.com

December 29th, 2004, 12:13 PM	#3
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Thanks. Yes, I'm not debating about the picture quality, I think for example the skin tones of the XL1S aren't surpassed by the GS400. But the widescreen mode occured to me. But can I ask another thing? If the GS400 has 'real' widescreen, why is everybody raving about the 16/9 on the XL2? I know the XL2 is a cam maybe a thousand times better than the GS400 (no offense, and exagerating a little bitt ofcourse) and it has many many more pro fuctions, and I realise the resolution alone on the XL2 in widescreen mode is much better, but I thought the XL2 was the first (prosumer) cam with 'real' widescreen? (Okay, I know the GS400 is more consumer than prosumer, but hmm you know what I mean :-)) Thanks for the reply though.

December 30th, 2004, 07:35 AM	#5
Mathieu Ghekiere Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Belgium Posts: 2,195	Yep you're probably right. It isn't capable of 24P, it does hoewever has Frame Mode. But well, okay, I just wanted it to check it, and I've got my answer. Still love my XL1S more at the end of the day :-p Thanks Rob