Curious about GL2 vs DVX100 at DVinfo.net

Bob Benkosky · April 25th, 2003, 08:10 PM

I was really looking between these 2 models based on overall quality.

Does anyone know the major differences between the 2???

I like the aspect of 24 fps film mode on the Panasonic, but you can obviously give a film look during post with Vegas 4 or other programs.

Which has the overall better quality overall???

Jaime Valles · April 25th, 2003, 11:32 PM

The DVX100 is a great camera, but so is the GL2, especially if you're fairly new to the video world. To do the 24p in the DVX100 the whole camera becomes manual (no auto focus, gain, that sort of thing), which may be too much of a hassle. Plus, you can certainly re-create the film look in post with Vegas, or many other software choices.

For me, the reason to get a DVX100 is if you're shooting independent films and are planning to transfer to film later on. If all you're doing is shooting for fun/hobby, the GL2 is an excellent camera, with many pro features and a great feel, at a more affordable price.

By the way, any place that's selling the DVX100 at $2900 is probably trying to rip you off somehow. Seriously, they use sketchy, grey-market products, and often advertise the price just to get you in the store and buy a bunch of stuff you don't need. I highly recommend using a trusted professional video store (like B&H, for example). When you're shelling out that much money, it's worth the extra $300 to know that your equipment is in good hands before you get it, and that you get ALL the equipment when you buy it.

William Wallick · April 26th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Hi Bob:

I moved from the GL! to the DVX-100, primarily for the audio capability the GL1 lacked.

Although the DVX 100 is a fine camera, the first time I missed the GL1 was when zooming, and I expected it to keep on going (but it didn't). The leica lens is nice but the glass on the GL1 w/ a 20X zoom (non digital) is very sweet. 40mm-806mm in 35mm lingo.

WW

Dylan Couper · April 26th, 2003, 11:18 PM

DVX100 is a better camera overall, but it's almost $1000 more and arguably in a different category than the GL2. If it's in the budget, get it, if not, get the Gl2. You will probably be very happy with either.

Stephen van Vuuren · April 28th, 2003, 01:36 PM

The time to create 24 fps in post for long projects is far more costly in time and money than upgrading to the DX100. Plus, no system, even Magic Bullet, can convert 60i to 24p without some loss in resolution and some artifacts. Magic Bullet comes close, but also costs $1000.

Marc Martin · April 29th, 2003, 10:17 PM

If you want to see what you can do with an XM2 (Pal GL2), download this file (26Mo):

http://marc5532.free.fr/motocross.wmv

The footage has been edited in Vegas Video.

Stephen van Vuuren · April 29th, 2003, 10:31 PM

link is not working...

Marc Martin · April 29th, 2003, 11:19 PM

I don't know what is the problem (perhaps a server problem), the link isn't working in IE6 but works in GetRight, so try with GetRight if you have it or download it at http://www.getright.com , then enter this URL in GetRight http://marc5532.free.fr/motocross.wmv

Bob Benkosky · April 30th, 2003, 12:15 AM

I was able to download it on my girlfriend's computer a little while ago. I watched it and it played kinda funny, skipped around a bit.

I tried to see if it was just the computer, so I tried to download it again, now it's gone.

Glen Elliott · April 30th, 2003, 07:40 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by William Wallick : Hi Bob:

I moved from the GL! to the DVX-100, primarily for the audio capability the GL1 lacked.

Although the DVX 100 is a fine camera, the first time I missed the GL1 was when zooming, and I expected it to keep on going (but it didn't). The leica lens is nice but the glass on the GL1 w/ a 20X zoom (non digital) is very sweet. 40mm-806mm in 35mm lingo.

WW -->>>

I myself have moved in a similar fashion. I'm actually supposed to recieve my DVX100 today- that's why I'm home from work posting on the board. The GL-1 was or IS...a great camera. Very crisp pictures with good color saturation. I'd even, on a stretch, say in proper lighting the images look better then that of my buddy's XL1-S. However like you said the audio stinks. I'm working with a Sennheisser ME66/K6 via a Beachtek adapter and the problem is I have no control over the audio. It's such a sensitive mic it's hard to set the level correct without clipping.

Another thing I'm looking forward to is shooting in 24p. With the GL-1 I almost always shot in frame-mode to depart from the "home video" look the best I could. However it did introduce major strobing. I heard the 24p on the DVX100 can do the same thing but I'm hopping it's less severe- especially during paning.

Stephen van Vuuren · April 30th, 2003, 08:51 AM

"Strobing" at 24P will be worse than frame mode because it's fewer frames per second - frame mode is 30 frames per second. Of course the DVX100 shoot 30P as well.

But if you shoot at 24p and you have not shot film or other 24fps stuff before, you will need to learn some rules of panning. The great thing about the DVX100 is you can see it on the LCD while shooting rather than waiting for the workprint from the lab.

My method is to use a approx 5-8 second pan if needed (5-8 seconds edge) or use whip pans or follow/track with moving subject to disguise strobing.

I see strobing in films in theaters all the time - we're just conditioned to accept it there more than on TV.

You can also pick ASC Cinematorgrapher's handbook with detail charts for panning at 24fps.

Glen Elliott · April 30th, 2003, 10:51 AM

I'm only working with Adobe Premiere- so that means I have to shoot in 24P rather than 24Padvanced. Correct?
Also Adobe doesn't support 24p so I'll have to live with the basic 2:3 pull down. Is it the 2:3 pulldown that makes it strobe?

I read somewhere that if your editing suite accepts 24p you can shoot in advanced mode and it looks alot better.

Lastly, I have a hi-def tv (probably besides the point) and a progressive scan dvd player. Does that mean if I had an editing suite that accepted 24p footage, when I make a dvd out of it and play it...it'll be true progressive scan on the tv?

Stephen van Vuuren · April 30th, 2003, 10:56 AM

You can shoot Advanced and use DVFilmmaker to process your files for 24P in Premiere.

Yep, if you software supports it, you can make a true 24p progressive scan DVD.

I dropped Premiere for Vegas Video. Version 4.0B with DVD Architect 1.0 support this plus 5.1 mixing and encoding. As I already owned Vegas Audio, upgrade only cost $299 for both applications.

Glen Elliott · April 30th, 2003, 11:19 AM

Hmm tell me more about DVFilmaker? What is it? And if it's processed in DVfilmaker then imported into premiere won't I run into the same problem or does DVfilmaker "remove" the frames needed to run smoothly without strobe.....or is strobe an inherent affect of 24p in general?

Stephen van Vuuren · April 30th, 2003, 01:22 PM

search here in this forum or go to www.dvfilmmaker.com - lots of info and demo version.

April 25th, 2003, 08:10 PM	#1
Bob Benkosky Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lake Park, Florida Posts: 202	Curious about GL2 vs DVX100 I was really looking between these 2 models based on overall quality. Does anyone know the major differences between the 2??? I like the aspect of 24 fps film mode on the Panasonic, but you can obviously give a film look during post with Vegas 4 or other programs. Which has the overall better quality overall??? __________________ http://www.veoh.com/channels/filmmaker My clips and films.

April 26th, 2003, 11:18 PM	#4
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	DVX100 is a better camera overall, but it's almost $1000 more and arguably in a different category than the GL2. If it's in the budget, get it, if not, get the Gl2. You will probably be very happy with either. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

April 28th, 2003, 01:36 PM	#5
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	The time to create 24 fps in post for long projects is far more costly in time and money than upgrading to the DX100. Plus, no system, even Magic Bullet, can convert 60i to 24p without some loss in resolution and some artifacts. Magic Bullet comes close, but also costs $1000. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

April 29th, 2003, 10:31 PM	#7
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	link is not working... __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

April 30th, 2003, 12:15 AM	#9
Bob Benkosky Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lake Park, Florida Posts: 202	I was able to download it on my girlfriend's computer a little while ago. I watched it and it played kinda funny, skipped around a bit. I tried to see if it was just the computer, so I tried to download it again, now it's gone. __________________ http://www.veoh.com/channels/filmmaker My clips and films.

April 25th, 2003, 11:32 PM	#2
Jaime Valles Major Player Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: New York City, NY Posts: 316	The DVX100 is a great camera, but so is the GL2, especially if you're fairly new to the video world. To do the 24p in the DVX100 the whole camera becomes manual (no auto focus, gain, that sort of thing), which may be too much of a hassle. Plus, you can certainly re-create the film look in post with Vegas, or many other software choices. For me, the reason to get a DVX100 is if you're shooting independent films and are planning to transfer to film later on. If all you're doing is shooting for fun/hobby, the GL2 is an excellent camera, with many pro features and a great feel, at a more affordable price. By the way, any place that's selling the DVX100 at $2900 is probably trying to rip you off somehow. Seriously, they use sketchy, grey-market products, and often advertise the price just to get you in the store and buy a bunch of stuff you don't need. I highly recommend using a trusted professional video store (like B&H, for example). When you're shelling out that much money, it's worth the extra $300 to know that your equipment is in good hands before you get it, and that you get ALL the equipment when you buy it.

April 26th, 2003, 04:29 PM	#3
William Wallick Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 27	Hi Bob: I moved from the GL! to the DVX-100, primarily for the audio capability the GL1 lacked. Although the DVX 100 is a fine camera, the first time I missed the GL1 was when zooming, and I expected it to keep on going (but it didn't). The leica lens is nice but the glass on the GL1 w/ a 20X zoom (non digital) is very sweet. 40mm-806mm in 35mm lingo. WW

April 29th, 2003, 10:17 PM	#6
Marc Martin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	If you want to see what you can do with an XM2 (Pal GL2), download this file (26Mo): http://marc5532.free.fr/motocross.wmv The footage has been edited in Vegas Video.

April 29th, 2003, 11:19 PM	#8
Marc Martin Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	I don't know what is the problem (perhaps a server problem), the link isn't working in IE6 but works in GetRight, so try with GetRight if you have it or download it at http://www.getright.com , then enter this URL in GetRight http://marc5532.free.fr/motocross.wmv

April 30th, 2003, 07:40 AM	#10
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	<<<-- Originally posted by William Wallick : Hi Bob: I moved from the GL! to the DVX-100, primarily for the audio capability the GL1 lacked. Although the DVX 100 is a fine camera, the first time I missed the GL1 was when zooming, and I expected it to keep on going (but it didn't). The leica lens is nice but the glass on the GL1 w/ a 20X zoom (non digital) is very sweet. 40mm-806mm in 35mm lingo. WW -->>> I myself have moved in a similar fashion. I'm actually supposed to recieve my DVX100 today- that's why I'm home from work posting on the board. The GL-1 was or IS...a great camera. Very crisp pictures with good color saturation. I'd even, on a stretch, say in proper lighting the images look better then that of my buddy's XL1-S. However like you said the audio stinks. I'm working with a Sennheisser ME66/K6 via a Beachtek adapter and the problem is I have no control over the audio. It's such a sensitive mic it's hard to set the level correct without clipping. Another thing I'm looking forward to is shooting in 24p. With the GL-1 I almost always shot in frame-mode to depart from the "home video" look the best I could. However it did introduce major strobing. I heard the 24p on the DVX100 can do the same thing but I'm hopping it's less severe- especially during paning.

April 30th, 2003, 08:51 AM	#11
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	"Strobing" at 24P will be worse than frame mode because it's fewer frames per second - frame mode is 30 frames per second. Of course the DVX100 shoot 30P as well. But if you shoot at 24p and you have not shot film or other 24fps stuff before, you will need to learn some rules of panning. The great thing about the DVX100 is you can see it on the LCD while shooting rather than waiting for the workprint from the lab. My method is to use a approx 5-8 second pan if needed (5-8 seconds edge) or use whip pans or follow/track with moving subject to disguise strobing. I see strobing in films in theaters all the time - we're just conditioned to accept it there more than on TV. You can also pick ASC Cinematorgrapher's handbook with detail charts for panning at 24fps. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

April 30th, 2003, 10:51 AM	#12
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	Yeah but.... I'm only working with Adobe Premiere- so that means I have to shoot in 24P rather than 24Padvanced. Correct? Also Adobe doesn't support 24p so I'll have to live with the basic 2:3 pull down. Is it the 2:3 pulldown that makes it strobe? I read somewhere that if your editing suite accepts 24p you can shoot in advanced mode and it looks alot better. Lastly, I have a hi-def tv (probably besides the point) and a progressive scan dvd player. Does that mean if I had an editing suite that accepted 24p footage, when I make a dvd out of it and play it...it'll be true progressive scan on the tv?

April 30th, 2003, 10:56 AM	#13
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	You can shoot Advanced and use DVFilmmaker to process your files for 24P in Premiere. Yep, if you software supports it, you can make a true 24p progressive scan DVD. I dropped Premiere for Vegas Video. Version 4.0B with DVD Architect 1.0 support this plus 5.1 mixing and encoding. As I already owned Vegas Audio, upgrade only cost $299 for both applications. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com

April 30th, 2003, 11:19 AM	#14
Glen Elliott Wrangler Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 2,898	Hmm tell me more about DVFilmaker? What is it? And if it's processed in DVfilmaker then imported into premiere won't I run into the same problem or does DVfilmaker "remove" the frames needed to run smoothly without strobe.....or is strobe an inherent affect of 24p in general?

April 30th, 2003, 01:22 PM	#15
Stephen van Vuuren Space Hipster Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,508	search here in this forum or go to www.dvfilmmaker.com - lots of info and demo version. __________________ stephen v2 www.insaturnsrings.com