Hey all, new to the forums here, just ordered two GL2's after reading miles of reviews giving it good marks in almost everything, but I have yet to see a review that specifically judges its ability to produce film-like imagery. I will be ordering the canon wide angle lense adapter, I know that is a must for a cinematic touch, but can somone tell me how the GL2 stacks up against say, the AG-DVX100 in film look, or maybe, the XL1s?

Replies appreciated in advance.

Try doing a search here on the forums for film-look type stuff. Most people will tell you its not the camera that makes the film look, but the way your movie is shot, lighted, edited, etc. The GL2 is a great camera (I have one) but the only way you are going to get a true film-look from your camera is by shooting on film.

I noticed that Neil Slade just posted a long recitation on his impressions on the two cameras (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12021).

There are certainly differences betrween the two cameras. Each has advantages over the other. The XL1s produces results that are nearly identical to the GL2 (at comparable settings). But as Scott noted, in general, the photographer makes far more difference than the camera. This is particularly true within a certain camera price bracket.

Thanks....I find those results questionable considering there have been feature films (28 days, Ocean's 11) shot with the XL1s, and look drop-dead gorgeous...Yes I know they injected some drugs into the XL1s to get it to look like that, but if the standard picture on the GL2 can look like the XL1s, then why such the "Home-movie look?"

Oh well....Thanks for the replies guys!

What in Ocean's 11 was shot on an XL-1?

Corey, did you mean to say Full Frontal?

Was Ocean's 11 not filmed on the XL1s? My co-worker Phil Cobb who majored in film studies at Asbury said it was filmed on the XL1s....Could be a mistake though. It kind of makes sense that it would be though, because I saw a special on TV about how the actors and crew members had to sacrifice pay to be able to have so many stars in the movie. An XL1s seems to fit the bill for a low-budget film!

That was full frontal. Also, 28 days was a PAL XL1, not the S.

Yeah, that was definitely Full Frontal. Mostly on an XL1, and the "film within a film" scenes on standard 35mm film.

Soderbergh really muddied up the picture on the XL1 parts though. Guess he really wanted a raw effect, but without any possible perception of a home-video feel.

Oceans 11 was also a Steven Soderbergh film but it was shot on film with Panavision gear.

The film look is suggestive for the most part, and there are many types of film looks one can achieve, quite easily, with any miniDV cam---even with a 1-chip cam. The GL2 is no exception, but with its slow shutter speeds, frame mode and 20X optical zoom, you get more options for this elusive film look.