Hi All,

I've done a quite a few searches, and not found much info about this particular question. I live in the UK, and am shortly getting a Pal XM2 (European GL2). I have read about NTSC GL2 users not liking the resolution loss when using frame mode.

My question is because the Pal XM2 has 720 x 576 resolution, and the GL2 has 720 x 480 (correct?), so when the XM2 use's 'Frame mode', will its increased vertical resolution still result in a superior picture to the GL2.

Also, how different will the difference in frame rate affect the footage in Frame mode between the 25p of the XM2 to the 30p of the GL2 (XM2 more stroby maybe?).

Thanks in advance for any replies,
Dave.

Frame mode is basically the same algorithm on both camera's,
so the loss is indentical. But, we have more resolution to begin
with so there is more left in the end as well. Whether this
resolution drop is an issue depends on where you want to take
your footage.

Personally I love the slightly softer look (more "filmic") and it
doesn't look like resolution loss at all. It still looks great on TV
etc. If you want to blowup to film (I still haven't heard of a lot
of people doing that here!) then, yes, it *might* be interesting
to stick with the higher resolution of interlaced. But that also
depends on the transfer house that will do the blowup.

Frame mode might also change the way things look etc. Since
we are on 25 fps (or 25p "emulated") which is almost the same
as 24p is using we get a motion signature that more closely
matches the "big movies". But that is also tight in to specific
shutter settings, etc.

Along these lines there's something I've always wondered about. As has been noted in here previously, miniDV can't resolve all 720 lines of horizontal resolution. That being the case, does the extra vertical resolution with PAL really buy you anything? Also, when you shoot in frame mode on the XM2, does it shoot 30 fps or 25 fps? I thought I had read that it was 30 fps, but you guys seem to be saying differently.

XM2 is 25fps in frame mode or interlaced

The PAL version of the GL2, known as the XM2 records ONLY at
25 fps. It is sort of progressive if you switch it to frame mode,
otherwise it is 25fps interlaced or 50 fields per second.

I don't understand one thing about horizontal resolution and
lines all the people always talk about. I only know about digital
resolution and you will get a 720x576 signal. I'm assuming the
lenses on the GL2/XM2 and XL1S are at least good enough for
that.

Many thanks to everybody who has replied to my question. I think I'll definitely go with the XM2 when I upgrade from my trv-15.

I'd thought about the dvx100, but it seems very hard to get hold of in Europe or the UK (anyone know any good UK dealers selling the dvx100?) anyway I think I'd miss the 20x zoom and ease of use in an uncontrolled situation. I plan on maybe doing some landscape/nature work so the XM2 is probably the way to go.

Again thanks for replys,
Dave.

<<<-- Originally posted by Dave Croft : Many thanks to use in an I plan on maybe doing some landscape/nature work so the XM2 is probably the way to go.
-->>>

I will also film in nature/landscape/sunset.

I don't know what to buy:
XM2 or sony VX2000?

(about same price)

You may find that the lens on the XM2 is better. It's also longer -20:1

Robin.

<<<-- You may find that the lens on the XM2 is better. It's also longer -20:1

Robin. -->>>

Yeah, i know.
But what this means? I get crisper, sharper pictures?
And what about colors? Are there rich enough?

(anyway, my digital8 has 25x optical zoom :)

The pictures are very crisp.
As for colours, they are as natural as you would expect. Don't forget that you have the option in the set-up menu of adjusting the colour gain and hue to your preference, though I've found that the normal settings on the XM2 are perfectly adequate for most things.

Robin.

I have been very torn between the xm2 and the vx2100 at the moment. I had thought I wanted to go with the XM2 for the 20x zoom, frame mode and okay still mode (stills fine for holiday etc).

But now I think I will go with the sony for its rugged reliability, and 1/3 inch super low light low noise CCD's, as this is a big bonus.

However, i'll probably change my mind again tomorrow ;)

Dave.

Dave,

If you want to go with the XM2 let me know or check my post as I'm selling my XM2 plus all the goodies I have for it right now.

Cheers

Someone once said NTSC stands for Never Twice the Same Colour! Meaning that the colours are a pain in conversions. Pal is better here, as black is black and not a greyish black, and white is white not a dull white. However, from reading these pages it does seem that ntsc users can go to a lower shutter speed without jitteryness. For example 1/50 gives a good picture. But the next level i can drop to is 1/25. This enables you to get a good picture in dark, but unfortunatley the picture is jittery and leaves traces. Ok for effect, but no use at all for proper filming. However i hear ntsc users saying they can go to 1/30 i think? a 1/40 setting may be usefull, but the camera seems unable to do this.

Michael,

if 1/25 shutter speed is jerky, why would be better the shorter speed (eg 1/30 or 1/40)
I think 1/20 maybe better. Maybe.
1/15 is too low, because it can produce just 15 fps.

NTSC frame mode is better than PAL because it is 30fps, and not 25 like here in Europe.

That's why i don't like really the 24fps film look.

1/50 is fine. 1/25 is jittery. To go lower still as you suggested just makes it even worse! (ie 1/12!)
What i was saying was that reducing this has a positive effect on the picture in terms of light and what you can actually see. ie 1/6 gives me night vision! But the jittery effect where moving images leave traces is not desirable. I meant that it would be good if we could play with speeds in between the 1/50 jerky 1/25 setting, meaning that maybe 1/34 or 40 may be useful in low light and that the jerkyness may be more bareable. The chances are that no body will ever use the lower settings, except for creative stuff or digital stills. These settings are not available on my xm2. What i was also saying was that it appears that ntsc models can go a little lower than pal models because of the higher frame rate.

Would 25p frame mode combined with shutter speed of 1/25 be less jittery/stroby than frame mode with 1/50 or higher - i.e. enough to make motion and pans etc smoother?

In some ways 1/25 is less jerky than 1/50 because of the motion blur present at 1/25, but of course the flip side, is that there are half as many shutters per second - so it is a double edged sword.

I think frame modea nd 1/25 could be great with slow enough motion and pans etc.

By the way, what are peoples experiences of XM2/GL2's developing faults (zoom or rewind won't work for example) as other cameras eg vx2100/pd170 seem a bit more rugged, and maybe less prone to developing faults when exposed to the same conditions.

Dave.

I was thinking the same about 1/25 sh. speed (motion blur) and 25fps frame mode.

What? Are you kidding? Not working zoom, rewind on XM2?
I will buy in 4 days!

Frame mode and a shutter speed of 1/25th looked absolute pants when I tried it. It would be worthless in most situations. The only reason I would consider a slower shutter speed would be in a situation where I needed more exposure and not wanting to put in any gain - and if there was no motion in the shot. Interiors of cathedrals or early dawn / dusk shots might come into this category.

Robin.

So Robin, are you saying that frame mode and 1/50 will give you better, more usable footage than f-mode and 1/25?

I would have thought that the lack of motion blur would make the footage more stuttery. What kind of thing were you shooting that looked 'pants' with 1/25.

Also a side issue, how do you find the XM2 copes in moderate to low light situations. Is it really so much worse than the vx/pd's, the XM2 must be a lot better than my current sony trv-15 (which has a grainyness in low light and uses a single 1/4" CCD). Is it that the XM2 is good in low light but the vx/pd'd are VERY good.

Thanks a lot,
Dave.

The preferred way of shooting both interlaced and frame mode
on the Canon models (due to their unique frame mode) is indeed
1/60 (NTSC) or 1/50 (PAL). That looks most pleasing with most
things and most closely resembles the film shutter. BUT, other
settings can do wonders in other things. With almost no movement
or only slow movement you can get away more easily with a 1/25
setting for example then when you have fast moving stuff.

Dave,
If you have to use frame mode, then 1/50th (PAL) is better than 1/25th. Any movement just gives so much motion blur to be unacceptable - for me anyway...
As for the low-light capabilities, certainly the PD150/70 seems to have the edge on the XM2, but I wouldn't go out and buy one tomorrow. A DSR 570WSP maybe, but that's a different forum ;-)

Robin.

Pretch....no dont worry not everyone has these issues, its a good camera. There does seem to be some concerns about cannons customer service, but the chances are you will love your camera as most of us including myself do and it will be fine.

Dave i havent played with frame mode much, but just to re-iterate what robin said, 1/25 mode is fairly useless unless you have very little to no movement in the frame. If you move the camera like in a pan... no good.

By the way dave, you said, 'Is it that the XM2 is good in low light but the vx/pd'd are VERY good'. Precisely that. I borrowed a sony vdx2000 just before i got my xm2. I loved it, and there were loads of pros, like the inbuilt 2 nuteral density filters, and ring piece zoom control. The low light was good on it.
However the low light on the canon xm2 is acceptable. And i have shots in daylight on both cameras, and they are both excellent quality pictures. I prefered the much bigger zoom on the xm2, the smaller size, and found it easier to use. And certainly the price tag makes a big difference.

Many thanks to everyone who has replied on this thread, everyones views are very much appreciated.

I said earlier in the thread that I had decided to go with the vx2100, but I might change my mind again ;-) Well I think I have.

The XM2 seems like a great 'all rounder', and at the price you can't complain. My only issue is, that I bet Canon will introduce a replacement before not to long. (This won't stop me getting an XM2 though).

Cheers,
Dave.

yea i think they probably will in the next couple of years. They probably have one or two prototypes ready but will be waiting to see what others are doing. I think at the moment there is no real competition for the xm2, as everything is either more expensive or cheaper with a worse picture. There is a 3 ccd panasonic model under £1000 that i thought was gonna compete with it. But its low light performance is poor, and it only works great in sunshine (going off the demo footage i saw)
So heres to canon....!