okay I am soon to be buying one xl2 or two GL2's for an upcoming project, and I need to know the key differences between the two cameras.

I truly want the XL2 but its cost is steering me towards the GL2 while my business starts up. Am I sacrificing alot of features and quality?

does the GL2 footage look at all similar? will my viewers be able to tell on there home televisions?

all the help i can get! thanks

Is the 24p option important for you? Native 16:9? Interchangeable lenses? If you've answered no to all those questions, chances are you don't need the XL2. Of course, the XL2 will give you better looking footage, I own an XL2 and have looked at its footage alongside the GL2. There is a difference, but I don't think I would have bought the XL2 if I answered no to the questions above regardless.

Don't forget that having two cameras can be an advantage greater than resolution too (depending on the type of project of course). If you shoot 4:3 and 60i, I'd suggest taking the 2 cam path instead of paying extra for options you don't need.

Mike, you haven't told us what you plan on shooting. It might make a big difference in our answers.

Thanks for repsonding...but i think im not stretting enough how new i am to looking at specific details and differences in cameras...

our first project is an hour+ "movie" documenting the events and participants in the biggest amatuer motocross race in Canada. however the appearance should look much better than a normal camcorder obvoiusly. Im not exacly sure on most of these numbers you guys speak of...

we will be using up to 4 cameras along side helmet cameras, etc...and i wanted to make sure all of the cameras (or look) were the same.

the movie will be almost entirely outdoors with indoor "interview" clips

im looking for decent professional quality that would be acceptable to be viewed on tv.

From what you said you'll be using it for, you'll be at an advantage with 2 GL2s... you wont need the 16:9 for most TVs and shooting simultaneously from 2 angles for such an event would be much more effective. You don't need the 24p of the XL2 either because your final product is meant for a TV look. You'll have potentially double the video and double the amount of good clips to use. GL2 all the way on this one.

so its the frames per second that creates more of a "film look"? so what does the GL2 shoot at? is it capable of looking a bit more like film than a regular cheap camera?....or is it just a glorified camcorder

is there things you can do in the editing process to create more of a film look with GL2 footage?

so its the frames per second that creates more of a "film look"? so what does the GL2 shoot at? is it capable of looking a bit more like film than a regular cheap camera?....or is it just a glorified camcorder

is there things you can do in the editing process to create more of a film look with GL2 footage?

It's the 24 frames per second that are PROGRESSIVE... as opposed to interlaced. When you've got an interlaced image such as on TV, each frame is only 1/2 of the real picture... every other line is skipped... then the next frame, the skipped/used lines swap roles and so on. In proressive, you get the whole picture on each frame. Honestly, for sports and such, I'd prefer the more TV look over a cinematic look. Ever wonder why soap operas, although they have film-like content, always look different than a film? That's because they're recording interlaced.

I'm not too sure about simulating the look of 24p... im leaving that up to someone else.

Ever wonder why soap operas, although they have film-like content, always look different than a film? That's because they're recording interlaced.
To me, they don't have film-like content. They have low production values (compared to film) and very tight shooting schedules. They have things like simple sets, studio lighting for multi-camera (which doesn't look as nice as lighting for single camera), and no fancy camerawork. As well, the dialogue and plots are typically pretty bad because of the tight shooting schedules. I remember watching an episode of a soap and I found it very funny.

2- 24p: I'd just shoot 30p because it doesn't have the interlaced look, doesn't suffer from jumpy motion like 24p does, and is easy to handle in post. The GL2 shoots frame mode, which gives more vertical resolution than normal interlaced shooting but not quite as much as a progressive camera.

If you shoot 60i, there are a bunch of programs that can do a conversion to 24p... Nattress film effects for Final Cut, magic bullet suite, dv film maker, etc. Those things aren't quite as good as shooting real 24p.

3- Film look: By film look I assume you're talking about making your footage look good (which is a little different from mimicing film).

If your project is like a cinema verite documentary, then I don't think it makes sense to treat your image to look better. If you want to make your footage look polished, then look at color grading your footage. If you want to do it yourself, the easiest route is to use Magic Bullet Editors. Doing it professional will likely give better results- one difference is creating broadcast-safe colors. MBE in Vegas is very good at creating unsafe colors if you don't know what you're doing.

Lighting also makes a big difference. IMO it's a little more important than color grading and it's much more important than shooting 24p (or 30p).

Of course, you may also want to look at other things that affect production values (titling/special effects/compositing stuff to add polish, sound, on-air talent).

thanks alot for your help so far guys

does anyone here watch the chapelle show? i want my movie to look the same as the "skits" on his show....

Mike-

I know your question was specific with regard to cameras but I thought it was worth contributing... for the end result to "look better than a normal camcorder" you must not loose sight of the big picture. The camera is only one component in your workflow to a finished product. Specifically with regard to "picture quality" many different results can be produced with the same cameras & editing tools. Many people first get into videography thinking good camera = professional results. Not necessarily. By the time you have work-flowed to a finished product, you must have done many things right from the initial camera settings to a good encode (and everything in between). A little bit of trial & error is almost unavoidable with a new camera that you are unfamiliar with.