Picture Quality at DVinfo.net

Dan Davis · February 13th, 2005, 09:47 AM

This is a terrific site, thanks Chris and all who contribute! There are several threads that discuss picture quality. Most seem to stress two attributes: low light and moviesness.

My background is in 35mm now digital still photography both professionally and artistic for personal expression. It leads me to ask questions in other areas. Would someone (or anyone) take on the challenge of discussing the VX2100/DP170 versus the GL2 in the following areas?

1. Even the most expensive lenses with only 2.5:1 up to 4:1 zoom ratios display pin cushioning and/or barrel distortion at their extremes. At 12:1 and 20:1 both must exist in these cameras pictures. Which one is least affected?

2. Contrast. Which one is better in bright light, high contrast situations?

3. Detail and fine lines; how well do they perform?

4. DOF

5. At its most basic level, a camcorder is a rapid-fire still camera. At the highest level would seem to be the ability to capture and reassemble (playback) the most lifelike, as opposed to movie-like pictures. Which of them is most lifelike?

Rob Lohman · February 14th, 2005, 06:56 AM

Welcome aboard DVInfo.net Dan! Tough questions <g> I'm not
qualified to answer much of this, but I'll give some bits a shot.

Depth of field is not something these camera's inherit. Most DV
cams have a 1/4" or 1/3" imaging area which is vastly smaller
than the 35mm area which results in a much larger DoF. However,
there are both homebuilt and professional systems available to
mount photo and cine 35mm lenses to certain DV camera's.

The professional one is the Mini35 which costs $10,000 without
the lenses.

Contrast is also a "big" problem with these camera's. I can't
specifically point you towards camera's with a high(er) dynamic
range because I don't know which are best at this point. But
don't expect film lattitudes, that's for sure.

There are some developments to build our own camera's with
higher contrast ranges, but at the moment these systems are
not available as a product and are still in primary development.

I hope this gets the ball ralling and others will respond to your
questions.

All the best,

Glenn Chan · February 14th, 2005, 09:57 AM

There's a shootout between the Panasonic DVX100, Canon XL2, and Sony FX1 over at http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/.

It has some info on exposure latitude too.

Chris Hurd · February 14th, 2005, 09:59 AM

Dan, you might poke through our extensive GL2 and VX2100/PD170 boards -- they are both very large and full of excellent information, plus I believe there are several GL2 vs. PD150 / 170 comparisons and evaluations in there if you dig deep enough.

February 13th, 2005, 09:47 AM	#1
Dan Davis New Boot Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Laredo, TX Posts: 21	Picture Quality This is a terrific site, thanks Chris and all who contribute! There are several threads that discuss picture quality. Most seem to stress two attributes: low light and moviesness. My background is in 35mm now digital still photography both professionally and artistic for personal expression. It leads me to ask questions in other areas. Would someone (or anyone) take on the challenge of discussing the VX2100/DP170 versus the GL2 in the following areas? 1. Even the most expensive lenses with only 2.5:1 up to 4:1 zoom ratios display pin cushioning and/or barrel distortion at their extremes. At 12:1 and 20:1 both must exist in these cameras pictures. Which one is least affected? 2. Contrast. Which one is better in bright light, high contrast situations? 3. Detail and fine lines; how well do they perform? 4. DOF 5. At its most basic level, a camcorder is a rapid-fire still camera. At the highest level would seem to be the ability to capture and reassemble (playback) the most lifelike, as opposed to movie-like pictures. Which of them is most lifelike?

February 14th, 2005, 06:56 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Welcome aboard DVInfo.net Dan! Tough questions <g> I'm not qualified to answer much of this, but I'll give some bits a shot. Depth of field is not something these camera's inherit. Most DV cams have a 1/4" or 1/3" imaging area which is vastly smaller than the 35mm area which results in a much larger DoF. However, there are both homebuilt and professional systems available to mount photo and cine 35mm lenses to certain DV camera's. The professional one is the Mini35 which costs $10,000 without the lenses. Contrast is also a "big" problem with these camera's. I can't specifically point you towards camera's with a high(er) dynamic range because I don't know which are best at this point. But don't expect film lattitudes, that's for sure. There are some developments to build our own camera's with higher contrast ranges, but at the moment these systems are not available as a product and are still in primary development. I hope this gets the ball ralling and others will respond to your questions. All the best, __________________ 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

February 14th, 2005, 09:59 AM	#4
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,366 Images: 513	Dan, you might poke through our extensive GL2 and VX2100/PD170 boards -- they are both very large and full of excellent information, plus I believe there are several GL2 vs. PD150 / 170 comparisons and evaluations in there if you dig deep enough. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

February 14th, 2005, 09:57 AM	#3
Glenn Chan Inner Circle Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 4,750	There's a shootout between the Panasonic DVX100, Canon XL2, and Sony FX1 over at http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/. It has some info on exposure latitude too.