Hi Tom,

I shoot in a very large church where the cameras (both GL-1's and 2's) due to circumstances are positioned a good distance away from the platform & puplit.

Please keep in mind that the GL-2 has about 50% more pixel power then the GL-1 and it shows when shooting especially at a greater distances.

In this situation the clarity,color,sharpness,definition and video output that the GL-2 produces outshines the GL-1's performance by a wide margin.

All I can tell you that comparatively speaking, The GL-1 picture suffers because at that distance its capabilities are stretched so thin it can't handle the task effectively. At some point, its deficiency in the # of pixels has to show and it does.

I also noticed in low light the image of the GL-1 is softer.

The above is based on very long term personal experience with both units whether they were mine or belonged to others.

In the GL-1's case it's been around 8-9 years.

Thanks Bruce, I appreciate the explanation.

I too do a lot of video work at our church. I've had the two GL2 cams for about three years now.

Wow, kinda wish I had talked to you earlier. I just assumed that the GL1, with 3CCD and the same lens would be very similar in PQ to the GL2 cams. As a third cam in our group, I assumed that I could set up the GL1 in the tech booth and just use it as a remote. I'm using anamorphic lens on my two GL2 cams, but I can mix the 16:9 and 4:3 very well. I sure thought that the video coming from the GL1 would be very similar to and would mix very well with the GL2.

Of course most of the rave reviews I read were posted 8 years ago..........Well, live and learn.

Thanks again, Tom

Hi Tom,

I want to be absolutely fair.

At considerably closer distances the GL-1 is capable of reasonably good output especially for taking audience close-ups if placed in the front towards the audience & in the hands of a skilled operator.

Where it deteriorates is at greater distances and IMHO rather quickly.

In my situation, I have no doubt that if the GL-1 camera was 25 feet away from the action instead of 100+, then the results would be appreciably better & certainly acceptable.

I hope all goes well in your service and ministry.

Please take care Sir!

How does "distance" matter?
 

Unless you are using the digital zoom .. how does shooting at a distance matter re: quality between the GL1 and GL2? Assuming that the lighting is sufficient in both instances.

The lower pixel count of the GL1 can make images with a lot of fine structure look less sharp. A shot that is head and shoulders of one person will look better than a full body shot of a group.

The GL1 (I have one) is long in the tooth, but can produce decent SD video in the hands of a good shooter and editor. One has to be aware of its limits and stay within those bounds.

.............

Tks Don. I agree with your comments. This rather confirms, in a way, what Bruce wrote earlier.

I've noticed even with the GL2 closeup shots, either by zooming in with the 20x lens or moving the cam closer, are much sharper than long shots.
I guess this is a given with most SD cams in this price range.

Got the GL1 back from Canon and it does great with mid to close shots. IMO, long shots are not very good. However, as a third cam, it will do great. I'll use it mostly with my Glidecam and monopod for close B roll shots.

Thanks Don for your explanation . Never thought about that reason.

It boils down to how many pixels are available to resolve the detail in the shot, and how much detail does the eye/brain need to think the image is sharp and adequately detailed. A head and shoulders shot provides more pixels to rsolve the face than a full body shot with the same camcorder, so it gives the impressionof being sharper.

The other factor is the effective bandwidth of the image - the lines of resolution and how quickly the contrast falls off on finer details.