XL1S vs. GL2 - XL1S looks blah compared...
 

I film events with the XL1S as my main camera and my GL2 as my second angle camera. Every since I started messing around with the GL2, the video on the XL1S looks less impressive. The GL2 look more vibrant and crisp where as the XL1S looks almost "muddy" and dark. I put both cameras on the same shutter, aperature, gain, etc, and the GL2 looks much better. Can anyone explain this or has anyone had the same experience?

Thanks,

Eric

A few things missing. What was the subject? What lighting? What were the settings? Are you sure you havent underexposed the XL1S footage?Did you judge expose with zebras on both cams?

The lighting was indoor and pretty well lit... I was tested the two cameras side by side with the same settings in full manual mode... The GL2 just looks more vibrant... I can't figure out what the problem is. The XL1S should be better or at least the same...

But regardless what the zebra's were showing, as long as both cameras had identical settings, shouldn't they look pretty close?

Eric

Can you post some stills from each of them?

Also, the Gl2 has a higher resolution and is sharper out of the box. I absolutely notice this when looking at my footage compared to a friends Xl1s.

Aaron

Using the same settings on the 2 cameras may not optimize the exposure.I find the XL1S likes a little more exposure, but if you judge by correctly set zebras it should be good.Did you have enough light for f4 or more?NO gain or -3 gain and are the setup levels at default?
Was there a predominate colour, green maybe?
Although the GL2 appears to be crisper at default settings the XL1S should have at least as good if not better colour retention and imaging.Kinda of a smoother look although maybe not as crisp.

These are 2 different cameras, the same settings wont be equal. Manually white balance both and use an external monitor to a/b the picture until they match up. The GL2 does NOT have more resolution, that is a silly claim. It comes WAY sharper on the default settings which adds artifacting etc. The XL series has a better lens but will also require more light in most cases... used properly it is a far superior camer but the operation is MUCH more difficult than a GL cam.



ash =o)

I have read many posts here at DVInfo.net where people prefer GL2 footage over XL1S footage when both are shot with the stock lens. The XL1S may be more versatile and easier to set manual settings, but the GL2 seems to provide a better quality picture in many cases.

If you read the specs, the GL2 has greater resolution compared to the XL1S...

GL2: "Image sensor: 380,000 effective pixels"
xl1s: "Effective sensor resolution 250,000 pixels"

Nice one Cosmin! - Grazie

The end result in resolution is the exact same, there are not more lines put to tape with a GL2 than with an XL1s. The only real noticeable difference the higher rez CCDs make is when the GL2 goes into a digital zoom. The GL2 is also sharper (and much noisier) in low light.

This is my 10th year to shoot DV, I own 6 DV cameras and have shot with every camera on the market. The GL2 is an excellent point and shoot camera but a skilled operator will make an XL1s look better in most situations...

Here are a few random interlaced grabs from an XL1s, all are RAW video shot with available light, which at times was almost nothing. I have been working on a doc for a while and I get grabs from every tape as a reference when I log footage.

http://members.aol.com/ashvid/Grabs/

As with ANYTHING, it is dependent on the job and the shoot...


ash =o)

This is very subjective. A skilled cinematographer can make either camera look good. The GL2 is far more than a "point and shoot" camera. There have been some excellent movies shot with the GL2. But it's obviously not to your liking -- and that's fine.

But I'll repeat -- I've seen many reports here by people skilled with the XL1S that have preferred the GL2 image over the XL1S with the stock lens.

My XM2 footage and Vegas5 edit, has just assisted a London Borough being shortlisted in a National Library's Award.

Say nah more . .. ! Job done!

Grazie

Let me clarify... I think it is easier to get a great image out of a GL2 than an XL1s. Out of the box, the GL is easier to use and will provide a great image. That is why many people who use the GL2 are not impressed when they first try out an XL series cam. The same holds true for those who are used to an XL1s, they generally are not impressed at first with the XL2, which for most applications, is a superior cam.

As for me, I choose the GL2 (or the sony DV cams) for corportate work and the XL series for creative (music videos, shorts, etc.)


ash =o)

We also use both cameras, GL2 and the XL1s, or maybe I should say we own both. We use the XL1s for 99% of the work we do since purchased, the GL2 has never even come close for us. I only mention this because I find it odd that so many others could prefer the look of the GL2's image over the XL series. I guess the "broadcast" look is just something we never wanted.

Old post revived, sorry. But does anyone else use both and prefer the XL cameras?

I sold my GL unit in favor of a DVX100a. I still occasionally use one as a 2nd camera for corporate stuff. Basically, people get used to what they see in their own camera and they like it, they learn to ignore the faults and focus on the strengths. I always use a camera that I feel is appropriate for the job.

The XL1s and expecially XL2 have many settings to customize the look, they are not point and shoot cameras and require skilled operation. I always use the analogy, it is a better guitar, just harder to play.

I have to say in general, the people with the most hopeless devotion to their cameras are the DVX100a fanboys, even I, as a DVX owner, cannot stand them....




ash =o)

I noticed that about tha DXV100 users. As long as you get the results you want... that's all that matters.

But are you saying that you use the DVX as well and that you don't like it? Or just those die hard users you don't care for?

I use both, and I've never preferring the GL2 over the XL1s. The factory sharpening setting is too high. Which you can adjust in the XL1s BTW, and you will get a similiar image at the expense of noise. Comparing the images I find the GL has that difinite, amaturish video look. Yuck.

As Ash already pointed out, both camera lens' resolve more image than what goes on tape, and that's a good thing. What matters most is what goes on inside.

Lighting makes all the difference, as I always make a custom white balance, and shoot at 0 dB. In places where I anticipate the white balance will change, the XL1s allows for three custom settings accessible by turning a knob, and I make sure that I'm all set. In fact, I find the XL1s, to be a much quicker/easier to use camera vs. the GL.

I'm sure he was referring to the DVX die hard fans, not the camera itself.

As to XL1s vs GL2, and being that I own a GL2, I cannot see how a 1/4" CCD camera from the same manufacturer would surpass a 1/3" CCD model.

I think the only way to tell would be to put both cameras side to side, shooting the same subject and using exactly the same settings - forget 'auto' modes and things of the sort. You'd have to manually adjust them to the same settings. I'm sure the difference won't be huge, but I'm guessing the GL2 won't look better then.

I love my DVX100a... easy to grab out of the case and shoot some exteriors, pick ups, cutaways, etc. I also can be more confident that when I get a 2nd operator I can go Ron Popeil with the guy and set it and forget it. It is also great for travelling, cranes and steadicam shots...a good all purpose camera.

My problem is the fanboys of the DVX, who think it is better than film cameras, XL2s, 2/3" CCD, HDV, etc. There are so many guys who have a DVX that think they are Spielberg....

The look most people go for on the DVX is a crushed black, saturated color, blown out highlights look. That is fine, I do that sometimes as well BUT... when I shoot crystal clear XL2 images with detail maintained in the highlights and shadows (something the DVX is not as good at) they harp on how it looks like crap... LOL...




ash =o)

WEll, I don't own a DVX100 (GL2 + HD1) but I think it's the best camera in the $3500 price range and below.

Sure, it depends on what you use it for, it's not HD, yadda yadda. I'm just saying that overall it's the best choice for the moment.

lemmi clarify
 

I've always thought the XL series being a more 'broadcast' camera, but their are people out there who can manipulate the settings so sufficiently (without 24p) that the XL cams look like professional film cameras. But! This also goes with the GL2. I'm sure alot of you have seen the Sundowning clips, which to me, are masterpiece images of the GL2 that look similiar to the XL series. The only main difference in the two is the effective pixels, one being 1/4" and another 1/3". So it all depends on what you shoot and when u shoot (day or night). But to me, since my budget can only go as far as the GL2, it is already a huge step up from my currently owned PV-GS120 cam (1/6" 3CCD - blah).

/j

I've used both an XL1s and a GL1, not a GL2. The XL had much better optics and zoom I think, but within a more controlled set up, they are both close. The real difference? The GL is much easier on the body ;)

I use both the XL1S and the GL2 regularly in my work. I use the XL1S about 97% of the time; the GL2 is my second camera.

If I had to give one away, I would give away the GL2 and keep the XL1S. But don't get me wrong: I love my GL2.
If I had to go on a trip I'd bring the GL2.
If I had to shoot a feature, I'd obviously bring the XL1S.

The main advantage of the GL2 is that anybody can shoot with it and get acceptable footage and that it is a handheld, not a shoulder-mount. I can use the GL2 to do more dynamic moving camera shots than I can with the XL1S. But for anything "artsy" (I hate that word but in this case it's fitting) I would take advantage of the far more accessible and superior manual settings of the XL1S. Menu-driven controls are the pits.

Andrew Hsu
Morning Star Videography