GL2 or VX2000?

I really enjoy using my DCR-TRV25 but I want to get a camera with a bit more control manually and with better quality. So I just wanted to see what peoples opinions on these two cameras are.

Thanks,
Jedi_Maduck

 

bump

 

Well, if you want more manual control, go with the VX2000, if you want BETTER image quality, go with the GL2. I think the GL2 is the best Mini DV camera out there except for the Panasonic 24p. Which by the way, if you want the ULTIMATE camera, get the Panasonic AG-DVX100 24p.

 

GL2... No brainer

I Looooooooooooooooooooove mine

 

if you want sound quality - go for the GL2 - the VX2K has had many reported problems with camera wurr on sound.

but the VX2K is still the "better" camera over the GL2, sorry guys, it just has more functions


anyway,

Nick "Shorty" Long

 

well I actaully talked to representative from both companies and they both agreed that both camera produced good quality and that although the GL2 has higher rating as far as picture, that you can't usually see the difference between that two....The main difference is that the technology for the VX2000 is 2 years old and the GL2 technology is newer....also the color for the VX2000 has a more blueish thint to it while the GL@ has a more reddish (which is just like film) that most people seem to like better....But the real choice is up to you, which do you like better and what is more available to you......

 

GL-2 is the best miniDV out there?

Someone must be forgetting about the XL1-S


EDIT: I cant type.

 

but the VX2K is still the "better" camera over the GL2, sorry guys, it just has more functions

But does it have the MOST IMPORTANT one (frame movie mode)?

That's what matters to me when I'm looking at a camera.

M. Scott

 

I've been relatively disappointed with the frame movie on the GL-2. It seems no better, perhaps even worse than de-interlacing in post. If frame-mode is that important to you, I'd be looking towards a camera with a true progressive CCD(s).

 

The XL1-S isn't progressive scan?

 

I talked to a canon rep a while back about the whole frame movie mode thing, and also done my own tests. The Normal Movie Mode captures two fields (odd and even), then interlaces them together for playback. The time delay in scans creates a loss in vertical resolution and decreased sharpness of the still images. In contrast, the Frame Movie Mode captures 3/4 of a frame and interpolates the other 1/4 at the same point. Since both scans are effectively taking place at the same time, vertical resolution is 1.5 times higher. This produces high quality still images, but not quite the level of a camera with a Progressive Scan CCD.

(btw I have a canon gl1, and my school CART (cart.org) has lots of sony vx 2000... um none of them have come close to my camera in visual quality but of course that might be cause I know how to use it...)

 

I've been relatively disappointed with the frame movie on the GL-2. It seems no better, perhaps even worse than de-interlacing in post.

As someone who has done a LOT of deinterlacing in post, and only occasionally (in fact, only once) been blessed with a frame movie project, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that this statement is unequivocally incorrect.

My work on The Formula was done on interlaced footage, and that from an XL-1. It was absolutely nightmarish. Artifacts everywhere.

Now, contrast with my duel with Ryan, which was shot on a GL-1 in frame movie. That took me no time at all and the picture was always crystal clear.

When I was working with deinterlaced footage, frame movies were my holy grail, and now that I've worked with them, I can never go back.

M. Scott

 

I say the GL2 is better than the XL1s, because the XL1s CCD chips capture images at 270,000 pixels each, while the GL2 captures them at 410,000 each. And DorkmanScott, my deinterlacing method in my film look tutorial works better than normal movie mode anyway.

 

I've been experimenting with a few diffrent deinterlacing methods, including Pixel's... I'm not convinced that frame mode is any better, but I'd be thrilled to convince myself that it is. As for the image quality on the GL-2 vs. the XL-1s, a pure resolution comparision isn't really fair. The actual sensors are larger on the XL-1, and it's lens is larger, letting in more light resulting in a nicer image quality. I'm not sure to what degree this compensates for the lower resolution, but it doesn't really matter. Maybe the XL-2 will solve all our problems .

 

The Gl1 and gl2's lenses are MUCH better straight out of the box than the xl1s. Of course that changes if you buy a different lens. The CCD size is also the same between the gl2 and the xl1s. They're both 1/3. Now the gl2 does have 410,000 pixels per ccd, and the xl1s only has 270,00 like pixelmagic said.

 

Neither. Get a Panasonic DVX100.

 

I was under the impression that the GL2 chips were 1/4th of an inch.

 

Regarding the film look, it should probably be noted that shutter speed is also a factor. In "Formula" there was very little motion blur, and using the Upper field 50% opacity trick (which Lord_Rive told me about), it LOOKED like two separate images overlayed.

All depends on how you shoot the scene. Sometimes no amount of manipulation will help.

M. Scott

 

The GL-2 DOES have a 1/4 inch CCD, here is the relevant section of the spec sheet from canondv.com

3 CCD 1/4" Pixel Shift (charge coupled device) 410,000 pixels (380,000 effective pixels)

As for the lens quality, although the flourite might be arguably better the XL lens is a good deal larger. That said I admit to not really knowing which is going to be better, but I'd presume the XL-1 is, and if it's not the image quality certainly isn't going to be MUCH better on a GL-2.

 

Whoops my bad it is 1/4 inch. As I said before (or at least I think I said hehe) i've used both a gl1 and the xl1s with the default lens, and by far there hasn't been any big difference in image quality. Now the Xl1s does have a much better dynamic range and has a slew of other useful things on it. I got to go play with a gl2 a couple weeks back and the footage looked a lot better than with the XL1s.

 

Thanks for all the replies. I'm pretty sure that I'll be getting the GL2. About $400 to go.

 

I wholeheartedly recommend the GL-2, which I have nothing but loved. It has the best color I've ever seen from a camcorder. Check out http://www.buydig.com/ - pay particular attention to the Executive Kit, or something with a similar name. For something like $2500, you can get the camera, a lens kit including fluorescent, UV, and neutral density (though I swapped out the neutral density for a polarization filter), case, six hour battery, camera cleaning kit, and carrying case. Not a bad deal at all. Very fast service, very friendly, very helpful.

-Paul