XL1 versus XL 2 for broadcasting

[alfred]

Hello,

I am a newbie to this forum. I am a German user of a PD 150 and now considering to buy a XL1 or XL2 (in PAL version of course). I have read some threads before, that the picture quality of the XL 2 should be in the 4:3 format worse than the one of the XL 1. Since I am shooting only 4:3 for broadcast I would like to hear, if this statement is really right.

Further on I would like to see, if there are special reasons, which although make it worth buying a XL 2 for broadcasting 4:3, provided the picture quality is the same (special handling features etc.).

In the moment the XL 1 cams are sold new for the half price of an XL 2. But picture quality influences my decision first and in the second way the handling - at least the price (although I am not trowing away Euros for nothing.).

Hope you can help me.
Thanks Alfred

[Maverick711]

the main reason the xl2 is so much more expenssive is that you are paying for 24p. Are you going to be using 24p? if not than go with the xl1s. good luck!

[navitas]

In 4:3, the resolution of xl2 is a little bit better then xl1s. But... for tv use only I don't think the audience will notice...

In xl2 you're paying, as Maverick said, for 24p, 16:9 and some other digital features (skin deatail, gamma, etc.)

I've owned xl1s for 2 years and for tv productions It was great.

//For indie filmmaking it's not a good way...

[navitas]

In 4:3, the resolution of xl2 is a little bit better then xl1s. But... for tv use only I don't think the audience will notice...

In xl2 you're paying, as Maverick said, for 24p, 16:9 and some other digital features (skin deatail, gamma, etc.)

I've owned xl1s for 2 years and for tv productions It was great.

//For indie filmmaking it's not a good way...

[alfred]

I see, that the XL 2 has a kneefunction, which allows to get details in dark or highlighted areas. Does the XL 1 have such a function, too? Is it a useful feature on the XL 2? Or is the effect so small, that it doesn´t matter?

Thanks Alfred

[navitas]

Hard to say. I sold xl1s 1 month ago and I'm still few bucks short on xl2 :) So I'm working on it.

But, I never used xl1s's digital features... I just like the raw image so I can then correct it in post. That's why I choosed xl2 over dvx. Probably I will never use skin detail or "cine matrix"...

So if you're looking to save time in post xl2's digital features will be great! And even better will be panasonic dvx100a - you can do almost everything with image there.

//sorry for double post earlier...

[marty]

The xl2 is a little bit sharper than xl1.
And: You have a contrast of 7 f-stops (xl2). xl1 has only 5 f-stops.

I don`t like to handle the f-stops of xl2 for broadcast. It´s better (quicker) with xl1E.

grüße= Martin

[alfred]

The XL 2 has two options, I have not found in descriptons of the XL 1: the knee (for highight) and the black stretching/compressing for dark picture zones. Normally, cam-producer define the knee in % for instance up to 400%. Canon only reports this function in its own terms (low/middle/ high). My question now is: are this fuctions (you can not do in post) in their effect on the Xl 2 a great feature for high-contrast situations or only a nice gimmick.

Thanks Alfred