On 16 Mar 2003 08:05:49 -0800, gpapaioa@ford.com (George) wrote:

>d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote in message news:

<3e6e19de.667337@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>...

>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 07:34:05 GMT, Craig Busch

>> <clbusch@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> >So it looks to me that one of the conclusions that could be drawn is that, yes a

>> >1chip camera will work, buuuuuuuut, if you want the excellent image, figure out,

>> >if you can, a way to come up with an additional approx. $1,500 and get a Sony

>> >VX2000 or Canon GL2.

>> Well, yes......;-)

>> See a comparison of Sony imaging types (3 1-CCD,

>> 2 3-CCD) in various light levels, at:

>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm.

>> And, I suspect that the lowliest of these still

>> looks at least a bit better than most 1-chippers

>> of other brands (the current Sony DV 1-CCD low-end

>> image also looks a LOT better than that of early

>> Sony DV 1-CCD models, too...). While the best 1-CCD

>> models have good color (but well short of the best

>> 3-CCD models) and good sharpness, they still show

>> shortcomings in tonality (especially in the

>> highlights, which go white easily, early, and

>> abruptly) and in relative freedom from annoying

>> motion-artifacting...

>> David Ruether

>David,

>I went to your website and it is informative for certain models, but

>the GR DV3000u is not one of them...so why the suggestion. All 3CCD's

>are not created equal, nor are all singles. In fact I am kind of

>tired of the constant referals you make to that site when there is

>little-to-no relavance.

The relevance is the showing of the performance differences

for the different *types* of imagers that Sony makes - and

these differences hold for other brands, too (though

the Sony "HAD" CCDs tend to be more sensitive, with the

advantages that follow from this...). A minimum pixel-count

1/4"-CCD image looks different from a higher-pixel-count

one, from a very high pixel-count one (not in all ways

better, as I point out on the site pointed out...;-), and

from a 3-CCD one (and this is what this thread appears to

be about, hence the reference to a site that makes these

comparisons...). I also point people to the Haru site

which does compare other-brand models (I do this too, at:

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm, and by

comparison of imaging characteristics, at

www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm, too...)

The Haru site is at:

http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html, though it, too,

does not cover EVERY model (we are individuals, not

magazines [with their bland, "ad-type" reviews], or, in

my case, rich enough to try everything so I can answer

your specific question only from direct experience and

not also from some inference). It does seem that you have

"glommed" onto this JVC model, and if you do not wish to

work a bit at the sites pointed to to derive an answer,

then just go out and buy the DV3000u and tell us how it

is (preferably compared in identical conditions,

side-by-side with more "known" models...), and stop

complaining about the info supplied...;-)

>Also, I have used the GR DV3000u and also own the VX2000. I can say

>they are both wonderful camera's with superb lo-light ability. I was

>blown away by the color reproduction of the JVC considering it is a

>single, but dissapointed by several features that are missing. For

>the price(<800), it blows away all competition. Also, not everyone

>needs all features offered, as I need it as a secondary camera and

>price is the driving factor.

This is more useful. How about putting up a web page

comparing these two cameras with frame-grabs, shot

side-by-side, in three or four different lighting

conditions (sunny-day, overcast day, interior tungsten,

and interior VERY low light would be good...).

>Thank goodness for JVC!

>I think that I will wait to see what happens with the GR DV1 myself

>though, especially after seeing what JVC can do with a single CCD. It

>would be nice to be one of the first to offer Hi-Def as an option

>considering more and more people are buying Hi-Def TV's.

>Think about it!

Interesting, but the image I've seen looked unimpressive

but for size, and the camera appears "low-end" with a

not very sharp VF (and that single CCD...), at a not very

low end price... Dealing with MPEG2 editing is not yet

"fun", also, but at least JVC provides a basic editor...

Time was when we had "Canon-nuts" here, when Canon had

little to offer in 3-CCDs compared with the competition.

Now it does, with the GL2. JVC does make some interesting

shoulder-mount cameras, and also the GY300 - and, mebbe,

just mebbe, they *can* make a decent or even good 1-CCD

Mini-DV model, too....;-) But, let's see the evidence...;-)