"Big Pig" <big_cochino@go.com> wrote in message news:8b7fce41.0312152038.37d3f123@posting.google.com...

> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote:

>

> > As for the face, the exposure differences predominate,

> > with the color and tonality of the VX2000 being preferable

> > to the MX3000, and TRV900 being second best, but with some

> > tendency to burn out the highlights. As for face color,

> > none is perfect, but the slightly too red VX2000 and the

> > nearly-neutral (but a bit too light in the highlights) of

> > the TRV900 are preferable to the cyan tinge of the MX3000

> > face image. I'm surprised to see this predominance of

> > blue-green in the MX3000 image in this sample, since the

> > MX3000 often tends strongly toward red...

> David,

>

> Thanks for the excellent reply. As always, your technical

> analysis is impeccable. However, I'm certain that your educated

> opinion (for which I have a genuine respect) is out of touch

> with the *vast* majority of video viewers. Literally all of

> the clients (dozens), who I have asked to join me in post for

> editing sessions (picking out important shots from their event),

> prefer the raw footage from the Panasonic MX3000. When asked

> why they prefer the MX3000 footage, the usual adjective used

> is that the footage looks more "natural". The girl's face is

> an accurate example of this phenomenon. Educated eyes like the

> VX2000 image better, but more than 90% of the folks who have

> given me money to shoot their events prefer the MX3000 footage

> when asked to choose between two alternate shots. I can adjust

> the Sony's more neutral footage to mimic the MX3000's "look",

> but why when it's just more work and the clients seem to prefer

> the unadjusted Panasonic footage?

Ah, yes - the client's preference for the more-colorful/more-contrasty is

well known in stills circles, too...;-) I finally accepted that Fuji Velvia was

going to make more sales than much more accurate films would, but that

is the way it is. BTW, I did take the individual images from the web page

and applied my usual -5% red correction to bring the TV-monitor image

to neutral, and had to admit that the face looked good from the MX3000

(but the relative exposures still predominated - these should be equalized

for the best test in the original shooting). The flower still looked very

wrong, with little color variation showing (the TRV900 image looked

good with this, and the VX2000 image had the most tonal range and

color variation). BTW, I consider the Panasonic DVX100 color slightly

more accurate than that of the VX2000's - but here again, the more

accurate will probably almost always lose out to the more immediately

appealing...;-)

Thanks for the post.

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com