On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:40:12 -0000, "Guy" <blank@space.net> wrote:


[...N-R wrote...]

>> You have "hit the nail on the head", I think - as

>> I thought about it, it appeared the differeing results

>> depended more on how the original image was "treated"

>> by the various software choices.  BTW, in general,


>> I prefer to import graphics into Premiere at double

>> size for best results, and when you need to crop the

>> image in Premiere with the "image pan", it does make

>> sense to bring it in as big as possible...


>I regularly use Moving Picture on Avid XpressDV and do not notice the the

>blurring of the image you have noted.  But have been using stills at very

>high resolution which may back up the above conjecture.  I also use it with

>contrasty sketch drawings of storyboards when I'm in pre-production and get

>sharp reproduction.  Did you use the Prep Picture tool in Moving picture?

>Stagetools suggest you use pre-blur on contrasty images.


No - but I think this is important to the results.

I suspect that there is some level of "auto-processing"

of the still image (of varying amounts) in these stand-alone

programs - and that the lack of this is what gives sharper-

but-more-irritating results with Premiere. VV must include

quite a bit of automatic pre-softening (VV in general looks

like it leans toward "automatic" processing and wizards);

Premiere leaves you to select and do the processing

yourself... Also, I have not yet looked at the feature-sets

of the various programs, and I have not tried moving a panel

with difficult text in more than a couple of them. It would

also be interesting to compare results with a 4000-pixel

original. One of these days, mebbe I will get to these...;-)


>  I guess the

>quality is also reliant on the NLE codecs too.


Yes, though the Canopus codec I use is one of the best...


>David I want to thank you for time in comparing these tools like you have

>done with the various DV cameras on your website.  I was gripped by Canon

>marketing hype and your objective and detailed camera reviews made me see

>the light.  I have owned a PD150 for a year now and I'm more delighted with

>it now than ever.




Thanks for the comments. Notable, though, is the apparent

departure from these video NGs of many of the "Canon

partisans" - this is unfortunate, since otherwise, they had

much to offer. I wonder if they have moved to smaller, but

more "Canon-friendly", web-based "ponds"...?;-) If so, they

should have waited for the GL2 to arrive - this is the first

Canon 3-chipper that *is* good and doesn't need the hype...;-)