On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 01:13:41 -0700, scotti
<nomail@c.c> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:14:56 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com
(Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:18:03 +1000,
"Native_MetaL"
>><NativeMetaL@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>Hello i would like to hear from people that have
used the Canon XM2 and the
>>>Sony VX2000
>>I have not used both (though have read other's
comments
>>on the XM-1 (GL-2) and have looked at the comparison
>>frame-grabs at
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html.
>>From all indications, the GL-2 is an excellent
camera,
>>without the many limitations of the GL-1 (XM-1). I'm
>>VERY familiar with the VX2000 ( and reviewed it at:
>>www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm).
>>>i would like to know what cam you think have a
better image Quality
>>In good light, their images appear to be much more
>>similar than different - though the VX2000 appears
>>to have a slightly sharper image, but with slightly
>>less oversharpening artifacting (with
"centered"
>>sharpness controls for both)
>I wanted to ask a question here. I looked at many of those frame
>grabs at
http://www4.big.or.jp/~a_haru/index.html
This has been a good source of (sometimes-imperfect)
comparison frame-grabs...
>To me it seemed that the gl-2 frame grabs (I think it was the xm-2
>equivalent right, not
the xm-1 as you state above?)
Yes - I mis-typed (darn! ;-). The XM-1 (GL-1) is a much
inferior camera to the GL-2 (XM-2).
>were sharper than the comparable vx2000. One of the frame grabs I
>remember thinking this about was the standard worman
holding a red
>flower (looks actually like a poster or something
because the every
>detail seems to be in the same position?) Well, looking at the
>forehead of the woman, to me there seems to be more
detail in the
>forehead skin of the gl-2. That detail just does not seem present in
>the vx2000. Why
is that? What would
"oversharpening" have to do with
>this. Why would
you not want to see that detail. And
how can I see
>this detail but you say about the vx2000 -- "
though the VX2000
>appears to have a slightly sharper image". In what situation do you
>see this slightly sharper image? I cannot see it in those japanese
>frame grabs. Which ones specifically show it? Or are those frame
>grabs not accurate of what you see when you see the tape
rolling
>(rather than a frame grab)?
See John Dyson's post on this - there is a difference
between "real" resolution capability and
"enhanced
impression" of sharpness (using contrast and
edge-ringing,
which have ill effects on other picture aspects). Also,
both cameras permit the user to adjust the amount of
edge-ringing (oversharpening) to taste. As for your question
about resolution, look carefully at the smallest-scale
details in the frame-grabs, and at the test-charts...
>I forget the sight but I saw a personal review of the
Panasonic dvx100
>and it showed how
you had all sorts of sharpness controls in the
>progressive scan mode over the sharpness. The reviewer showed this
>off by changing sharpness setting of flowers. Can anyone explain to
>me why you would want to have a less sharp image. Why would you not
>want it to be as crisp as possible and adjust the
shutter speed so as
>to compensate for the ~24fps jitter that I guess can be
present if the
>shutter is too fast.
Specifically, what is too fast a shutter?
You may need to get some basic experience with these to
see the effects... 24P will give you a jittery picture
with motion regardless of the shutter speed, and boosting
the "sharpening" does not increase basic
resolution, but
does boost edge contrasts, giving a sharper "look"
- but
at the price of increased motion-artifacting and added
"cartoon" outlines around different-toned subject
parts...
>Thanks, I really wonder about this stuff, because to my
untrained
>video eye, looking at those frame grabs, I think I would
have chosen
>the gl-2, were it not for the low light issue.
The GL-2 picture is close enough not to worry a lot about
this (Canon has made the picture on this *one* camera more
neutral than it has on its other offerings, with their
"punchy" boosted contrast, "warm" color
balance,
oversharpened edges, and other effects intended to impress
at first glance those not familiar with good, standard image
quality [kinda like the "boom-sizzle" balance of
some
"Hi-Fi" speakers that impress the buyers casually
comparing
speakers in a showroom who are unaware that the more
"laid
back" and unimpressive sound of a better, more neutral
speaker will likely please them more in the long run...;-]).
Again, see John Dyson's post...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Dyson's post...:
I just took a look at the WWW page, and assume that the best
Canon is the XV2.
When looking at the res charts and also using a few of the
comparable natural scenes, here are my 'opinions'. I am
assuming that the cameras are set-up correctly, but they
do seem to provide an image different than I'd desire
(I am used to my high-end professional camcorder):
Attribute
XV2 VX2000
Low/med freq H sharpness
More than VX2000 SLIGHTLY too
much peaking
Vertical peaking
Too much Slightly too
much, but okay
General aliasing effects
Too much I'd optimize
for a little less.
HF detail (Limiting resolution) Less than VX2000 More than XV2
Comments: The
natural scenes with the Coke cans show that the
VX2000 provides more legible details on the cans. On the
VX2000, the phrase 'Refreshment Water'
seem to be slightly less smeared and less
over-enhanced. The
big characters next to 'Refereshment Water' appear less
enhanced.
Even though the test chart makes the VX2000 look like it
isn't
adequately anti-aliased, and appears to be slightly 'edge
enhanced',
the coke cans seem to show that the VX2000 creates a little
less overshoot, and the medium detailed characters on the
cans
are SLIGHTLY better formed.
Comparing the first set of red flowers, the VX2000 retains
more
of the detail in the saturated color areas. The leaves under
the flowers also appear to be better reproduced on the
VX2000
pictures. The
background on the VX2000 image appears to be
farther out of focus, but that can be because of depth of
field from sensor size and aperture settings. There is
some stairstepping in both the Canon and VX2000 flower
images.
I also guess that to provide better resolution
measurements and a sharper image, that Sony and Canon do a
little less
anti-aliasing than optimal.
(DV25 encoding will create aliasing
like artifacts anyway, so it might be a loosing proposition
to
do enough anti-aliasing to guarantee minimal artifacts.)
If you look at the resolution charts, when you see the
number of lines in the vertical-line section of the chart,
the Sony does an OKAY job of properly representing the four
black lines. There
is an aliasing pattern through the four
black lines between about 460 and 500 lines on the VX2000.
On the Canon, confusion appears at a slightly lower detail
level. However, the
Sony seems to truly (but in a distorted
way) represent the correct number of lines about as high
as one can expect -- but there is some distortion that might
cause some confusion.
It is possible that the picture
elements have been lined up to optimize the measurement.
No matter what, the apparent resolution on the Sony appears
better than the Canon, but that might be double edged
because
above 540TVL, the resolution is 'fake.' Instead of 'detail',
we might just as well see aliasing 'artifacts.'
On the real world pictures, the Sony does appear to provide
more detail, and the real-world detail doesn't appear to be
fake. In order to
visually compensate for the apparently
lower resolution, the Canon seems to provide a very
healthy (excessive) amount of edge enhancement.
Frankly, I'd rather see a very clean 450TVL, and a smooth
blurring
into grey somewhere above 500TVL. That extra, apparently
fairly clean detail between 500TVL and 600TVL on the VX2000
isn't
real. That fake 'detail' is the 'fuel' for stairstepping and
weird
hard edges, and when encoded into DV25 will help to
encourage
mosquitos.
Both cameras are incredibly better than a home user could
have
expected 10yrs ago.
John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~